Zimbabweans continue to be brainwashed by Mugabe and his Zanu PF’s ranting and raving about so called ‘illegal international sanctions’ being the major cause of economic collapse in the country. Whilst, it is widely acknowledged that sanctions have definitely played a part and continue to play a crucial part in the collapse of the economy in Zimbabwe, the whole truth must be told as to why these sanctions are there in the first place. Many in Zimbabwe today think that talk about sanctions is mere politicking and an alibi by the beleaguered Zanu PF government for trying to absolve themselves from the obvious blame in respect of decades of economic mismanagement, corruption and human rights violations.
Blaming MDC or the white farmers for instigating sanctions is not only ludicrous but preposterous by all standards of reason. The West imposed ‘targeted sanctions’ against the Zanu PF political aristocracy due to alleged human rights abuses, absence of the rule of law and lack of democracy among other things. The implementation of the controversial and chaotic land reform programme beginning 2000, also added a new dimension to the sanctions regime. It does not take a bishop’s mind to understand how chaotic and ineffective the entire ‘land reform process’ has turned out to be. To date thousands of hectares of land seized and nicodimously allocated to cronies and ruling party supporters’ lye idle, reportedly being savagely misused as retreats for weekend and holiday barbeque parties. This wasted land could have been productively utilised had government left productive white commercial farmers there in consistency with the one man one farm policy. Paradoxically, a number of senior Zanu PF chefs who invaded the white farms in the first instance, are multiple farm owners themselves and there is glaring evidence to this effect.
Whilst in principle, l believe that there was a genuine case to redistribute land to the landless blacks whose livelihood depend largely on subsistence agriculture, l am convinced the Zanu PF modus operandi was grotesquely flawed. It was chaotic and short sighted and morally reprehensible in its application. The Japanese have a popular proverb which says ‘a plan without vision is a nightmare’, this squarely applies to the Zanu PF land reform programme. Cognisant of this mess, the greatest dilemma awaiting any future government in Zimbabwe is to attempt to redress this economic blunder of monstrous proportions. Regrettably, any attempts to return the majority of the land to the white farmers in future would be resisted. However, it is only logical that significant compromises would have to be made in this regard.
A lot of the white farmers lost not only their land but their entire livelihood and status as well, and a lot of them are now living in desperate times. Their former workers are even more desperate as they did not have anywhere to go having originally come from neighbouring Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique. It appears the Zanu PF government has abandoned them completely and their plight continues to invoke negative sentiments from sympathisers world over. A few productive black commercial farmers not sympathetic to Zanu PF also lost their land in politically motivated invasions. To make matters worse, Zanu PF bureaucrats, lawmakers, securocrats and ordinary party loyalists allegedly continue to invade land from remaining white farmers in defiance of court orders. Most of the white farmers who recently lost their land are single farm owners with some having given up their other farms in keeping with the government policy of ‘one man one farm’. This policy has now been consigned to the political dustbin as happened to the once credited reconciliation policy, in pursuit of political expediency and greed. Given this kind of behaviour, it appears there is now overwhelming conventional wisdom among the rich and powerful nations that sanctions in Zimbabwe stay unless and until there is a radical of change of policy by the Zanu PF government. It remains to be seen whether any strengthening of these sanctions will influence any change of course by the Zanu PF regime which l very much doubt. Only a significant carrot and stick approach from those with power can influence change in Zimbabwe.
The recent scenes of desperate white farmers being shown in international television footages suggest that Zimbabwe is a ‘racist country’ embarking on a process of ‘ethnic cleansing’. Some well known sections of the international corporate media, traditionally supportive of white supremacy in Zimbabwe and South Africa have actually gained political mileage on this issue by giving credence to the above. It would appear the ruling elite in Harare have no moral grounds to defend themselves against the above racist charge. More than 3000 white commercial farmers lost their land to a chaotic and widely discredited land reform process in Zimbabwe. It is surprising whether today; the removal of the remaining 400 white commercial farmers will improve things any further. The 400 or so white farmers who are currently being victimised by Mugabe and Zanu PF are ordinary Zimbabweans seeking survival not confrontation and one wonders why they are being punished and discriminated against. The question to ask is why harassing such a tiny minority group of people whose land will not make any difference to Zimbabwe’s grain deficit. Analysts say it is all political gimmickry meant to wood wink gullible voters in Zimbabwe ahead of the do or die gladiatorial election contest in March 2008. The white farmers in Zimbabwe have been perceived rightly or wrongly as victims of a vindictive and increasingly belligerent government.
Zimbabwe is now failing to feed its people and importing grain from small and poor countries such as Malawi and Zambia which is unprecedented in our proud history. It is apparent that due to poor policies, corruption, greed and mismanagement, billions of Zimbabwean dollars have been wasted trying to support and equip makeshift farmers with no idea of farming. The emerging black owned banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to fund the flawed land reform due to the absence of proper/legal farm ownership and lack of collateral for the new farmers. Zimbabwe is largely an agrarian based economy whose current policies do not reflect that reality in a significant way. Mugabe’s successive agriculture ministers some of whom are expired academics/intellectuals have destroyed agriculture and its vital institutions in the country. The shortage of beef and other dairy products in Zimbabwe today is partly due to farm invasions and mysterious disappearance of livestock from the invaded white farms among other factors. The production and export of horticultural products, major foreign currency earners have also been seriously threatened.
A torrent of poor socio-economic policies developed over the years suggests that the Zanu PF government has failed catastrophically thereby raising questions of its political relevance and legitimacy. These very bad policies have had a negative impact on the general standards of living for many people in Zimbabwe. A number of draconian laws passed by the regime including POSA and AIPPA have isolated the regime further from the international community making the eradication or easing of sanctions inconceivable at least for now. Only recently, the Zimbabwean legislature passed a very controversial and potentially damaging piece of legislation meant to give Zimbabweans majority (51%) ownership of all foreign owned companies. The bill is awaiting Mugabe’s signature and he is likely to sign it near election time as a campaign gimmick. If Mugabe signs this controversial bill as widely expected there is going to be a further glut in foreign direct investment (FDI), likely disinvestments from Zimbabwe and further sanctions. If made law, the indigenisation bill constitutes a negation of the basic principles of globalisation, foreign investment protection and economic development in its absolute essence.
It is unfortunate that the Zanu PF government is seemingly moving towards the route of self destruction contrary to other African countries and the rest of the developing world which are moving in the right direction. Inflation, the highest the world has ever seen in living memory continues to escalate, unemployment has reached unprecedented levels, social deprivation and starvation continue to wreck havoc in Zimbabwe with no signs of abating. It is apparent however, that Mugabe’s new policy initiatives unwittingly continue to provide fertile ground for further sanctions by the rich and powerful west. The reality is that for as long as contentious issues such as the selective application of the rule of law, stifling of democratic principles, harassment of opposition activists and their leaders, corruption and continued farm invasions have not been addressed sanctions will remain. It is debatable as to whether these sanctions are morally right or wrong but there is general consensus that sanctions have caused untold suffering in Zimbabwe and should go.
There is no doubt that Mugabe and his lieutenants have been hit hard by these menacing sanctions. For more than 7 years now, uncle Bob and his extravagant wife Grace have not been to the UK. Unfortunately for Mugabe, he may never step his foot in the UK again for the remainder of his lifetime if the current political impasse with the UK and EU continues. Poor Grace’s ester while shopping trips to top fashion names in London are fast becoming fading memories. Other top Zanu PF officials and their sympathisers whose children being returned from US, UK, Canada and Australia must be privately cursing Mugabe and his party for destroying their children’s career aspirations. The children could be innocent but that’s debatable and purely not for this presentation.
I am personally sceptical of the effectiveness of sanctions on regime change. I believe that sanctions can only effectively achieve their political objective if they are properly coordinated multilaterally, and are the only justified means of effecting radical change of policy. If applied alone in the absence of many other factors, as happened elsewhere, sanctions will be doomed to fail. In most cases sanctions only serve to empower dictators by giving them new draconian powers (laws) to suppress their subjects even further. Sanctions are widely used by pathological dictatorial regimes as an alibi for increased repression against their own people. Most unfortunately, the majority innocent civilian population in Zimbabwe today is silently suffering dearly as a result of the dreadful sanctions regime. The double tragedy for Zimbabweans is that on the one hand, they are being affected economically by the catastrophic effects of these so called ‘targeted’ sanctions. On the other hand, they are being subjected to the harassment and excesses of an increasingly adversarial regime seeking revenge for being isolated and ostracised through sanctions. It however, may be embarrassing for the Mugabe regime to make a complete U turn from most of its dreadful policies in order to gain credibility but it’s never too late.
Ironically, some people have commented that life was difficult politically and freedom wise, in Ian Smith’s Rhodesia but evidently, more bearable than the later part of Mugabe’s dark years. In Smith’s Rhodesia, there were no prolonged power black outs, no serious shortages of fuel and water in urban areas and definitely no major food shortages, the list continues. This may sound to be a very unfair comparison, accepted, but people will always compare lifestyles. When Zimbabweans heard of food shortages and power blackouts in Zambia and Malawi, they vowed never in a million years would such things happen in Zimbabwe, today worse things are happening in Zimbabwe. Such sentiments serve to vindicate the view that the whole liberation project is falling apart almost irretrievably, unless someone with a brave heart and rare leadership qualities emerges. It is clear that the liberation saints have turned themselves into political dinosaurs and destroyed people’s hopes. There is no denying that sanctions have had devastating effects on the Zimbabwean economy least the social life which is now only comparable to the least developed countries of the world outside war zones. It is clear that ‘a leadership that fails to feed, protect and guarantee civil liberties for its own people does not deserve their support not even for one extra day’. Essentially, Mugabe and his Zanu PF can stop sanctions if they wish but there is a price to pay. It remains to be seen whether they are ready for the sake of the people of Zimbabwe they purport to represent, to pay the price which amounts to losing or sharing power with the opposition.
Ironically, Zanu PF maintains its propagandist impression that they are mere victims of sanctions and have nothing to do with their cause. On the contrary, the majority of Zimbabweans know the truth and cannot be fooled any more. Zimbabwe is now comparable to Burma in absolute terms, as far as the intransigence and rigidity of the regimes in the two countries are concerned. The only difference being that the former is a hardcore constitutional dictatorship and the later is a stubborn military junta both but of which are motivated and characterised by siege mentality and police brutality respectively.
The current overtures by Mugabe meant to retain power in next year’s elections will further damage the Zimbabwean economy as the country becomes further ostracised by the West. Marginal investments from China, Russia and Iran alone will not be enough to revive the economy of Zimbabwe. A radical change of course by the charges at Mumhumutapa Building in Harare among other initiatives, through mutually inclusive and economically sound policies can extricate Zimbabwe from the current economic mess. In view of the above, and depending on when Mugabe decides to call it a day or is removed, Zimbabweans should brace for more hardships and perhaps further sanctions. Sanctions have severely destroyed the moral and economic fabric of Zimbabwe, but l believe the solution is in the hands of Zimbabwean politicians. Sanctions are man made and unlike natural phenomena, the people of Zimbabwe can influence their removal and have a new start but it is a tall order. Unfortunately, there is no sign from the defiant British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown that he is prepared to negotiate bilaterally with a view to ease the effects of sanctions on Zimbabwe. Instead, the Scotsman has famously vowed never to negotiate with aging Mugabe let alone sit in the same room as him. This leaves Mugabe, Zanu PF and a resurgent opposition MDC party and its twin leadership to engineer Zimbabwe’s GREAT ESCAPE from the sanctions menace. Bipartisan initiatives between Zanu PF and MDC as happened with Constitutional Amendment number 18 can offer Zimbabweans some hope for real change at least in the short term.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Bad Policies more to blame for the economic collapse than sanctions in Zimbabwe
Monday, September 24, 2007
Zimbabwe: A revolution that has lost its way
The Zimbabwean political puzzle is one of the most intriguing in contemporary African politics today.
What started in earnest as a liberation project for disenfranchised and brutalised people has turned into one of the most demonic tyrannical nightmares in recent memory.
In 1980, when Zimbabwe obtained its independence from Britain, there was a lot of hope that the country would prosper and become one of Africa’s leading economic jewels.
This was never going to materialise courtesy of the self-proclaimed Marxist Robert Mugabe and his ultra-loyalists.
The fallen heroes of Zimbabwe, including Joshua Nkomo, Herbert Chitepo, Eddison Zvobgo, Ndabaningi Sithole, Josiah Tongogara, Jason Moyo, Lookout Masuku and Nikita Mangena, to name a few, must be wondering what has happened to the struggle they dedicated their selfless efforts to.
If a leadership is incapable of feeding and valuing the lives of its own people irrespective of political affiliation, then it does not deserve to represent the people.
The fast-deteriorating socio-economic status of Zimbabweans at home today is clear testimony that the revolution is coming to an end.
Today in Zimbabwe marks the beginning of the end of an era for Zanu PF and its opportunistic mantra on land reform.
The big question is: will Zanu PF fall without a fight and at what cost?
Ten to 15 years following Independence in Zimbabwe, Mugabe suddenly changed political course and intensified his rhetoric to the West against the background of fast-deteriorating grassroots support as a consequence of years of economic malaise and political mess.
Cronyism, corruption, suppression of the media and civil liberties became the order of the day. The rule of law became a luxury that the Zanu PF party and government could not afford.
The emotive land issue suddenly became Mugabe’s trump card against the opposition and the gullible peasants. His opportunistic hijacking of the land issue cannot be justified but nevertheless, he has used it as an effective political tool to reinvent himself and galvanise his dwindling support.
It is only in Zimbabwe the world over where ironically the octogenarian leadership thinks they have the capacity to extricate the people from deep-rooted poverty.
While the majority of Zimbabweans support land reform, not many support the chaotic land reform of the Zanu PF type which has brought more suffering than solutions.
The major beneficiaries of this chaotic land reform are Zanu PF bigwigs, their closest associates and zealots of the kongonya/nhora dance fame.
Today many Zimbabweans are suffering in a country that once had a tremendous economic potential to outstage all other African countries in the sub-Saharan region outside South Africa.
Some analysts have said that the revival of Zimbabwe’s economy will not be conceivable as long as Mugabe and Zanu PF are allowed to impose their will on powerless Zimbabweans.
The international community including multilateral finance institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation and the Africa Development Bank will not support any economy that is run in a mafia style where the inflation rate has reached the stratosphere.
History has taught us that economic performance and the standard of life in general have improved in those African countries that are in transition from ultra-nationalist dictatorships to reformist liberal democracies.
The opposition which once had a huge potential to change the political landscape in Zimbabwe is gradually fading into political oblivion.
The leaders of the fractious opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party need to get their act together, repackage themselves and fight elections as a united front. There is no substitute for unity or coalition in next year’s elections.
It appears there are miscalculated perceptions from the mainstream MDC (Tsvangirai) faction that it can go it alone. But the perceived Zanu PF demise may not work to its favour as the faction needs 30-40% support from the MDC (Mutambara) camp to have an effect on Zanu PF, let alone win elections.
Arthur Mutambara appears to have compromised his candidature to allow Morgan Tsvangirai to be the sole opposition presidential candidate under the banner of a united opposition for the sake of freedom in Zimbabwe.
Mutambara’s extra-ordinary gesture of tolerance, flexibility and humility can only be found in great men who put country first before individual as did Joshua Nkomo in 1987.
Many who attended the Save Zimbabwe campaign rally in Dunstable, UK, recently were surprised that Mutambara did not address them alongside Tsvangirai although he was in the United Kingdom at the same time. What a sad story.
The story of perpetual opposition failure to dislodge Kenya’s strongman Daniel arap Moi in the 1990s should not be forgotten.
It is a fact that the current state of the economy will be a major factor in galvanising a formidable Tsvangirai/Mutambara political onslaught which is the best strategy for confronting Mugabe and Zanu PF at next year’s elections.
The people of Zimbabwe will have a clear choice between starvation and humiliation under the moribund Zanu PF regime as opposed to hope, revival and prosperity under a rebranded, united MDC opposition effort.
Under the current economic dispensation, I do not see how Zanu PF can win any free and fair election in Zimbabwe. They will be lucky to get 30% of the vote share but of course Zimbabweans know what the old man is capable of doing: manipulation of elections in his favour.
Some have asked about Mugabe’s position after freedom. The people of Zimbabwe must decide what to do with him.
There is no denying that the beleaguered leader was instrumental in bringing Independence and was the power behind a lot of social successes in Zimbabwe, including improved education where the literacy rate is the highest in Africa at 90,7%.
The old man needs to bargain for his future immunity in return for voluntarily relinquishing power sooner.
It is widely assumed that Mugabe would want to go if he is assured of amnesty from prosecution for crimes against humanity. If this is true, a deal of some sort may need to be struck between Mugabe and the fractured political opposition in Zimbabwe towards that direction.
It appears Mugabe cannot realise that he has outlived his sell-by-date and that the people no longer have any faith in him. He has become the greatest liability in Zimbabwean politics today.
Ironically, the man has become very powerful and getting rid of him is no mean business.
It is worrying that removing him through democratic means (elections) has not worked because he manipulates the election machinery to his advantage every time.
He has politicised and militarised virtually all social institutions and an election victory against him needs changes of seismic proportions to succeed.
Removing him by military means is not an option either, let alone a viable option looking at the mess that was created in Iraq, and in any case the generality of the African leaders and their peaceful people would oppose this.
The only option remaining now for Mugabe’s ouster is to negotiate with him and his most influential southern neighbour and ally, South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, that is if 2008 elections fail to achieve that objective.
Most importantly, if the West is prepared to build bridges with Libya, Iran, North Korea and Syria, I see no reason why they cannot do the same with Zimbabwe strongman Mugabe.
Any efforts to negotiate with Mugabe should be based on the principle of liberating a community in perpetual fear and without hope.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s policy on Zimbabwe was a disaster of grotesque proportions and unfortunately most Western leaders concurred with Blair’s failed foreign policy and this created a stalemate on peace overtures in Zimbabwe.
Hopefully, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will adopt a better, more focused, realistic and effective foreign policy on Zimbabwe.
It is not clear whether the current Mbeki-brokered talks between Zanu PF and the MDC will yield any significant results enough to change the course of the succession debate at State House.
The danger of not engaging Mugabe now is that more people in Zimbabwe will starve and die as there is no hope of him relinquishing power like Blair without excessive pressure.
In the absence of new political initiatives to negotiate a political settlement to bring sanity and a semblance of socio-economic normality, Zimbabweans will have to wait until Mugabe falls dead before there can be any real change in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is at a critical period of a once promising revolution that has dismally failed a whole generation of our people.
* Crisford Chogugudza is a Zimbabwean writing from the UK
What started in earnest as a liberation project for disenfranchised and brutalised people has turned into one of the most demonic tyrannical nightmares in recent memory.
In 1980, when Zimbabwe obtained its independence from Britain, there was a lot of hope that the country would prosper and become one of Africa’s leading economic jewels.
This was never going to materialise courtesy of the self-proclaimed Marxist Robert Mugabe and his ultra-loyalists.
The fallen heroes of Zimbabwe, including Joshua Nkomo, Herbert Chitepo, Eddison Zvobgo, Ndabaningi Sithole, Josiah Tongogara, Jason Moyo, Lookout Masuku and Nikita Mangena, to name a few, must be wondering what has happened to the struggle they dedicated their selfless efforts to.
If a leadership is incapable of feeding and valuing the lives of its own people irrespective of political affiliation, then it does not deserve to represent the people.
The fast-deteriorating socio-economic status of Zimbabweans at home today is clear testimony that the revolution is coming to an end.
Today in Zimbabwe marks the beginning of the end of an era for Zanu PF and its opportunistic mantra on land reform.
The big question is: will Zanu PF fall without a fight and at what cost?
Ten to 15 years following Independence in Zimbabwe, Mugabe suddenly changed political course and intensified his rhetoric to the West against the background of fast-deteriorating grassroots support as a consequence of years of economic malaise and political mess.
Cronyism, corruption, suppression of the media and civil liberties became the order of the day. The rule of law became a luxury that the Zanu PF party and government could not afford.
The emotive land issue suddenly became Mugabe’s trump card against the opposition and the gullible peasants. His opportunistic hijacking of the land issue cannot be justified but nevertheless, he has used it as an effective political tool to reinvent himself and galvanise his dwindling support.
It is only in Zimbabwe the world over where ironically the octogenarian leadership thinks they have the capacity to extricate the people from deep-rooted poverty.
While the majority of Zimbabweans support land reform, not many support the chaotic land reform of the Zanu PF type which has brought more suffering than solutions.
The major beneficiaries of this chaotic land reform are Zanu PF bigwigs, their closest associates and zealots of the kongonya/nhora dance fame.
Today many Zimbabweans are suffering in a country that once had a tremendous economic potential to outstage all other African countries in the sub-Saharan region outside South Africa.
Some analysts have said that the revival of Zimbabwe’s economy will not be conceivable as long as Mugabe and Zanu PF are allowed to impose their will on powerless Zimbabweans.
The international community including multilateral finance institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation and the Africa Development Bank will not support any economy that is run in a mafia style where the inflation rate has reached the stratosphere.
History has taught us that economic performance and the standard of life in general have improved in those African countries that are in transition from ultra-nationalist dictatorships to reformist liberal democracies.
The opposition which once had a huge potential to change the political landscape in Zimbabwe is gradually fading into political oblivion.
The leaders of the fractious opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party need to get their act together, repackage themselves and fight elections as a united front. There is no substitute for unity or coalition in next year’s elections.
It appears there are miscalculated perceptions from the mainstream MDC (Tsvangirai) faction that it can go it alone. But the perceived Zanu PF demise may not work to its favour as the faction needs 30-40% support from the MDC (Mutambara) camp to have an effect on Zanu PF, let alone win elections.
Arthur Mutambara appears to have compromised his candidature to allow Morgan Tsvangirai to be the sole opposition presidential candidate under the banner of a united opposition for the sake of freedom in Zimbabwe.
Mutambara’s extra-ordinary gesture of tolerance, flexibility and humility can only be found in great men who put country first before individual as did Joshua Nkomo in 1987.
Many who attended the Save Zimbabwe campaign rally in Dunstable, UK, recently were surprised that Mutambara did not address them alongside Tsvangirai although he was in the United Kingdom at the same time. What a sad story.
The story of perpetual opposition failure to dislodge Kenya’s strongman Daniel arap Moi in the 1990s should not be forgotten.
It is a fact that the current state of the economy will be a major factor in galvanising a formidable Tsvangirai/Mutambara political onslaught which is the best strategy for confronting Mugabe and Zanu PF at next year’s elections.
The people of Zimbabwe will have a clear choice between starvation and humiliation under the moribund Zanu PF regime as opposed to hope, revival and prosperity under a rebranded, united MDC opposition effort.
Under the current economic dispensation, I do not see how Zanu PF can win any free and fair election in Zimbabwe. They will be lucky to get 30% of the vote share but of course Zimbabweans know what the old man is capable of doing: manipulation of elections in his favour.
Some have asked about Mugabe’s position after freedom. The people of Zimbabwe must decide what to do with him.
There is no denying that the beleaguered leader was instrumental in bringing Independence and was the power behind a lot of social successes in Zimbabwe, including improved education where the literacy rate is the highest in Africa at 90,7%.
The old man needs to bargain for his future immunity in return for voluntarily relinquishing power sooner.
It is widely assumed that Mugabe would want to go if he is assured of amnesty from prosecution for crimes against humanity. If this is true, a deal of some sort may need to be struck between Mugabe and the fractured political opposition in Zimbabwe towards that direction.
It appears Mugabe cannot realise that he has outlived his sell-by-date and that the people no longer have any faith in him. He has become the greatest liability in Zimbabwean politics today.
Ironically, the man has become very powerful and getting rid of him is no mean business.
It is worrying that removing him through democratic means (elections) has not worked because he manipulates the election machinery to his advantage every time.
He has politicised and militarised virtually all social institutions and an election victory against him needs changes of seismic proportions to succeed.
Removing him by military means is not an option either, let alone a viable option looking at the mess that was created in Iraq, and in any case the generality of the African leaders and their peaceful people would oppose this.
The only option remaining now for Mugabe’s ouster is to negotiate with him and his most influential southern neighbour and ally, South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, that is if 2008 elections fail to achieve that objective.
Most importantly, if the West is prepared to build bridges with Libya, Iran, North Korea and Syria, I see no reason why they cannot do the same with Zimbabwe strongman Mugabe.
Any efforts to negotiate with Mugabe should be based on the principle of liberating a community in perpetual fear and without hope.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s policy on Zimbabwe was a disaster of grotesque proportions and unfortunately most Western leaders concurred with Blair’s failed foreign policy and this created a stalemate on peace overtures in Zimbabwe.
Hopefully, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will adopt a better, more focused, realistic and effective foreign policy on Zimbabwe.
It is not clear whether the current Mbeki-brokered talks between Zanu PF and the MDC will yield any significant results enough to change the course of the succession debate at State House.
The danger of not engaging Mugabe now is that more people in Zimbabwe will starve and die as there is no hope of him relinquishing power like Blair without excessive pressure.
In the absence of new political initiatives to negotiate a political settlement to bring sanity and a semblance of socio-economic normality, Zimbabweans will have to wait until Mugabe falls dead before there can be any real change in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is at a critical period of a once promising revolution that has dismally failed a whole generation of our people.
* Crisford Chogugudza is a Zimbabwean writing from the UK
Zimbabwe: Despotism and challenges of a democratic transition
Zimbabwe, once a promising ‘democracy’ and beacon of hope in sub-Saharan Africa has pathetically slipped irretrievably, into the troubled waters of an increasingly fierce brutal dictatorship reminiscent of the Mobutu, Amin and Ceausescu era. The country is on the brink of an unprecedented economic collapse and its revival under the current administration is almost impossible to imagine. It would appear there are elements in the Mugabe establishment who are determined to bring the country further down to its knees at all costs and in defiance of the brave and incessant calls for a democratic transition in Zimbabwe. The construction of Personalism, manipulation of nationalism and abuse of pan-africanism has become a key part of Zanu PF politics in recent times. Some have called it ruthless survival politics in the face of perceived adversity from the concerned West. Zimbabweans continue to risk death and are being embarrassed daily at the country’s frontiers as they attempt to flee the country in search of survival in neighbouring countries. Unofficial statistics put the figure of Zimbabwean political and economic refugees at more than 3 million in the entire Diaspora with the majority being in South Africa.
The reality of life in Zimbabwe today is that of gloom and despair. The truth is that democratic transition through universal suffrage is increasingly becoming a distant reality and this painful reality would have been inconceivable if bonafide liberation heroes such as the late Joshua Nkomo, and Dr Edison Zvobgo were alive. What we see in Zimbabwe today is a regime that is virtually on a war path with its own people. Unofficial rumours say that the number of people disappearing in the country under mysterious circumstances has increased sharply as the regime struggles to deal with rising political dissent.
Of significant concern is the status of civil liberties in Zimbabwe. Freedom of expression, the most crucial of all human rights continue to be criminalised as President Mugabe recently signed another controversial piece of legislation aimed at further curtailing freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Emails and telephone communication to and from Zimbabwe are now subject to gagging courtesy of technology received from China. Threats, discrimination, detention, and violence continue to affect freedom of expression in the country. Freedom after speech a concept originally coined by Norway based revered Zimbabwean laureate Chengerai Hove is becoming luxury for many in Zimbabwe. The most prominent members of the opposition and their sympathisers have become subjects of wanton arrest and harassment. Critics allege that the once revered judicial system in the country has either been infiltrated or staffed with Zanu PF ‘apologists’ whose judgements are either selective or questionable in most instances. The Mugabe regime has by its brutal acts imposed a siege mentality amongst common people by creating a culture of fear resulting in people becoming afraid to speak, even though they may be no expressed laws against free expression. Criticising Mugabe and Zanu PF today is akin to criticising God and can be a dangerous act subject to lengthy detention or mysterious disappearance in some cases.
Since Mugabe’s loss of the constitutional referendum in 2000 there has been a systematic strangulation of all the means available for Zimbabweans to express themselves. Any newspaper or journalist who dares publish the slightest criticism of any hostile government policy is branded an enemy of the state and ends up in detention and his paper without a licence. The story of Daily News is a classic example. The plain truth is that a democratic transition in Zimbabwe can never take place where there is severe curtailment of civil liberties. Tyranny and despotism have become very rampant and profoundly entrenched allowing the establishment to easily deal with the few remaining brave intellectual critics. Today there is a lot being said about the possibility free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. It is inconceivable how this can be achieved in a state where there is no press freedom or simple freedom of expression or association. The opposition and anti establishment civil organisations are only given national press coverage when they stage peaceful demonstrations and get beaten up for expressing their democratic rights. The idea here is being to portray them as law breakers.
The question to ask now is what options exist for a successful transition in Zimbabwe, democratic or otherwise. A number of suggestions have been put forward but there is virtually nobody who has committed themselves to helping the people of Zimbabwe in the same manner as Sudan’s Darfour region and other troubles spots in Africa. China and Russia are not doing Africa and Zimbabwe in particular any favour by supporting and sustaining repressive autocratic regimes. Zimbabwe like Dafour meets all the criteria for a full UN Security Council discussion. The number of people dying of hunger, HIV/Aids and political violence in Zimbabwe put together has reached catastrophic proportions, and if this does not constitute a disaster l wonder what in this world should be described as such. Bill Clinton, former US President has publicly admitted that the world let down the people of Rwanda during the genocide years believing that it was an African problem. If the current trend in the way things are deteriorating in Zimbabwe continues Zimbabwe could be another Rwanda. It appears nobody is paying attention to Zimbabwe now. It’s discouraging to note that sections of civil society in the UK think that stripping Mugabe of his honorary doctorates is more important than pressuring the Brown government to initiate meaningful multilateral dialogue on the Zimbabwe crisis.
Some have invested immense hopes in South African President Thabo Mbeki, but all what Mbeki has managed to do is to raise Mugabe’s political ego and buy time for him. Critics have said that South Africa is actually benefiting more from the Zimbabwean crisis than otherwise. It is true that most of the foreign investment that would have been shared with Zimbabwe is going their way. Some have questioned whether South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki is unable or unwilling to help solve the Zimbabwe political mess. His failure to rein in Zanu PF in the failed inter-party talks raises more eyebrows about his integrity and suitability as a peace broker. Given the economic leverage South Africa enjoys over Zimbabwe people fail to understand why South Africa has allowed things to deteriorate to such desperate levels unprecedented in Africa outside war zones. Some question the wisdom of keeping quiet when a troublesome neighbour’s ramshackled house in on fire. Such rhetoric as ‘quiet diplomacy’ will soon be consigned to the annals of history as the crisis in Zimbabwe continues unabated. The true nature of Thabo Mbeki’s actions is subject to further scrutiny and analysis by political pundits and historians.
The overly fancied SADC initiative spearheaded by Thabo Mbeki is doomed to fail as long as Mbeki shies away from the carrot and stick approach to Zimbabwe’s problem. Mugabe has very little respect for his fellow African leaders and these leaders have blindly supported his dangerous and expensive war of words against the West. SADC has neither the institutional capacity nor the political will to resolve Zimbabwe’s problems. Mugabe sees SADC as a mirror image of the defunct Frontline States (Dictators Club) or a permanent ally that does not have the moral right to oppose him for what ever reason. SADC once again failed to stamp any authority on Mugabe and let alone acknowledge that the Zimbabwean crisis exists. It is high time the more powerful members of the International Community take the Zimbabwe crisis more seriously to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. For now it is too late to over dwell on the origins of the crisis because there will never be agreement as to who is significantly to blame. Time has come to act on the political and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. It is now time to draw up a UN Security Council plan for Zimbabwe similar to Darfour, East Timor and Kosovo and the earlier this is done the better. If it is impossible to have consensus at the UN about how to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis, options for Individual countries such as the US and UK to act do exist as long as their actions are proportionate to the scale of the problem. However, most Zimbabweans prefer a peaceful transition of power in Zimbabwe if that can be achieved.
The painful thing about Zimbabwe is that the major route cause of the crisis is political and some have pointed fingers at Mugabe himself. The old man has dismally failed to manage his succession politics and surrounded himself with political deadwood and fiascos as advisers whose survival lie in his longevity in power. It is widely believed that Mugabe cannot trust anybody to succeed him in case they send him to prison for perceived crimes against humanity or corruption, the Mwanawasa way. Again, If Mugabe’s presidential candidacy for the 2008 elections is confirmed at a Zanu PF congress later this year then the people of Zimbabwe will have been resolutely consigned to the unenviable world of forgotten and failed states such as Somalia and others.
The idea of democratic transition in Zimbabwe through elections is a mere academic expression. Elections do not work, have never worked and will not work in Zimbabwe for as long as they are run by the same individuals and institutions that have run previous ones. A new constitution for next year’s elections may not be conceivable now but major concessions can still be made in terms of repealing major aspects of electoral law i.e. Access to Information and Personal Privacy Act (AIPPA), Public Order and Security Act (POSA), constituency boundaries, voter registration and election observation by credible international observers including those from the UK, EU and US. Without the above considerations elections will come go and as usual Mugabe will still be there with a ‘disputed mandate’ and no ‘legitimacy’.
The state of the opposition in Zimbabwe is one of sadness, the opposition is unwittingly slowing the process of change instead of speeding it up. They lack powerful, strategic and charismatic leadership. This adds to the existing woes of despair as hopes for a new democratic dispensation fade everyday. A leadership renewal or re-branding in the opposition hierarchy is manifestly becoming a reality. The era of ‘professional leadership’ is long gone, it’s either the current leaders radically change tactics or hand over to a new fresh pair of hands. In the West, UK in particular, opposition leaders are not sacred cows they come and go as the political pendulum changes. In Zimbabwe unfortunately the opposition continues to receive a media honeymoon from the independent papers even when it is clear they are blundering.
On a related issue Zimbabweans need to be reminded that heroes are not necessarily leaders and where there is a convergence of the two the better. The issue of leadership change in the opposition should be desensitised and looked at with a broad mind. Some will recall that heroes such as Joshua Nkomo, Herbert Chitepo, Edison Zvobgo, Ndabaningi Sithole and Parirenyatwa who pioneered the liberation struggle but did not become presidents but their respective roles were instrumental and central to the struggle for second liberation. The increasingly belligerent twin MDC opposition leadership should be complementing not decimating each other’s political integrity. Going to elections as divided will not earn them victory. If Morgan Tsvangirai lost 2002 elections by 400 000 votes, simple arithmetic tells me that allowing him to go it alone will be a dangerous gamble which could erode his chances of winning elections. The man is inspired by huge attendances at political rallies which are essentially made up of potential supporters most of whom are not registered voters. It is unfortunate he is rapidly loosing the plot. As things stand now, Morgan Tsvangirai may loose substantial Matabeleland and Midlands votes to the rival smaller MDC Mutambara faction thereby assuring Mugabe another controversial election victory. It appears Zimbabweans will be bracing for another painful defeat and long un-winnable legal battles against Zanu PF. Some have predicted that mass demonstrations such as the ones which brought down dictators such as Nicholai Ceausescu, Suharto and the orange revolution in Ukraine will never happen in Zimbabwe because of the brutality of the uniformed forces among other factors.
Respected political analysts such as former Zanu PF and government chief propagandist Prof Jonathan Moyo, have predicted possibility of a coup detat in Zimbabwe as the political situation continues to deteriorate. This prediction is based on the assumption that the soldiers themselves are increasingly becoming despondent hence the mass defections recently witnessed. If Mugabe does not act fast enough to resolve the succession issue, then a coup detat may be inevitable as conditions for this eventuality are firming each day. On another issue, Mugabe would be making a grotesque mistake by paying attention to the lunacy of the life presidency mantra as demanded by his party worshipers and zealots. The era of personality cult and life presidency is long gone.
The question to ask is, will the people of Zimbabwe accept a coup detat, the answer is NO. Coups detats have the tendency to distort the process of democratisation. Above all, a coup detat would be a dangerous precedent for future democratically elected governments. The process of transition from militarisation to civilianisation of power could be a long and painful one as has happened in Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana and other ruthless African regimes where coup detats were fashionable until recently.
Lastly, cognisant of the failures of previous initiatives and the likely failure of current initiatives to bring about change in Zimbabwe, the only option left is to bring in the UN to make a decision on the future of Zimbabwe before it’s too late. Elections have failed to change anything and Zanu PF has equally failed to use the contested mandate and legitimacy they have to save the country from collapsing. A UN intervention strategy can start with forcing Zanu PF and the opposition to share power under supervision from a neutral figure pending the holding of elections. Alternatively, the UN and SADC in conjunction with local civil bodies could be allowed to organise and supervise the 2008 elections and hand over power to who ever wins. Zimbabwe is increasingly becoming a time bomb waiting to explode unless the international community shows real leadership to save the country. There may not be any diamonds, oil and uranium in Zimbabwe to warrant the urgent intervention of the US, UK and EU but the reality is that the rot and collapse continues in front of their eyes. A resurgent Zimbabwe will undoubtedly be an asset to the West and beacon of stability and prosperity in Southern Africa. The West cannot afford another Rwanda and Zimbabwe could as well be another Rwanda unfolding if they fail to act decisively.
The reality of life in Zimbabwe today is that of gloom and despair. The truth is that democratic transition through universal suffrage is increasingly becoming a distant reality and this painful reality would have been inconceivable if bonafide liberation heroes such as the late Joshua Nkomo, and Dr Edison Zvobgo were alive. What we see in Zimbabwe today is a regime that is virtually on a war path with its own people. Unofficial rumours say that the number of people disappearing in the country under mysterious circumstances has increased sharply as the regime struggles to deal with rising political dissent.
Of significant concern is the status of civil liberties in Zimbabwe. Freedom of expression, the most crucial of all human rights continue to be criminalised as President Mugabe recently signed another controversial piece of legislation aimed at further curtailing freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Emails and telephone communication to and from Zimbabwe are now subject to gagging courtesy of technology received from China. Threats, discrimination, detention, and violence continue to affect freedom of expression in the country. Freedom after speech a concept originally coined by Norway based revered Zimbabwean laureate Chengerai Hove is becoming luxury for many in Zimbabwe. The most prominent members of the opposition and their sympathisers have become subjects of wanton arrest and harassment. Critics allege that the once revered judicial system in the country has either been infiltrated or staffed with Zanu PF ‘apologists’ whose judgements are either selective or questionable in most instances. The Mugabe regime has by its brutal acts imposed a siege mentality amongst common people by creating a culture of fear resulting in people becoming afraid to speak, even though they may be no expressed laws against free expression. Criticising Mugabe and Zanu PF today is akin to criticising God and can be a dangerous act subject to lengthy detention or mysterious disappearance in some cases.
Since Mugabe’s loss of the constitutional referendum in 2000 there has been a systematic strangulation of all the means available for Zimbabweans to express themselves. Any newspaper or journalist who dares publish the slightest criticism of any hostile government policy is branded an enemy of the state and ends up in detention and his paper without a licence. The story of Daily News is a classic example. The plain truth is that a democratic transition in Zimbabwe can never take place where there is severe curtailment of civil liberties. Tyranny and despotism have become very rampant and profoundly entrenched allowing the establishment to easily deal with the few remaining brave intellectual critics. Today there is a lot being said about the possibility free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. It is inconceivable how this can be achieved in a state where there is no press freedom or simple freedom of expression or association. The opposition and anti establishment civil organisations are only given national press coverage when they stage peaceful demonstrations and get beaten up for expressing their democratic rights. The idea here is being to portray them as law breakers.
The question to ask now is what options exist for a successful transition in Zimbabwe, democratic or otherwise. A number of suggestions have been put forward but there is virtually nobody who has committed themselves to helping the people of Zimbabwe in the same manner as Sudan’s Darfour region and other troubles spots in Africa. China and Russia are not doing Africa and Zimbabwe in particular any favour by supporting and sustaining repressive autocratic regimes. Zimbabwe like Dafour meets all the criteria for a full UN Security Council discussion. The number of people dying of hunger, HIV/Aids and political violence in Zimbabwe put together has reached catastrophic proportions, and if this does not constitute a disaster l wonder what in this world should be described as such. Bill Clinton, former US President has publicly admitted that the world let down the people of Rwanda during the genocide years believing that it was an African problem. If the current trend in the way things are deteriorating in Zimbabwe continues Zimbabwe could be another Rwanda. It appears nobody is paying attention to Zimbabwe now. It’s discouraging to note that sections of civil society in the UK think that stripping Mugabe of his honorary doctorates is more important than pressuring the Brown government to initiate meaningful multilateral dialogue on the Zimbabwe crisis.
Some have invested immense hopes in South African President Thabo Mbeki, but all what Mbeki has managed to do is to raise Mugabe’s political ego and buy time for him. Critics have said that South Africa is actually benefiting more from the Zimbabwean crisis than otherwise. It is true that most of the foreign investment that would have been shared with Zimbabwe is going their way. Some have questioned whether South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki is unable or unwilling to help solve the Zimbabwe political mess. His failure to rein in Zanu PF in the failed inter-party talks raises more eyebrows about his integrity and suitability as a peace broker. Given the economic leverage South Africa enjoys over Zimbabwe people fail to understand why South Africa has allowed things to deteriorate to such desperate levels unprecedented in Africa outside war zones. Some question the wisdom of keeping quiet when a troublesome neighbour’s ramshackled house in on fire. Such rhetoric as ‘quiet diplomacy’ will soon be consigned to the annals of history as the crisis in Zimbabwe continues unabated. The true nature of Thabo Mbeki’s actions is subject to further scrutiny and analysis by political pundits and historians.
The overly fancied SADC initiative spearheaded by Thabo Mbeki is doomed to fail as long as Mbeki shies away from the carrot and stick approach to Zimbabwe’s problem. Mugabe has very little respect for his fellow African leaders and these leaders have blindly supported his dangerous and expensive war of words against the West. SADC has neither the institutional capacity nor the political will to resolve Zimbabwe’s problems. Mugabe sees SADC as a mirror image of the defunct Frontline States (Dictators Club) or a permanent ally that does not have the moral right to oppose him for what ever reason. SADC once again failed to stamp any authority on Mugabe and let alone acknowledge that the Zimbabwean crisis exists. It is high time the more powerful members of the International Community take the Zimbabwe crisis more seriously to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. For now it is too late to over dwell on the origins of the crisis because there will never be agreement as to who is significantly to blame. Time has come to act on the political and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. It is now time to draw up a UN Security Council plan for Zimbabwe similar to Darfour, East Timor and Kosovo and the earlier this is done the better. If it is impossible to have consensus at the UN about how to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis, options for Individual countries such as the US and UK to act do exist as long as their actions are proportionate to the scale of the problem. However, most Zimbabweans prefer a peaceful transition of power in Zimbabwe if that can be achieved.
The painful thing about Zimbabwe is that the major route cause of the crisis is political and some have pointed fingers at Mugabe himself. The old man has dismally failed to manage his succession politics and surrounded himself with political deadwood and fiascos as advisers whose survival lie in his longevity in power. It is widely believed that Mugabe cannot trust anybody to succeed him in case they send him to prison for perceived crimes against humanity or corruption, the Mwanawasa way. Again, If Mugabe’s presidential candidacy for the 2008 elections is confirmed at a Zanu PF congress later this year then the people of Zimbabwe will have been resolutely consigned to the unenviable world of forgotten and failed states such as Somalia and others.
The idea of democratic transition in Zimbabwe through elections is a mere academic expression. Elections do not work, have never worked and will not work in Zimbabwe for as long as they are run by the same individuals and institutions that have run previous ones. A new constitution for next year’s elections may not be conceivable now but major concessions can still be made in terms of repealing major aspects of electoral law i.e. Access to Information and Personal Privacy Act (AIPPA), Public Order and Security Act (POSA), constituency boundaries, voter registration and election observation by credible international observers including those from the UK, EU and US. Without the above considerations elections will come go and as usual Mugabe will still be there with a ‘disputed mandate’ and no ‘legitimacy’.
The state of the opposition in Zimbabwe is one of sadness, the opposition is unwittingly slowing the process of change instead of speeding it up. They lack powerful, strategic and charismatic leadership. This adds to the existing woes of despair as hopes for a new democratic dispensation fade everyday. A leadership renewal or re-branding in the opposition hierarchy is manifestly becoming a reality. The era of ‘professional leadership’ is long gone, it’s either the current leaders radically change tactics or hand over to a new fresh pair of hands. In the West, UK in particular, opposition leaders are not sacred cows they come and go as the political pendulum changes. In Zimbabwe unfortunately the opposition continues to receive a media honeymoon from the independent papers even when it is clear they are blundering.
On a related issue Zimbabweans need to be reminded that heroes are not necessarily leaders and where there is a convergence of the two the better. The issue of leadership change in the opposition should be desensitised and looked at with a broad mind. Some will recall that heroes such as Joshua Nkomo, Herbert Chitepo, Edison Zvobgo, Ndabaningi Sithole and Parirenyatwa who pioneered the liberation struggle but did not become presidents but their respective roles were instrumental and central to the struggle for second liberation. The increasingly belligerent twin MDC opposition leadership should be complementing not decimating each other’s political integrity. Going to elections as divided will not earn them victory. If Morgan Tsvangirai lost 2002 elections by 400 000 votes, simple arithmetic tells me that allowing him to go it alone will be a dangerous gamble which could erode his chances of winning elections. The man is inspired by huge attendances at political rallies which are essentially made up of potential supporters most of whom are not registered voters. It is unfortunate he is rapidly loosing the plot. As things stand now, Morgan Tsvangirai may loose substantial Matabeleland and Midlands votes to the rival smaller MDC Mutambara faction thereby assuring Mugabe another controversial election victory. It appears Zimbabweans will be bracing for another painful defeat and long un-winnable legal battles against Zanu PF. Some have predicted that mass demonstrations such as the ones which brought down dictators such as Nicholai Ceausescu, Suharto and the orange revolution in Ukraine will never happen in Zimbabwe because of the brutality of the uniformed forces among other factors.
Respected political analysts such as former Zanu PF and government chief propagandist Prof Jonathan Moyo, have predicted possibility of a coup detat in Zimbabwe as the political situation continues to deteriorate. This prediction is based on the assumption that the soldiers themselves are increasingly becoming despondent hence the mass defections recently witnessed. If Mugabe does not act fast enough to resolve the succession issue, then a coup detat may be inevitable as conditions for this eventuality are firming each day. On another issue, Mugabe would be making a grotesque mistake by paying attention to the lunacy of the life presidency mantra as demanded by his party worshipers and zealots. The era of personality cult and life presidency is long gone.
The question to ask is, will the people of Zimbabwe accept a coup detat, the answer is NO. Coups detats have the tendency to distort the process of democratisation. Above all, a coup detat would be a dangerous precedent for future democratically elected governments. The process of transition from militarisation to civilianisation of power could be a long and painful one as has happened in Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana and other ruthless African regimes where coup detats were fashionable until recently.
Lastly, cognisant of the failures of previous initiatives and the likely failure of current initiatives to bring about change in Zimbabwe, the only option left is to bring in the UN to make a decision on the future of Zimbabwe before it’s too late. Elections have failed to change anything and Zanu PF has equally failed to use the contested mandate and legitimacy they have to save the country from collapsing. A UN intervention strategy can start with forcing Zanu PF and the opposition to share power under supervision from a neutral figure pending the holding of elections. Alternatively, the UN and SADC in conjunction with local civil bodies could be allowed to organise and supervise the 2008 elections and hand over power to who ever wins. Zimbabwe is increasingly becoming a time bomb waiting to explode unless the international community shows real leadership to save the country. There may not be any diamonds, oil and uranium in Zimbabwe to warrant the urgent intervention of the US, UK and EU but the reality is that the rot and collapse continues in front of their eyes. A resurgent Zimbabwe will undoubtedly be an asset to the West and beacon of stability and prosperity in Southern Africa. The West cannot afford another Rwanda and Zimbabwe could as well be another Rwanda unfolding if they fail to act decisively.
Sky is the limit for rising African women
The election of modern Africa’s first woman president Ms Ellen Johnson –Sirleaf of Liberia is huge testimony to the woman folk in Africa that there is no shortage of inspiration for the top job. In the 1990s, Charity Ngilu and Dr Wangari Maathai of Kenya headed political parties and participated unsuccessfully in the 1998 presidential elections. The new United Nation Deputy Secretary General, Law professor, Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro has become the First African Woman to hold this prestigious post. In Zimbabwe, combative opposition ZUD (Zimbabwe Union of Democrats) president participated unsuccessfully in the 1990s general elections but she galvanised women politicians in Zimbabwe in general. Today there is a woman vice president in Zimbabwe, Joyce Mujuru. The trend is on ascendancy as more women take up the leadership challenges than ever before. In South Africa, Winnie Madigizela-Mandela was a shining example of black women power for decades, today there is a woman vice president, Dr Nkosazana Zuma. These women have demystified the previously held view that top party and government posts were the preserve of men. There is an open competition for top party posts between men and women. Some analysts say that the elevation of women mostly through ascription rather than merit is a gimmick being carefully used by some crafty male politicians to alienate ambitious and in some cases threatening male contenders from the corridors of power, thereby consolidating their hold on power. This view is however subject to intense discourse.
Today, an escalating number of women continue to fight very hard for democracy, human and political rights, peace and justice across the African continent. The increase in educational opportunities for girls and women in post independence Africa has seen the emergence of a larger pool of capable women who are in strategic positions to vie for political office. The increase in educational opportunities has resulted in an increased awareness of issues of politics and governance amongst women in Africa.
The list of capable women in African politics is endless and these women have made great strides in fighting for equal rights as men and sometimes under very difficult and intimidating circumstances. In some African countries women have actually made greater inroads into mainstream politics which is again a formidable achievement. In Nigeria, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, became the first woman Finance Minister in a predominantly male dominated society. She demonstrated that she was indeed a special breed of the African woman. Ngozi’s triumph has motivated other African women of substance to fight for their place in top notch politics. The challenge from their men folk is huge but the women have not given up their struggle for greater say in politics and indeed in the business world.
It is well known that these prominent women belong to different political persuasions, social and business backgrounds, but their resolve to fight for recognition and power has kept them united. The truth is that women support each other in situations where it is clear that they have worked hard and deserve their posts. Those who are un-deserving and patronising do not always get the blessing of their female counterparts and often struggle to keep their heads above the water. Today’s African women do not just blindly invest their faith in another woman for power simply because of gender but for efficiency and accountability in return.
Women in the developing world including Africa find themselves underrepresented in politics and alienated from REAL decision making levels. The political playing field in most African countries remains critically uneven and not conducive to greater women participation in politics. This situation is due to a number of factors including the following; some women naturally consider themselves as weak and incapable and are therefore reticent to run for public office, some feel inferior to men, they just cannot believe in themselves albeit being highly educated and well informed. Some are afraid of the gruesome nature of politics; some just do not measure up and use family as an excuse for non participation in politics.
Unfortunately, general perceptions often suggest that women‘s ‘proper’ place is still in the home rather than in the annals of political activism. Subtly, prohibitive cultural attitudes against women’s involvement in politics persist among both men and women. These are usually reflected in the voting patterns and skewed media coverage of female candidates. In some cases women politicians especially the single ones are unjustifiably branded ‘loose women’ and unfit ‘mothers’. These comments are utterly undeserving and do not in any way help their quest for political ascendancy in leadership. Some women are just gullible and are used by daring men as window dressing candidates meant to gain votes for them.
Males dominate politics in terms of making rules as well as defining standards and this has the effect of discouraging women from entering active politics. In some cases women rights to vote remain restricted chiefly because most candidates to vote for are mostly men. Some women cannot afford to stand for office because they cannot get permission from their husbands who are either jealous or just cannot stand the challenge. However, research indicates that political structures rather than social factors play a more significant role in women’s participation in legislative politics.
The selection and nomination process within political parties is usually biased against women and this discourages them. Many women struggle to balance family life with the demands of political responsibilities that often involve late, unsocial hours, constant travel and constant contact with men. Some are so much afraid of the perception of politics as a dirty game. Literacy problems, lack of political experience, limited access to the media and political networks, the prevalence of double standards and difficulties in accessing resources have also been identified as impediments for some potentially capable and aspiring women politicians. Some women politicians have lamented the lack of adequate and consistent support from top leadership in some instances. In essence, the nature and magnitude of problems facing women politicians today is complicated.
It is also fair to state that some men are very supportive to female candidates for higher political office and this often raises the morale of those robust and well grilled women who have chosen politics for a career. However, it’s unfortunate that in the majority of times the wider political structures weigh heavily against them. It is ironic that most top female politicians in government in Africa today are appointed rather than elected office bearers. Elected or appointed, there is a strong realisation that the ascendancy of women to power is becoming not only threatening to their male counterparts but highly inevitable in most instances in Africa today.
Women who seek political office in Africa face an uphill task in terms of recognition in an inherent male dominated political scene. Tradition has been carefully used to disenfranchise any female contenders for power but not any more. However, if women in Africa today want to make a significant headway on the power front they need to have an increased presence in the legislature and other influential political institutions. Those who have made it to the top have become very visible, assertive, vocal and conspicuously influential. Ms Ellen Johnson –Sir leaf has become an iconic figure in African politics and has paved the way for more women to follow suit. There is no shortage of exemplary charismatic, visionary and strategic leaders amongst African women and these are the people who can change the fortunes of their respective countries.
The various over fancied men who for years have been entrusted with the running of their countries at various levels have not lived up to expectations. For more than three decades Africa has been let down by some of the most incompetent and ludicrous male politicians the world has ever seen. Their replacement with female blood could be the best alternative to efficiency.
There are a number of sensible, peaceful and promising young women leaders across the African continent. The business and civil society is also awash with female talent that could be utilised to revive our decadent leadership and collapsing economies.
In conclusion, it is most probable that corruption and violence levels under female leadership in Africa in general, could be relatively lowered than under male leadership as has been the norm for years. Women in Africa, particularly those in the opposition and civil society have proved to be the fiercest opponents of corruption, greed, sleaze and patronage politics. Women leaders are naturally more attentive, transparent and inclusive than men, and a woman leader is more likely to create a much tolerant and inclusive environment of peace and reconciliation. Their ability to raise family successfully and keep it together can equally be beneficial in political leadership. The greatest challenge in delivering more female leaders in Africa lies in identifying suitable female candidates not just any other woman as this could be a recipe for disaster.
Today, an escalating number of women continue to fight very hard for democracy, human and political rights, peace and justice across the African continent. The increase in educational opportunities for girls and women in post independence Africa has seen the emergence of a larger pool of capable women who are in strategic positions to vie for political office. The increase in educational opportunities has resulted in an increased awareness of issues of politics and governance amongst women in Africa.
The list of capable women in African politics is endless and these women have made great strides in fighting for equal rights as men and sometimes under very difficult and intimidating circumstances. In some African countries women have actually made greater inroads into mainstream politics which is again a formidable achievement. In Nigeria, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, became the first woman Finance Minister in a predominantly male dominated society. She demonstrated that she was indeed a special breed of the African woman. Ngozi’s triumph has motivated other African women of substance to fight for their place in top notch politics. The challenge from their men folk is huge but the women have not given up their struggle for greater say in politics and indeed in the business world.
It is well known that these prominent women belong to different political persuasions, social and business backgrounds, but their resolve to fight for recognition and power has kept them united. The truth is that women support each other in situations where it is clear that they have worked hard and deserve their posts. Those who are un-deserving and patronising do not always get the blessing of their female counterparts and often struggle to keep their heads above the water. Today’s African women do not just blindly invest their faith in another woman for power simply because of gender but for efficiency and accountability in return.
Women in the developing world including Africa find themselves underrepresented in politics and alienated from REAL decision making levels. The political playing field in most African countries remains critically uneven and not conducive to greater women participation in politics. This situation is due to a number of factors including the following; some women naturally consider themselves as weak and incapable and are therefore reticent to run for public office, some feel inferior to men, they just cannot believe in themselves albeit being highly educated and well informed. Some are afraid of the gruesome nature of politics; some just do not measure up and use family as an excuse for non participation in politics.
Unfortunately, general perceptions often suggest that women‘s ‘proper’ place is still in the home rather than in the annals of political activism. Subtly, prohibitive cultural attitudes against women’s involvement in politics persist among both men and women. These are usually reflected in the voting patterns and skewed media coverage of female candidates. In some cases women politicians especially the single ones are unjustifiably branded ‘loose women’ and unfit ‘mothers’. These comments are utterly undeserving and do not in any way help their quest for political ascendancy in leadership. Some women are just gullible and are used by daring men as window dressing candidates meant to gain votes for them.
Males dominate politics in terms of making rules as well as defining standards and this has the effect of discouraging women from entering active politics. In some cases women rights to vote remain restricted chiefly because most candidates to vote for are mostly men. Some women cannot afford to stand for office because they cannot get permission from their husbands who are either jealous or just cannot stand the challenge. However, research indicates that political structures rather than social factors play a more significant role in women’s participation in legislative politics.
The selection and nomination process within political parties is usually biased against women and this discourages them. Many women struggle to balance family life with the demands of political responsibilities that often involve late, unsocial hours, constant travel and constant contact with men. Some are so much afraid of the perception of politics as a dirty game. Literacy problems, lack of political experience, limited access to the media and political networks, the prevalence of double standards and difficulties in accessing resources have also been identified as impediments for some potentially capable and aspiring women politicians. Some women politicians have lamented the lack of adequate and consistent support from top leadership in some instances. In essence, the nature and magnitude of problems facing women politicians today is complicated.
It is also fair to state that some men are very supportive to female candidates for higher political office and this often raises the morale of those robust and well grilled women who have chosen politics for a career. However, it’s unfortunate that in the majority of times the wider political structures weigh heavily against them. It is ironic that most top female politicians in government in Africa today are appointed rather than elected office bearers. Elected or appointed, there is a strong realisation that the ascendancy of women to power is becoming not only threatening to their male counterparts but highly inevitable in most instances in Africa today.
Women who seek political office in Africa face an uphill task in terms of recognition in an inherent male dominated political scene. Tradition has been carefully used to disenfranchise any female contenders for power but not any more. However, if women in Africa today want to make a significant headway on the power front they need to have an increased presence in the legislature and other influential political institutions. Those who have made it to the top have become very visible, assertive, vocal and conspicuously influential. Ms Ellen Johnson –Sir leaf has become an iconic figure in African politics and has paved the way for more women to follow suit. There is no shortage of exemplary charismatic, visionary and strategic leaders amongst African women and these are the people who can change the fortunes of their respective countries.
The various over fancied men who for years have been entrusted with the running of their countries at various levels have not lived up to expectations. For more than three decades Africa has been let down by some of the most incompetent and ludicrous male politicians the world has ever seen. Their replacement with female blood could be the best alternative to efficiency.
There are a number of sensible, peaceful and promising young women leaders across the African continent. The business and civil society is also awash with female talent that could be utilised to revive our decadent leadership and collapsing economies.
In conclusion, it is most probable that corruption and violence levels under female leadership in Africa in general, could be relatively lowered than under male leadership as has been the norm for years. Women in Africa, particularly those in the opposition and civil society have proved to be the fiercest opponents of corruption, greed, sleaze and patronage politics. Women leaders are naturally more attentive, transparent and inclusive than men, and a woman leader is more likely to create a much tolerant and inclusive environment of peace and reconciliation. Their ability to raise family successfully and keep it together can equally be beneficial in political leadership. The greatest challenge in delivering more female leaders in Africa lies in identifying suitable female candidates not just any other woman as this could be a recipe for disaster.
The International Community has dismally failed Zimbabwe.
The term international community basically refers to shared values and principles among actors (countries) within an international system. However, in today’s political terms it appears the term international community denotes the EU, UN Security Council, US and UK. The term international community resonated very well with the people of Zimbabwe because of its association with the first liberation of the people 26 years back.
Since the early 1990s when the Zanu PF government started tempering with the Lancaster House Constitution to bring about change in the land policy, relations with major players of international community took a nose dive resulting in the imposition of the unofficial economic sanctions and an arms embargo. The sanctions although technically described as ‘Targeted Sanctions’ have resulted in untold suffering for the generality of Zimbabweans when the targeted people, the politicians per ser are not affected at all. It was again during this period when the most formidable and promising opposition party (MDC) in Zimbabwe was formed. For a few years the international community supported the opposition party in different ways and the people invested some hopes in the International community. Now the international community seems to be gradually drifting away from not only the discredited government of Zimbabwe but unfortunately from the people of Zimbabwe as well. The people of Zimbabwe are ironically being treated as part of the collateral damage in the war with Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF party.
The name Zimbabwe today makes very sad reading both at home and abroad. Being a Zimbabwean now equates to some measure of ridicule as much as the Nigerians have been fairly or unfairly associated with top notch international fraud and chicanery. The international corporate media BBC, CNN, Reuters etc have all had their fair share of negative reportage on Zimbabwe ostensibly not because they believe in their stories but because there is absolutely nothing news worth in Zimbabwe these days. Cricket and Tennis are dead, football, rugby and athletics are also dead, what’s left now is the people’s nostalgic thoughts of the once glorious past. In essence, the fact remains that there is nothing positive happening in Zimbabwe and hopeless politicking. The once vibrant opposition has split into two ineffective parties incapable of removing Mugabe even through the ‘ballot’ under the current skewed constitutional dispensation.
The current situation is just not conducive to any organised business activity save for the already established organisations. Zimbabwe is probably the only shrinking economy outside war zones where the rate of inflation has reached four figures. Even the established businesses are struggling to survive the harsh operational conditions. In this instance, the people of Zimbabwe need to be respected and honoured for their resilience and determination to survive under very hostile political, social and economical conditions.
The Zanu PF government blames the current hardships on the International community which they accuse of being motivated by colonialism, racism and a desire to protect white farmers from land reform efforts by the estranged Harare administration. The international community mainly the EU, UK and US attribute their harsh treatment of the Harare administration to its failure to uphold basic human rights, the absence of rule of law, bad governance and failure to implement basic fundamentals of democracy. The Harare administration also stands accused a siege mentality, increased political repression, decent and most crucially unprecedented economic collapse.
However, in view of the aforementioned it is my contention that the major actors of the International community, the UK and US and UN Security Council members as a cartel have dismally failed the people of Zimbabwe. The UK as the former colonial power could have done more to save the people of Zimbabwe who have done so much for the economy of the UK. The UK should have sought a more effective and perhaps less hostile policy to resolve their differences with the political charges in Zimbabwe. It is common knowledge that when the regime in Zimbabwe is under intense international pressure they become even more repressive to the people. Maybe it was time to combine both carefully crafted tough diplomacy and open dialogue at the same time. The UK’s tough and high toned rhetoric has not worked and may not work in its current configuration. There is need to consider both bilateralism and multilateralism as potential avenues of conflict resolution with Harare. There are times when it is imperative to talk to your enemies in order to achieve the best outcome out of a difficult and complicated situation. London talks tough on Zimbabwe but without backing its tough lingua Franca and critique with enough sustained action or diplomacy, severely undermining its credibility as a trouble shooter.
The Blair government could have used its leverage over South Africa (Zimbabwe’s biggest trading partner and close political ally) to force Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF government to comply with demands for constitutional and electoral reforms, workable economic policies, a rational and peaceful land reform process resulting in better life prospects for Zimbabweans. The UK and US have failed particularly in convincing other influential governments especially in the South to take a stronger stand on Zimbabwe at forums such as United Nations Security Council. Ironically, China, Russia and the bulk of African countries and their counterparts from other developing regions have categorically stated in many different platforms that Zimbabwe does not warrant discussions at the Security Council as they claim it is not a threat to international peace and security. One wonders why the same measure of international importance placed on Darfur in Sudan can not be accorded to Zimbabwe. The humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe warrants the intervention of the international community at the highest level and this needs to happen sooner than later. It is better to salvage Zimbabwe now than to wait until the situation there has become irreversible as has happened in a dozen or so of other failed states.
The current ‘Interests based diplomacy’ by sections of the international community has also condemned Zimbabwe to political Siberia. If Zimbabwe was some diamond rich Botswana, oil rich Iraq and Iran and nuclear threat North Korea more efforts and determination could have been invested towards resolving the political impasse and economic malaise In the 2002 presidential elections in Zimbabwe the UK and US in particular were very vocal and critical of the outcome of the election which they said was marred by serious irregularities. Logically, it was expected the two countries would review their diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Many expected the two countries to either relocate their embassies or downgrade their representation to Charge de Affairs level as a protest to the conduct of the Harare administration. Paradoxically, a few years later the two countries replaced their ambassadors to Harare thus reaffirming their approval of the Zanu PF government and this ostensibly demonstrated their double standards. To make matters worse for the ordinary Zimbabweans at home, soon after the presidential elections in Zimbabwe a new visa regime was introduced to curtail the number of people from Zimbabwe visiting the UK including asylum seekers. In short it could be argued that the UK policy on Zimbabwe in particular has been characterised by inconsistencies/ contradiction s and has been largely ineffective.
The UN under Kofi Annan has been very critical of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe including the Operation Murambatsvina. A lot of diplomatic travel between Harare and the UN offices in New York, Geneva and Nairobi happened but nothing concrete beyond words of condemnation from Kofi Annan and his two lieutenants Anna Tibajika and Humanitarian disaster expert Egland ever materialised. In essence Kofi Annan could have influenced the UN Security Council to act strongly on Zimbabwe but preferred romantic diplomacy with Harare whose outcome has been disastrous as has happened to South Africa’s so called Quiet Diplomacy. Mr Annan allegedly pledged urgent UN action after Operation Murambatsvina to mobilise international humanitarian assistance to prevent further suffering to the victims but this never materialised. However, to be fair to the International community, the Harare administration has been making life very difficult for anyone wishing to work with it on humanitarian aid and political reform.
SADC has also been a grotesque institutional fiasco in diplomatic terms in as far as the Zimbabwean issue is concerned. They pass resolutions they are incapable of enforcing when it comes to Zimbabwe. It raises questions as to whether SADC is effective and responsible to its founding charter. The situation in Zimbabwe is very dire when SADC are looking and pretending as if Zimbabwe does not exist. Zimbabwe is never seriously discussed at SADC summits and where it is discussed it is only in passing and without according it the seriousness it deserves. The best we have heard from the SADC secretariat so far is that ‘the leaders are disturbed by the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe and are carefully monitoring the situation’.
The African Union has equally been ineffective; they are more concerned about Darfur and the coup soap operas in West Africa. The AU and several African governments refuse to publicly condemn human rights violations and also choose to remain silent on issues of democracy, human rights and good governance in Zimbabwe. This apparent lack of sustained attention to criticise Zimbabwe on its poor human rights situation raises questions about the effectiveness of the AU as a respected member of the international community.
What the people of Zimbabwe want from the international community is to use their leverage over Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF administration to influence change and save lives of millions of disenfranchised and impoverished Zimbabweans. What the people of Zimbabwe want is not the violent overthrow of Mr Mugabe and Zanu PF from power but to send a message that the people of Zimbabwe need their mandate back. Mr Mugabe and his moribund Zanu PF party should be forced to accept and implement basic fundamental principles of democracy, constitutional reform, allow free and fair elections. If Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF contest and loose elections supervised by international observers they should accept defeat gracefully and become a responsible and loyal opposition supporting democracy if Zimbabwe.
In conclusion, l would like to say it is saddening to note that Zimbabwe is gradually becoming a forgotten state with a pariah tag and already condemned to the axis of evil nations that deserve to die by the US. Unless the more passionate and equally powerful members of the international community make concerted efforts to save the small southern African nation of Zimbabwe, its people may have lost hope and their efforts alone however huge and spirited may not be enough to save this former African jewel from extinction. During the liberation struggle the international community was there to help Zimbabweans gain freedom and now the struggle is even harder because of the culture of silence, repression and a huge sense of paralysis. The international community can still rescue Zimbabwe from total collapse it’s never too late. Zimbabwe should not be allowed to die whilst the international community is watching helplessly. Its unfortunate that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe are being punished for the alleged crimes of their politicians.
Since the early 1990s when the Zanu PF government started tempering with the Lancaster House Constitution to bring about change in the land policy, relations with major players of international community took a nose dive resulting in the imposition of the unofficial economic sanctions and an arms embargo. The sanctions although technically described as ‘Targeted Sanctions’ have resulted in untold suffering for the generality of Zimbabweans when the targeted people, the politicians per ser are not affected at all. It was again during this period when the most formidable and promising opposition party (MDC) in Zimbabwe was formed. For a few years the international community supported the opposition party in different ways and the people invested some hopes in the International community. Now the international community seems to be gradually drifting away from not only the discredited government of Zimbabwe but unfortunately from the people of Zimbabwe as well. The people of Zimbabwe are ironically being treated as part of the collateral damage in the war with Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF party.
The name Zimbabwe today makes very sad reading both at home and abroad. Being a Zimbabwean now equates to some measure of ridicule as much as the Nigerians have been fairly or unfairly associated with top notch international fraud and chicanery. The international corporate media BBC, CNN, Reuters etc have all had their fair share of negative reportage on Zimbabwe ostensibly not because they believe in their stories but because there is absolutely nothing news worth in Zimbabwe these days. Cricket and Tennis are dead, football, rugby and athletics are also dead, what’s left now is the people’s nostalgic thoughts of the once glorious past. In essence, the fact remains that there is nothing positive happening in Zimbabwe and hopeless politicking. The once vibrant opposition has split into two ineffective parties incapable of removing Mugabe even through the ‘ballot’ under the current skewed constitutional dispensation.
The current situation is just not conducive to any organised business activity save for the already established organisations. Zimbabwe is probably the only shrinking economy outside war zones where the rate of inflation has reached four figures. Even the established businesses are struggling to survive the harsh operational conditions. In this instance, the people of Zimbabwe need to be respected and honoured for their resilience and determination to survive under very hostile political, social and economical conditions.
The Zanu PF government blames the current hardships on the International community which they accuse of being motivated by colonialism, racism and a desire to protect white farmers from land reform efforts by the estranged Harare administration. The international community mainly the EU, UK and US attribute their harsh treatment of the Harare administration to its failure to uphold basic human rights, the absence of rule of law, bad governance and failure to implement basic fundamentals of democracy. The Harare administration also stands accused a siege mentality, increased political repression, decent and most crucially unprecedented economic collapse.
However, in view of the aforementioned it is my contention that the major actors of the International community, the UK and US and UN Security Council members as a cartel have dismally failed the people of Zimbabwe. The UK as the former colonial power could have done more to save the people of Zimbabwe who have done so much for the economy of the UK. The UK should have sought a more effective and perhaps less hostile policy to resolve their differences with the political charges in Zimbabwe. It is common knowledge that when the regime in Zimbabwe is under intense international pressure they become even more repressive to the people. Maybe it was time to combine both carefully crafted tough diplomacy and open dialogue at the same time. The UK’s tough and high toned rhetoric has not worked and may not work in its current configuration. There is need to consider both bilateralism and multilateralism as potential avenues of conflict resolution with Harare. There are times when it is imperative to talk to your enemies in order to achieve the best outcome out of a difficult and complicated situation. London talks tough on Zimbabwe but without backing its tough lingua Franca and critique with enough sustained action or diplomacy, severely undermining its credibility as a trouble shooter.
The Blair government could have used its leverage over South Africa (Zimbabwe’s biggest trading partner and close political ally) to force Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF government to comply with demands for constitutional and electoral reforms, workable economic policies, a rational and peaceful land reform process resulting in better life prospects for Zimbabweans. The UK and US have failed particularly in convincing other influential governments especially in the South to take a stronger stand on Zimbabwe at forums such as United Nations Security Council. Ironically, China, Russia and the bulk of African countries and their counterparts from other developing regions have categorically stated in many different platforms that Zimbabwe does not warrant discussions at the Security Council as they claim it is not a threat to international peace and security. One wonders why the same measure of international importance placed on Darfur in Sudan can not be accorded to Zimbabwe. The humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe warrants the intervention of the international community at the highest level and this needs to happen sooner than later. It is better to salvage Zimbabwe now than to wait until the situation there has become irreversible as has happened in a dozen or so of other failed states.
The current ‘Interests based diplomacy’ by sections of the international community has also condemned Zimbabwe to political Siberia. If Zimbabwe was some diamond rich Botswana, oil rich Iraq and Iran and nuclear threat North Korea more efforts and determination could have been invested towards resolving the political impasse and economic malaise In the 2002 presidential elections in Zimbabwe the UK and US in particular were very vocal and critical of the outcome of the election which they said was marred by serious irregularities. Logically, it was expected the two countries would review their diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Many expected the two countries to either relocate their embassies or downgrade their representation to Charge de Affairs level as a protest to the conduct of the Harare administration. Paradoxically, a few years later the two countries replaced their ambassadors to Harare thus reaffirming their approval of the Zanu PF government and this ostensibly demonstrated their double standards. To make matters worse for the ordinary Zimbabweans at home, soon after the presidential elections in Zimbabwe a new visa regime was introduced to curtail the number of people from Zimbabwe visiting the UK including asylum seekers. In short it could be argued that the UK policy on Zimbabwe in particular has been characterised by inconsistencies/ contradiction s and has been largely ineffective.
The UN under Kofi Annan has been very critical of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe including the Operation Murambatsvina. A lot of diplomatic travel between Harare and the UN offices in New York, Geneva and Nairobi happened but nothing concrete beyond words of condemnation from Kofi Annan and his two lieutenants Anna Tibajika and Humanitarian disaster expert Egland ever materialised. In essence Kofi Annan could have influenced the UN Security Council to act strongly on Zimbabwe but preferred romantic diplomacy with Harare whose outcome has been disastrous as has happened to South Africa’s so called Quiet Diplomacy. Mr Annan allegedly pledged urgent UN action after Operation Murambatsvina to mobilise international humanitarian assistance to prevent further suffering to the victims but this never materialised. However, to be fair to the International community, the Harare administration has been making life very difficult for anyone wishing to work with it on humanitarian aid and political reform.
SADC has also been a grotesque institutional fiasco in diplomatic terms in as far as the Zimbabwean issue is concerned. They pass resolutions they are incapable of enforcing when it comes to Zimbabwe. It raises questions as to whether SADC is effective and responsible to its founding charter. The situation in Zimbabwe is very dire when SADC are looking and pretending as if Zimbabwe does not exist. Zimbabwe is never seriously discussed at SADC summits and where it is discussed it is only in passing and without according it the seriousness it deserves. The best we have heard from the SADC secretariat so far is that ‘the leaders are disturbed by the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe and are carefully monitoring the situation’.
The African Union has equally been ineffective; they are more concerned about Darfur and the coup soap operas in West Africa. The AU and several African governments refuse to publicly condemn human rights violations and also choose to remain silent on issues of democracy, human rights and good governance in Zimbabwe. This apparent lack of sustained attention to criticise Zimbabwe on its poor human rights situation raises questions about the effectiveness of the AU as a respected member of the international community.
What the people of Zimbabwe want from the international community is to use their leverage over Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF administration to influence change and save lives of millions of disenfranchised and impoverished Zimbabweans. What the people of Zimbabwe want is not the violent overthrow of Mr Mugabe and Zanu PF from power but to send a message that the people of Zimbabwe need their mandate back. Mr Mugabe and his moribund Zanu PF party should be forced to accept and implement basic fundamental principles of democracy, constitutional reform, allow free and fair elections. If Mr Mugabe and his Zanu PF contest and loose elections supervised by international observers they should accept defeat gracefully and become a responsible and loyal opposition supporting democracy if Zimbabwe.
In conclusion, l would like to say it is saddening to note that Zimbabwe is gradually becoming a forgotten state with a pariah tag and already condemned to the axis of evil nations that deserve to die by the US. Unless the more passionate and equally powerful members of the international community make concerted efforts to save the small southern African nation of Zimbabwe, its people may have lost hope and their efforts alone however huge and spirited may not be enough to save this former African jewel from extinction. During the liberation struggle the international community was there to help Zimbabweans gain freedom and now the struggle is even harder because of the culture of silence, repression and a huge sense of paralysis. The international community can still rescue Zimbabwe from total collapse it’s never too late. Zimbabwe should not be allowed to die whilst the international community is watching helplessly. Its unfortunate that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe are being punished for the alleged crimes of their politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)