|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
More on politics & human rights |
economy & development |
peace & security |
health
Print this page
Zimbabwe: "Democracy is Not a Privilege"
AfricaFocus Bulletin
May 26 , 2008 (080526)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
"Africa waged a century-long struggle against colonialism and
apartheid precisely to establish the principle that governments
should derive legitimacy through the consent of the governed.
Democratic institutions are therefore not privileges that may be
extended or withheld at the discretion of those who wield power." -
Pallo Jordan
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from this May 18
commentary by ANC National Executive Committee member Pallo Jordan,
as well as from commentaries from other long-time supporters of
Zimbabwe's liberation struggle who reject the charge that
progressive opposition to the current regime should be identified
with the views or objectives of the British and American
governments. In addition to Pallo Jordan, these include Bill
Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor of The Black Commentator; and Grace
Kwinjeh, an NEC member of the MDC and the Chairperson of the
Global Zimbabwe Forum. For the full text of these commentaries see
the sources cited below or the web version of this Bulletin at
http://www.africafocus.org/docs08/zim0805b.php
For another important related commentary, made prior to the
election in Zimbabwe and reflecting on democracy in the region, see
"Perspectives on Liberation and Development in Southern Africa,"
Lecture at the Dag Hammarskj�ld Foundation in honour of Sven
Hamrell by Sten Rylander, Ambassador of Sweden to Zimbabwe, at
http://www.dhf.uu.se/rylander.html. Rylander also previously
served as Sweden's Ambassador to Angola, Namibia, and Tanzania.
Note that this web version is longer than a normal AfricaFocus
Bulletin, including the full text of each commentary. The version
sent out by e-mail contains excerpts only, for reason of length.
Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today contains a summary
report from the election observer mission by TransAfrica Forum and
Africa Action, as well as links to previous AfricaFocus Bulletins
and Africa Policy E-Journals on Zimbabwe.
For ongoing coverage of and commentary on current developments,
AfricaFocus particularly recommends Zimbabwean sites
http://www.kubatana.net and http://www.sokwanele.com, and
international sites http://www.pambazuka.org and
http://allafrica.com/zimbabwe
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
Democracy is Not a Privilege
African National Congress (Johannesburg)
18 May 2008
By Z Pallo Jordan
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200805180001.html
Z. Pallo Jordan is a member of the National Executive Committee
(NEC) of South Africa's ruling African National Congress. This
article is written in his personal capacity.
Speaking in parliament during the budget debate of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in 2003, amongst other things I said:
"Like peace and stability, democracy and good governance are
developmental issues. Africa waged a century-long struggle against
colonialism and apartheid precisely to establish the principle that
governments should derive legitimacy through the consent of the
governed. Democratic institutions are therefore not privileges that
may be extended or withheld at the discretion of those who wield
power. They are an entitlement; a right that the people of this
continent waged struggle to attain and won at great cost!"
"In the ANC's continuing interaction with the political parties
in Zimbabwe, we have warned against the subversion the rule of
law as we have about the heightening of tension."
"We have also warned against the temptations of recklessness that
could easily precipitate armed conflict. We have consistently
appealed to the values and norms that the national liberation
movement in Zimbabwe waged struggle to attain - the values of
democracy; accountable government; the rule of law; an
independent judiciary; non-racialism; political tolerance and
freedom of the media. Not a single one of these values was
observed under British colonial rule, let alone under the UDI
regime of Ian Smith and his cronies. We consider it a scandal
that they are now being undermined by the movement that struggled
to achieve them."
Consequently I was deeply shocked, if not alarmed, by an article
on Zimbabwe from the pens of Eddie Maloka and Ben Magubane
carried in City Press on Sunday 4 May 2008.
I was shocked by the suggestion of the two authors that the
criteria we normally employ in judging the behaviour of
governments are extremely flexible and are so malleable that what
we judge as criminal in one instance we should find quite
acceptable, even defensible, in another.
I thought it was common cause, within the ranks the ANC that the
legitimacy of a government derives from the mandate it receives
from the people. That mandate is usually expressed through free
and fair general elections. The record will show that the ANC has
consistently adhered to these principles since its inauguration
and re-affirmed them in "The African Claims" of 1943; the Freedom
Charter of 1955, the Strategy and Tactics document adopted at
Morogoro and in every subsequent document setting out its aims
and principles, including the 1987 "Constitutional Guidelines for
a Democratic South Africa". What is more, we have also insisted
that these are principles applicable to all countries, including
Zimbabwe.
Anyone familiar with the history of European colonialism in
Africa and Asia knows that at the core of the colonialist project
was seizure and control over the natural resources of the colony.
In the white settler colonies of Africa, like Kenya, Zimbabwe and
Namibia, seizure of the land was invariably the means of
acquiring such control. The reproduction of the long quotations
from The Guardian in the City Press article thus serves no other
purpose but to remind the forgetful of that reality. But, the
information they contain adds neither light nor weight to the
principal thrust of the two authors' line of argument.
Opposition as counter-revolution
Underlying the line of argument which the two authors advance is
the suggestion that since the Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) came into existence after independence, that political
formation is necessarily suspect. They try to buttress this by
suggesting that given that, like Britain, the revanchist
"Rhodesian" whites, the USA and the European Union, the MDC is
not happy with the ZANU (PF) government, there is an indissoluble
link amongst them and they all must be pursuing the same agenda.
Proceeding from these highly flawed premises, they go on to argue
that it is therefore incumbent on anti- imperialists to support
ZANU (PF).
There are disturbing parallels between these two writers' line of
argument and the all too familiar ones emanating from former US
Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and, in our day,
George W. Bush. Step back a little, invert the names, and the
line of reasoning can be seen for what it is. Justifying
unqualified US support for right wing dictators in Latin America,
Teddy Roosevelt declared: "Somoza (the former banana-republic
dictator of Nicaragua) is a bastard, but he is our bastard!" The
authors also deploy the same guilt by association, so loved by
anti-Communists and other rightists when they repress dissent.
Virtually echoing the sentiments of Senator Joe McCarthy: "If
someone sounds like a duck, associates with ducks, and walks like
a duck, can it be unfair to infer that he is a duck!"
But perhaps the most alarming suggestion of all is that
opposition to ZANU (PF), irrespective of its merits, is ipso
facto illegitimate and necessarily counter- revolutionary, and
therefore pro-imperialist.
This curious line of reasoning dominated in the Communist parties
of the Soviet Union and other east European countries. When
workers complained about the conditions of work (as they did in
Poland) that was characterised as counter- revolution. If
intellectuals complained about rigid censorship and the
repression of the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge,
that was counter-revolution. Even youth, yearning to enjoy rock
and other forms of popular music produced in the rest of the
world, that was counter-revolution.
Is it any wonder that those countries are now governed either by
right-wing coalitions or by anti-Communist liberals who want to
hitch their countries firmly to the EU or to US-led alliances
like NATO?
Proceeding from the tried and tested principles of our liberation
movement, I contend that democracy is not a luxury, perhaps
affordable in a few rich countries, but far too expensive for
peoples and countries emerging from decades of colonial
domination. What is more, I insist that democracy is not merely
the right to participate in elections every few years; it is a
complex institutional framework that serves to secure the
ordinary citizen against all forms of arbitrary authority,
whether secular or ecclesiastical.
It is an undisputed historical fact that colonialism denied the
colonised precisely these protections, subjecting them to the
tyranny, not only of imperialist governments, but often to the
whims of colonialist settlers and officials. All liberation
movements, including both ZANU (PF) and ZAPU, deliberately
advocated the institution of democratic governance with the
protections they afford the citizen. All liberation movements
held that national self-determination would be realised, in the
first instance, by the colonised people choosing their government
in democratic elections. Hence Kwame Nkrumah: "Seek ye first the
political kingdom!" The content of anti-imperialism was precisely
the struggle to attain these democratic rights. In the case of
Zimbabwe, democratic rights arrived that night when the Union
Jack was lowered and was replaced by the flag of an independent
Zimbabwe.
The questions we should be asking are: What has gone so radically
wrong that the movement and the leaders who brought democracy to
Zimbabwe today appear to be its ferocious violators. What has
gone so wrong that they appear to be most fearful of it?
Maloka and Magubane brush such questions aside with a
breathtaking recklessness. To invoke the memory of Patrice
Lumumba in this context can only be an example of woolly
thinking. Lumumba, let us remember, was democratically elected by
the majority of the Congolese people. To subvert the will of the
Congolese, as expressed in general elections, the imperialists
stage-managed Mobutu's coup, kidnapped Lumumba and had his
enemies murder him.
The same applies to Salvador Allende of Chile. The CIA subverted
the expressed will of the Chilean people by staging a coup to
overturn the democratically elected government of Chile.
Maloka and Magubane want us to ignore the will of the Zimbabwean
people, as expressed in elections, and do what the imperialists
did in Congo and Chile. Such action, they claim, would be
anti-imperialist. In other words, we must behave like the
imperialists to demonstrate our commitment to anti-imperialism.
'For us or against us'
Rather than raising and attempting to answer such tough
questions, they skirt around them by marshalling a mixture of
emotive arguments and outright political blackmail, again
reminiscent of the far-right and its adherents. You are either
with ZANU (PF) in the anti-imperialist camp, or against it (and
therefore with Blair, Bush, the DA, etc).
If that has familiar ring, it is because the Bush administration
has employed it repeatedly in support of its aggressive actions
against all and sundry. To quote them: "You are either with us,
or against us!"
It cannot possibly be right that, while we in South Africa expect
our democratic institutions to protect us from arbitrary power,
we expect the people of Zimbabwe to be content with less.
If ZANU (PF) has lost the confidence of a substantial number of
the citizens of that country, such that the only means by which
it can win elections is either by intimidating the people or
otherwise rigging them, it has only itself to blame. Nobody
doubts the anti-imperialist credentials of ZANU (PF), but that
cannot be sufficient reason to support it if it is misgoverning
Zimbabwe and brutalising the people.
Let all recall that the people of Zimbabwe endured a 15-year war
of national liberation, during which the colonialist regime
employed every device from beatings, to torture, to executions
and massacres to repress them. They did not waver. Yet it is
being suggested that today, for no apparent reason, they have
fallen under the sway of the helpers and agents of that colonial
power. I think that betrays a worrying contempt for the ordinary
Zimbabwean. A contempt reminiscent of the colonialists'
contention that the people rose against them because they had
been incited by "outside agitators"! By the Russians! By the
Chinese!
I do not support the MDC and my track record in the struggle
against imperialism speaks for itself, but I differ most
fundamentally with Maloka and Magubane. It is precisely my
commitment to the anti-imperialist agenda that persuades me that
our two comrades are wrong.
We will not assist ZANU (PF) by encouraging that movement to
proceed along the disastrous course it has embarked on. Offering
it uncritical support because it is anti-imperialist will not
help ZANU (PF) to uncover the reasons for the steep decline in
the legitimacy it once enjoyed. That party would do well to
return to its original vision of a democratic Zimbabwe, free of
colonial domination and the instruments of that domination - such
as arbitrary arrests, police repression of opposition,
intimidation of political critics, etc.
Given the outcome of the recent elections, ZANU(PF) should
surrender power to the party that has won. Another
anti-imperialist movement, the Sandinistas of Nicaragua, lost an
election in 1991. Today they are back in office having won an
election that even the US was unable to subvert. In order to win
the Sandinistas had slowly to win back the confidence of the
people, who then voted them back into power. Any attempt by ZANU
(PF) to cling to power through overt or covert violence will only
compound its problems by stripping it even further of the
legitimacy it won by leading the Zimbabwean people in their
struggle for independence, freedom and democracy!
Commenting on the dilemma faced by the Bolsheviks after their
victory in October 1917, that great internationalist and
Communist, Rosa Luxemburg, wrote:
"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the
members of one party - however numerous they may be - is no
freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the
one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept
of 'justice' but because all that is instructive, wholesome and
purifying in political freedom depends on this essential
characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom'
becomes a special privilege."
Maloka and Magubane would do well to weigh her remarks seriously.
Perhaps, had the Bolsheviks been a bit more attentive to such
constructive criticism from an unimpeachable revolutionary, we
might not be complaining of the demise of the Soviet Union, but
could possibly be celebrating its triumphs.
"Z" is for Zimbabwe: Turmoil & Silence as a Country Potentially
Unravels
Black Commentator
http://www.blackcommentator.com
April 17, 2008 - Issue 273
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is Executive Editor of The Black Commentator.
He is also a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies
and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.
Much of Black America stopped discussing Zimbabwe after its
liberation in 1980; at least, we stopped discussing it for a
while. After years of regular coverage of the liberation war,
details regarding Zimbabwe became harder to obtain as attention
shifted to struggles in Mozambique, Namibia, Angola and South
Africa. Not to be misunderstood, it was not that facts were being
withheld for us here in Black America, so much as we paid less
attention to developments, and did not dig for information.
President Robert Mugabe, the leader of ZANU (later ZANU [PF])
was, of course, a hero to so many of us insofar as he was the
main, though not only, leader of the liberation struggle. He
seemed, at least at first, to be oriented toward the development
of an independent and, at least theoretically, socialist-oriented
Zimbabwe, with land redistribution, workers' control, and black
power all on the agenda.
So many of us chose to ignore developments, however. We ignored
purges that had taken place within ZANU prior to Liberation. We
ignored the violent crushing of a rebellion in the early years of
the Mugabe administration. We ignored President Mugabe's adoption
of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank formula of
"structural adjustment", despite its economic theory running
contrary to a pro-people economic transformation. And, we ignored
the fact that the land was not being redistributed. We ignored
this and other unsettling matters while the focus of much of
Black America was on events unfolding in other parts of Southern
Africa.
It was only after the seizures of white farms in 2000 that a new
discussion of Zimbabwe emerged, albeit a much distorted one. For
many it was as if they had jumped through a time portal between
1980 and 2000, oblivious to the development of the country and
the challenges that it had encountered. President Mugabe, it
seemed to many, was finally seizing the land and completing
Liberation at least, that is what many of us thought. But what
was missing was a broader context to understand developments and
too many well-intentioned African Americans interpreted
Zimbabwean developments through our lens here on the opposite
side of the Atlantic. Instead of reviewing the actual
developments on the ground, many of us fell prey to interpreting
facts based on what we would have liked to have believed was
unfolding rather than what was actually playing out.
Many well-intentioned supporters of Zimbabwe ignored or were
oblivious to the growing protests that had swept Zimbabwe in the
1990s among workers who stood in opposition to the economic
policies of structural adjustment that were impoverishing them.
We were further prepared to ignore, or forget, that President
Mugabe had been quite delayed in taking steps to redistribute the
land in the first place, even factoring in that the British and
USA reneged on pledges that they had made to subsidize a "willing
seller, willing buyer" land transfer. And some of us closed our
eyes to who was actually benefiting from land redistribution and
who was not.
In 2003, several African American activists - including this
writer - penned a letter of protest against the policies of
President Mugabe. Each of us had been supporters of ZANU (PF) and
had been reluctant to voice public criticisms. Our criticisms
were aimed at the repression being conducted against opponents of
the Mugabe administration and their supporters. We also
questioned how - but not whether - land was being redistributed
and who was gaining from this. We made it abundantly clear that
our criticisms bore no resemblance, in either form or content, to
those voiced by US President Bush and British then-Prime Minister
Tony Blair.
The response we received was, let's say, quite remarkable. Some
pro-Mugabe individuals and organizations, despite knowing the
histories and work of the signatories, declared us to be CIA
agents and/or agents of the US State Department (a difference
without a distinction for our critics). Some people even went so
far as to suggest that we were being paid by the Zimbabwean
opposition. We were vilified for even questioning what was
transpiring in Zimbabwe, even though in some cases we had first
hand knowledge of brutal repression.
The other response was just as interesting. Quietly we were
applauded by many African Americans who were pleased that
someone(s) had spoken up, though they, themselves, were not
necessarily prepared to publicly do so. While this was
encouraging, it was equally unsettling in that it evidenced a
fear within Black America about having a genuine debate on such
an important issue.
Nevertheless, in the aftermath of this verbal/written slugfest,
little real exchange took place. The atmosphere had become so
charged that many people decided that it was not worth saying one
more thing about Zimbabwe. Rather, too many of us just sat back
and watched in silence.
So, we watched. Colleagues of mine in Zimbabwe, individuals whose
progressive work I was familiar with, were jailed and tortured by
the Mugabe administration, but I was expected by pro-Mugabe
activists in the USA to say nothing, and indeed, to deny
everything. Any hint of criticism was immediately construed as
allegedly giving aid and comfort to the Bush administration and
its mania for regime change. In a brief visit to Zimbabwe I had
the opportunity of speaking with a group of Black Zimbabwean
trade unionists. I found myself attempting to explain to them why
many African Americans were silent in the face of President
Mugabe's repression, or in some cases, actively supported
President Mugabe. They shook their heads in collective disbelief.
Over the last two weeks we have seen events surrounding the
Zimbabwean election and it feels surreal. I must, however, ask
some tough questions. What does it mean that an incumbent
administration fails to reveal the ACTUAL election results, yet
demands a recount? One need not be a supporter, and I am not, of
the principal opposition party in Zimbabwe - the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) under Morgan Tsvangirai - to sense that
all is not right with the world following the election. One's
attitude toward the MDC should actually be secondary to whether
one believes in the notion of free and fair elections. To put it
bluntly, if one is going to call elections, they should be
transparent; if one does not want transparent elections, don't
call them in the first place.
The MDC is politically inconsistent, and outside of Zimbabwe
there are very mixed feelings about them within Southern Africa.
Though originally planned as a labor party, the MDC became a sort
of united front of opponents of President Mugabe, ranging the
political spectrum from the revolutionary Left to some
conservative white farmers. The economic views of the MDC are
themselves difficult to ascertain at various moments. But this is
a matter for the people of Zimbabwe to resolve. Whether we like
or dislike the MDC, or President Mugabe for that matter, holds
second place to whether there is a political environment that
advances genuine, grassroots democracy and debate in Zimbabwe. If
that environment does not exist, then all of the revolutionary
rhetoric in the world will not amount to a hill of beans on the
scale of things.
The Zimbabwe political crisis threatens to go from bad to worse.
A reenactment of the events in Kenya following their stolen
election a few short months ago is not beyond imagination. The
role of the African Union, and particularly Zimbabwe's neighbors,
becomes all the more important in attempting to resolve the
crisis. Threats by Britain and the USA are not only
counterproductive, but they are insulting since the
administrations of neither country possess the moral authority to
actually entertain or offer a positive solution. But supporting
the African Union would be a positive step.
There is something that I believe that African Americans can and
should do, and in some respects it might represent an important
chapter in our continuing relationship with Zimbabwe. This is a
variation on a proposal I made once before. We should offer to
assist the African Union in mediating the talks toward a peaceful
resolution of the on-going crisis. Specifically, the
Congressional Black Caucus should contact the African Union and
offer to constitute a mediating team to work with the African
Union. This should not be interference and should not be
construed as interference, but it could be a genuine act of
solidarity.
Within Black America, we have to be prepared to have more open
and constructive debates without resorting to the "nuclear
option." I have seen a variant of this in the discussions
surrounding the candidacy of Senator Obama. Someone voicing a
reservation or concern, let alone a criticism, is open to being
called everything but a child of God. This infantile approach to
controversy WITHIN our community must end; indeed, it must not be
tolerated. The stakes are far too high.
Let me apologize to some in advance: I cannot maintain silence
for fear of upsetting an opponent. As I said, the stakes are too
high.
Zimbabwe in context
2008-05-19
Grace Kwinjeh
*Grace Kwinjeh is an NEC member of the MDC and the Chairperson of
the Global Zimbabwe Forum.
Pambazuka News
Source: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/372
Arguing that Mugabe has been "talking left" while "walking right"
Grace Kwinjeh analyzes Zimbabwe through regional, African and
global capitalism.
The post election crisis in Zimbabwe and the SADC region is a
manifestation of much deeper, complex issues to do with global
capitalism and its vampire-like tendencies.
At the root of the problems is the failure of our nationalist
governments to deal with these dimensions of the global crisis:
food shortages and price hikes; oil speculation; financial
meltdowns and higher interest rates. These manifest themselves as
rising inequality and unemployment and competition between very
poor people in places like Alexandra, Tembisa, Diepkloof and the
Johannesburg inner city for scarce resources.
It is only by addressing these issues that we can meet the
aspirations of the masses for freedom and decent lives.
Forces both local and global may seem to be worlds apart in the
definition and context of the Zimbabwean struggle but we African
citizens are all in an awkward position.
Global Capitalism
While we are fighting the Robert Mugabe dictatorship, we
Zimbabweans have not been spared from the negative impact of
global capitalism on our livelihoods especially in poor
communities - as we are currently witnessing, in the current
xenophobic attacks against us in South Africa.
The xenophobia exposes not only working-class people's fears of
lower wages, higher crime and new cultural influences, as is the
explanation at first blush. In addition, we can see in the
attacks on non-nationals the duplicitous role our national elites
play in pushing us further to the mercy of capitalist forces
while they label us in the opposition - puppets of the West.
The attacks are being condemned by progressive forces in SA,
including COSATU Secretary General, Zwelinzima Vavi, who said: "I
want to send out this message: It is not the Zimbabweans (exiles)
that cause the problems (of the poor)".
He cited the capitalist system as the problem and argued that
South Africa should focus on building an economic system that
could: "seriously eradicate poverty".
The same position reiterated by the Anti-Privatisation Forum:"Let
us not forget that it is South African corporate capital -
through the framework of NEPAD - that has, over the last decade,
moved into other African countries, most often causing many
local, smaller businesses to close down and thus contributing to
a situation in which many poor people have lost their jobs."
Three Million Exiles
There are over three million of us eking out a living outside
Zimbabwe's borders, a result of the failure of our national
leaders to deliver both politically and economically for us at
home. The situation gets more ridiculous when looked at within
the context of the aspirations spelt out in the reformed African
Union, in the New Partnership for Africa's Development, and its
dream of an African Renaissance.
These programmes are again full of empty rhetoric framed, more to
attract international donor funds and less to deliver dignity to
African citizens, negating our 'ubuntuness', which espouses
values to do with compassion, value for human life, respect for
each other and harmonious existence.
Even as Frantz Fanon prophesied back then on the dilemma of
African Unity in post-colonial Africa: "Now the nationalist
bourgeois, who in region after region hasten to make their own
fortunes and to set up a national system of exploitation, do
their utmost to put obstacles in the path of this 'Utopia'. The
national bourgeoisies, who are quite clear as to what their
objectives are, have decided to bar the way to that unity, to
that coordinated effort on the part of two hundred and fifty
million men to triumph over stupidity, hunger and inhumanity at
one and the same time."
Fanon's insight helps us understand the failures of Mugabe and
his allies beyond their "leftist" rhetoric. They are forever
trapped in the awkward "talk left - walk right" jive as they
remain arguably the best custodians of capitalist/imperialist
forces, in our countries.
Mugabe flirted with the US military for many years, and until
1998 was considered amongst the highest-performing of World Bank
and International Monetary Fund puppets, earning a "highly
satisfactory" rating from the Bretton Woods Institutions in 1995.
Did he not use $205 million in hard currency in 2006 to repay the
IMF for failed loans?
In Zimbabwe today those suffering under the yoke of Mugabe's
oppression are us black citizens. We are the homeless, the
jobless, the battered and the bruised.
Majority Not Respected
We are in the majority of those whose vote is not respected, in a
negation of that very national liberation struggle aspirations of
'one man one vote.'
At the moment, Zimbabweans are just as good as people who did not
go out to vote. We remain at the mercy of the dictatorship, as
Mugabe is determined at each turn to reverse our hard-earned
victories.
The elections did not deliver change. Instead, the moment of
triumph against Mugabe and his cohort soon turned into a
nightmare. The opposition won against one of the most entrenched
liberation movements on the African continent. We romped to
victory with a narrow parliamentary majority, equal seats as Zanu
PF in the Senate and a majority votes in the Presidential
election count. It was a great achievement given the odds placed
against any possible opposition electoral victory.
Devastating Retribution
"One group grabbed a 79-year-old widow, yanked up her skirt, then
lashed her bare buttocks with barbed-wire whips as two dozen
terrified relatives looked on. The woman, Martha Mucheto, said
she cried in pain and shame. 'If none of you confesses, we will
hit this granny until she's dead,' Mucheto, a great-grandmother
and former nurse's aide, recalled hearing. She spoke from a
hospital bed in Harare."
The story of Mugabe's retribution against innocent civilians gets
more devastating each day - from abductions, torture to cold
blooded gruesome murders.
Old grannies such as gogo Mucheto are not spared in this
brutality. Young men are killed in cold blood. The latest case is
of Better Chokururama who was shot once and stabbed four times
around the chest area by Mugabe's thugs. Chokururama was buried
on 17 May 2008, one of at least two dozen MDC members killed for
their beliefs in recent weeks, and one of several hundred since
2000.
Most affected are the already-struggling and impoverished rural
folks. Scores are being displaced our national leaders to deliver
both politically and economically for us at home. The situation
gets more ridiculous when looked at within the context of the
aspirations spelt out in the reformed African Union, in the New
Partnership for Africa's Development, and its dream of an African
Renaissance.
These programmes are again full of empty rhetoric framed, more to
attract international donor funds and less to deliver dignity to
African citizens, negating our 'ubuntuness', which espouses
values to do with compassion, value for human life, respect for
each other and harmonious existence.
Even as Frantz Fanon prophesied back then on the dilemma of
African Unity in post-colonial Africa: "Now the nationalist
bourgeois, who in region after region hasten to make their own
fortunes and to set up a national system of exploitation, do
their utmost to put obstacles in the path of this 'Utopia'. The
national bourgeoisies, who are quite clear as to what their
objectives are, have decided to bar the way to that unity, to
that coordinated effort on the part of two hundred and fifty
million men to triumph over stupidity, hunger and inhumanity at
one and the same time."
Fanon's insight helps us understand the failures of Mugabe and
his allies beyond their "leftist" rhetoric. They are forever
trapped in the awkward "talk left - walk right" jive as they
remain arguably the best custodians of capitalist/imperialist
forces, in our countries.
Mugabe flirted with the US military for many years, and until
1998 was considered amongst the highest-performing of World Bank
and International Monetary Fund puppets, earning a "highly
satisfactory" rating from the Bretton Woods Institutions in 1995.
Did he not use $205 million in hard currency in 2006 to repay the
IMF for failed loans?
In Zimbabwe today those suffering under the yoke of Mugabe's
oppression are us black citizens. We are the homeless, the
jobless, the battered and the bruised.
Majority Not Respected
We are in the majority of those whose vote is not respected, in a
negation of that very national liberation struggle aspirations of
'one man one vote.'
At the moment, Zimbabweans are just as good as people who did not
go out to vote. We remain at the mercy of the dictatorship, as
Mugabe is determined at each turn to reverse our hard-earned
victories.
The elections did not deliver change. Instead, the moment of
triumph against Mugabe and his cohort soon turned into a
nightmare. The opposition won in their own areas while others
find their way to towns, many being victims of torture.
Zanu PF, the liberation movement that defeated the colonialists
in a protracted struggle, somehow concluded that they should hold
state power in perpetuity. The era of democratization has not yet
arrived. The elites in Zimbabwe, like their despotic friends
elsewhere in the world, disdain the notion that elections are the
process through which people elect leaders of their choice.
Elections remain a privilege that is denied to the masses. As
Zimbabwe prepares for a run-off on the 27th of June, we expect
once again to be fed nauseating fascist propaganda on good
citizenry and patriotism. Mugabe has declared war against the
people of the world.
We have an obligation to organize ourselves and fight back. As
Fanon advised: "... we must understand that African Unity can
only be achieved through the upward thrust of the people, and
under the leadership of the people, and that is to say, in
defiance of the interests of the bourgeoisie."
The marches on 17 May 2008, led by COSATU, helped to strengthen
people-to-people solidarity. The way our SATAWU comrades exposed
and fought against the 'ship of shame' and stopped it from
offloading its cargo of arms in Durban, is a show of solidarity
that the people of Zimbabwe will forever remember.
Zimbabwe does not need arms. We are not at war. We want decent
jobs, homes, schools and food.
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues,
with a particular focus on U.S. and international policies.
AfricaFocus Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at [email protected].
Please write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the
bulletin, or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org
|
