Opinion:- Zimbabwe crisis: A paralysis of analysis
Zimbabwe crisis: A paralysis of analysis
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion58.12422.html
By Lance Guma
Last updated: 03/22/2005 05:20:55
ANYONE who believes Robert Mugabe seized white-owned farms to
genuinely redistribute to landless blacks is probably more fascinated
with the theory than its actual implementation.
If ever there is division it is because Mugabe nicodemously provided
the perfect catharsis for people with pent-up racial hatred over past
white-perpetrated injustices the logic was lost in the emotion. It
would not be stretching reason to conclude his sincerity is a mere
footnote as long as he provides lasting images of destitute whites
cowering in distress after losing their farms and in some cases their
lives.
The main benefeciaries of the land reform exercise have been
individuals strategically positioned in different arms of the state
machinery and actively keeping him in power. Pot bellied sycophants
(those lucky enough to avoid the go slow disease- AIDS) from the
army, police, state security, judiciary and the state media have all
grabbed land and are actively shoring up Mugabe's grip on power.
Judgements from Justice's Chidyausiku, Hlatshwayo, Makarau and others
who spend their weekends galavanting on barren farm lands given unto
them by Mugabe are clearly vetted at Munhumutapa Building (Mugabe's
Office). Cases either rot on the roll or have judgements `reserved'
until justice delayed is justice denied.
The real landless black is used to invade the farm, told not to build
any permanent structures and when the the time is ripe, told to move
to make way for the political heavy weights. New England farm in
Harare is an example in point. The settlers invaded it at government
instigation years back but are now being evicted by John Nkomo to
make way for state house employees. Land is a smokescreen and Mugabe
knew he could exploit the mistrust and differences in the global
village to cobble up an excuse for lawlessness, the dictators haven.
That it took close to 20 years for Mugabe to act on the land question
seems lost to the solidarity bloc who feel he is righting colonial
wrongs.
An indictment of the land grab exercise is the manner in which Robert
Mugabe had to rig the 2002 presidential election. A supposedly
popular president riding on the crest of a `successful' land reform
had to rely on mobilising the entire might of the state machinery to
bolster his cause. The Youth militia, police, army, sate security and
ruling party thugs just bludgeoned the young opposition into
submission. Over 3 million Zimbabweans abroad whose political choice
was and is an open secret have been disenfrachised through
legislation whose legality was and still remains questionable. Just
last week the same `farmer' judges made sure the expatriate vote was
silenced when others in Iraq are enjoying the same right.
The long suffering Zimbabwean has watched with reluctant owe as Mbeki
and others have been lured by the Pan African bait, hook line and
sinker. African governments including South Africa support him
because apart from wanting to appear free from western influence they
actually foresee a need for them to use similar tactics in the future
when their power is waning. Precedent then becomes the key. Little
need be said about the credibility of the other cheerleaders from
Libya, Cuba, Iran, and China before one realises birds of a feather
flock together.
The real problem in the country is Mugabe clutching at straws to
cling to power. The presence of Mengistu Haille Mariam - wanted back
in Ethiopia for mass murder, is an under-stated fact. Ever since
Mengistu was granted safe haven in the country, Mugabe's reign has
become more polished, systematic and brutal. Mengistu is written all
over the current tactics. Zimbabwe has a `head of state' who boasts
eight or so `prison' degrees, sleeps in the comfort of the most
protected State House in Africa, and is convinced he is the darling
of his people. What amusing if not tragic hallucinations. Bad
governance has killed this country and yet others are still debating
what the crisis is all about.
Mugabe's speeches time and again mirror a leader who has read too
much Shakespeare, has mastered the art of delivery more than content
and diverts attention from the real issues. After using every
imaginable election theme possible since independence from stamping
out corruption, unity and development and until recently land reform
you just could not see him stooping so low as an `anti-blair
election' for the 2005 parliamentary poll. Not for this bunch of
political cowboys however who think they own the country and their
liberation war contributions have created a lifetime debt for all
Zimbabweans. The crisis in Zimbabwe is about the need for good
governance and an over the hill politician who is aware granting it
assures his exit.
- The author works as a Producer/Presenter for SW Radio Africa(
www.swradioafrica.com). Every
week on Thursday he hosts a show called `Behind the Headlines', were
he looks at individuals and issues dominating the news. The views
expressed here are his own
After Robert Mugabe, the flood?
http://www.fingaz.co.zw/fingaz/2005/March/March17/8038.shtml
3/17/2005 8:11:07 AM (GMT +2)
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Is he power-crazed? Clinging to his position and, like Madam de Pompadour, celebrated beauty and intimate of King Louis XV of France, taking the attitude that “after me, the flood”?
Is this man putting his people through an economic and social meltdown simply because he wants to continue ruling the country?
It would be easy to say that he is all these things. In fact, in Western capitals, and in sections of South African and Batswana society, this is exactly how the Zimbabwe President is being cast.
It has been found easy — and intellectually lazy, I believe — to cast this man in the role of a bloodthirsty, uncaring, unfeeling ogre.
Even in the face of one of the highest inflation rates in the world, alarming unemployment and a breakdown of civil services, he still will not go. He is a bad man, the megaphone diplomats tell us.
But I believe that President Mugabe's detractors are doing themselves a disservice. By believing their own hype, they are deliberately choosing not to understand the real issue.
And, as any good strategist will tell you, one does not solve a problem that one doesn’t understand. Once you have understood your problem, coming up with a strategy to solve it is a walk in the park.
This is the main reason President Mugabe’s detractors are shooting blanks. They do not understand that they are up against the most powerful motivation known to man.
Put simply, President Mugabe is fighting for his legacy. And when a man is fighting for his legacy, he has got everything to lose.
President Mugabe, I believe, does not want to go down in history simply as the first executive President of Zimbabwe.
Being so determined to leave an indelible mark on the history of this country and the continent, he has genuinely identified land as the issue that will define his entire career.
He is gambling that on the land issue, history will judge him very favourably — and I believe that it will.
Despite the multiple farm ownership sagas and all the other wrongs that came with the land reform exercise, by and large, everyone, including his critics, agree that the land question had to be settled.
But most importantly, I also believe that for President Mugabe, retiring or resigning before settling the land question would basically have negated his entire struggle. It would have meant the struggle he waged, the years spent in jail and all the rest of it would have come to absolutely nought.
President Mugabe himself has said that “we went to war because land . . .”, and he has also previously pointed out that people did not die fighting just for black people to be allowed to live in Borrowdale and to walk in First Street.
In other words, getting land back was the primary motivation for the war that liberated Zimbabwe from Ian Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) and colonial rule.
So, when the President's opponents started off by labeling his land crusade of the late 1990s a “political gimmick”, that was the biggest blunder they could ever make, strategically.
They were belittling the very foundation upon which President Mugabe seeks to build his legacy, dismissing the entire point of his whole career.
Now, you can see how a man treated like that would dig his heels in. He became convinced that, should he leave the scene, no one would ensure that equitable distribution of land was achieved — if they could dismiss it as a political gimmick
Then, once the land exercise was under way, the very same detractors sought to convince the world that it was because of the way he was seeking to settle the land question that Zimbabwe was now a basket case — an argument that is itself arguable.
Surely, his critics were aware that, once they had issued this accusation, the President would then want to stay on and ensure that when he left office, the wrongs committed in the process of redistributing land were righted, and righted in a way that protected his legacy?
Indeed, for a man fighting for his legacy, to leave the stage while he is being booed is a non-starter, because he will be leaving knowing that his legacy has been discredited. And wrongfully so, he would say.
Better to exit with applause ringing in his ears. That way, his legacy, that which will define him and his struggle in the history books, will be secured.
What he wants is victory. Because, shrewd as the man is, he knows that history is written by the victors in any war. Their side of the story is what becomes definitive history, true history.
The only thing President Mugabe can be accused of is that he failed to cover his flanks as he went to “war” on the land issue in the late 1990s. His entire being was consumed by this fight and the ministers he had at that time, without guidance from him, failed to cover the flanks — which are primarily the economy and social services.
Being ostracised is not a death sentence to the economy of a country, as Smith demonstrated in the age of UDI. Prior to declaring UDI, he lined up his ducks, made sure there was enough foreign currency, made contingency plans to bust sanctions, and generally braced the country for the onslaught he knew would follow.
In this instance, President Mugabe’s ministers of finance, trade, health and all the other suffering areas of the economy failed to put such contingency measures in place, even after President Mugabe alerted them in a Cabinet meeting that he was about to invite the wrath of the monied West by appropriating land and not paying “a cent” for it.
And instead of exercising fiscal restraint in the run-up to this momentous decision on land, the government dished out billions of dollars to veterans of the country’s 1970s independence war.
Then, to compound the mistake, ministers deserted their posts and joined the stampede for multiple farms.
It is clear that we have gone too far down the road for the President's detractors to convince him that, if he leaves office today, his legacy is secure and the land reform exercise will not be reversed. Now he is determined to see it through to a clean end.
Those who continue to try and score cheap political points by belittling his crusade to “return stolen property” are only ensuring that he digs his heels in further.
... please make yourself at home ... 