Skip to main content

Zimbabwe: Mbeki plays Hamlet- Harare burns

Robert Gabriel Mugabe, the 84 year old despot of Zimbabwe, has lead his country to ruin.

Yet despite his obvious and complete failure he is sustained in office by two things: the first is his own belief that he is not just the administrator of Zimbabwe, but is some real sense its owner.

His sense of entitlement is rooted in his own measure of the struggle that brought majority rule to the country in 1980. No matter that the portly Joshua Nkomo was a better known figure internationally; he was an Ndebele and Mugabe- who loathed Nkomo with a passion- always knew that the larger Shona, of which he was himself a part, would have the decisive influence in the new state. Just to make sure, of course Mugabe unleashed his death squads in Matebeleland- crushing any resistance from Nkomo's ZIPRA, the armed wing of his ZAPU party, which had been the partner of Mugabe's own ZANU in the Patriotic Front. Nkomo died in 1999 having been forced to merge his own party into ZANU to form ZANU-PF. Of all the other leaders of the struggle for majority rule in Zimababwe, the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole died in 2000 and Edgar Tekere was politically discredited by his indictment for the murder of a white farmer, Gerald Adams in 1980. Mugabe truly believes that Zimbabwe is his and belongs to no-one else- he has no rivals, and will brook no rivalry.

The second pillar of support that Mugabe has is the willingness of the neighbouring states, especially South Africa, to be complicit in their support for him. Amongst the activists of the ANC there remains a sense of gratitude for the support they gained from Harare in the years leading up to the release of Nelson Mandela and the end of apartheid. Many still see Mugabe as part of their own liberation struggle- especially Thabo Mbeki, whose own father, Govan Mbeki as a fellow Communist was a staunch admirer of Mugabe. Thus, the silence from the South African President- and by contrast the strong support that his bitter rival, Jacob Zuma, has given to the Zimbabwean Movement for Democratic change. This support, while significant, is as much a function of South African domestic politics as it is of any real drive for change in South Africa's northern neighbour.

On March 29th, the people of Zimbabwe, despite elections where everything possible was done to favour the ZANU-PF candidates, chose to support the Movement for Democratic Change. Despite unfair media coverage, fraudulent votes and all the rest of it, the anger of the Zimbabwean people against their incompetent and brutal leaders was such that ZANU-PF were defeated in local elections and in the National Assembly. It seems very clear that Robert Mugabe himself was defeated in the Presidential elections.

Over the past two weeks, the government has refused to accept defeat. Mugabe can literally not believe that the people would prefer anyone without the history of armed struggle to be their leader. The government now plans to delay things still further- first to recount the vote, then to try for a re-run of the first vote- with even more violence and intimidation- and only as a last resort to go to a run-off. Mugabe still believes that the Presidency is his by right and that no one else can take it away- least of all the MDC who might- heaven forbid- try to roll-back some of Mugabe's catastrophic economic policies.

Mugabe has increased violence- sending the twenty and thirty year olds he claims to be veterans of the war that ended in 1980 to evict the few remaining white farmers and ending the last slim chance of any kind of recovery; threatening the ZEC officials and attacking his political rivals. So dangerous is the current position that Morgan Tsvangirai has left the country, hoping as a side effect to personally convince the leaders of Zimabwe's neighbours face to face. Yet Thabo Mbeki refused to meet him, even if Jacob Zuma and Ian a Seretse Khama of Botswana were more supportive.

Mugabe's obsession for power is so deep rooted and- in his view- unchallengeable, that he would rather Zimbabwe was destroyed than that he should hand over power. Yet, perhaps as an old man he might reflect that violence can work both ways, and that if he will not go quietly, there may be those, even close to him who will- quite literally- wield the knife.

Yet at the end of the day the only figure who can deny Mugabe his Manichean obsession for destruction or death is the President of South Africa. He alone has both the influence and the power to liberate Zimbabwe from its tyrant. Unless he chooses to do so, the destruction of the once prosperous and beloved land will become more complete: and the scale could indeed rival Rwanda. Yet Mbeki's record is not good. his quixotic denial of medical evidence on HIV/AIDS, and his occasionally authoritarian statements have not inspired confidence in South African democracy. The monolithic ANC remains rooted- like Mugabe- in its Communist past.

The violence across Zimbabwe is tragic for those who believed in the idea of African freedom- it could be the death knell of specifically South African freedom too. Will President Mbeki speak? Or, will he pass by the other side and leave the abject people of his northern neighbour to rot- with significant consequences inside South Africa itself? The next few days will prove that the situation is not, as Mbeki contends "Manageable".

As blood flows more copiously in Zimbabwe, will the Hamlet of Union Buildings in Pretoria not feel not feel the smallest hint of a bad conscience- because he should.

For those of us watching across the world, will we not feel a slight frisson of fear for the future of South Africa- because, if that country fails this test because of some misplaced camaraderie with Mugabe- we should.

Comments

Newmania said…
Sadaam Hussein ran a dreadful racists despotic and corrupt regime and Liberals seem to have decided that it was nonetheless better than the alternative which is chaos violence . In effect they supported him. Are you starting to think the same thing about Rhodesia ? Seems to me the same case is infinitely stronger in this country.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...