|
Posted By Khadija Sharife* It makes no difference that Zanu-PF’s
former finance minister turned presidential candidate Simba
Makoni presided over hell as it was being constructed. His
too-late platitudes have already secured for him the perpetually
vacant and august position that the ANC had stealthily been
advertising for years.
Makoni has the experience, skill and knowledge to take Zimbabwe
forward and reconstruct its shattered economy and fragile
relations with the world, for someone will need to help Morgan
Tsvangirai whose main qualification, sadly, is being beaten to a
pulp.
Behind the seeming impasse of South Africa’s (antique) quiet
diplomacy lies a carefully constructed agenda: to allow for a
smooth leadership transition from within Zanu-PF — the preferred
selection of the ANC — in comparison with the MDC, which is
perceived as too strong a union threat to the ruling faction of
our country.
There is the pervasive fear that the trade unions in South
Africa, built up during apartheid to become a formidable
politicised weapon, would feed off the MDC and make a grab at
power.
As we speak, Kgalema Motlanthe of the ANC is one step from power
should Zuma be removed from office.
Mugabe has been at the helm of the most precipitous fall
experienced by any country in the past century; currently,
Zimbabwe stands at just 8,24% percent arable land, 86%
unemployment, an inflation rate of 100 560%, more than 600 000
internally displaced people, over half-a-million refugees and
total lack of healthcare, education, trade and energy
facilities. Environmentally, Zimbabwe has experienced tremendous
desertification, deforestation, soil, air and water pollution,
slash-and-burn agriculture resulting in soil erosion, and
unsustainable mining operations that have contaminated
ecosystems.
The black rhino is severely endangered after liberally having
been placed on the menu as bushmeat, via poaching and recurring
droughts; the borders are surrounded by electric fences from
Zambia to South Africa to Botswana.
April 2005’s Operation Murambatsvina deliberately dismantled the
homes of 700 000 people in regions specifically selected as
“opposition holdings”.
The GDP per capita is less than $500, most people get meals
every other day and 72% of the population lives below the
poverty line.
Yet the exports for 2007 amounted to $1,76-billion, mainly to
the US and China, comprising mined ore.
So what of Tsvangirai, lauded by the US and UK as the next best
thing? It goes without saying that anyone is better than Mugabe,
but is better good enough in the long run?
In 1999, the trade union arm of Zanu-PF broke away, forming the
Movement for Democratic Change.
There are those who say that Morgan Tsvangirai deliberately
pre-empted what he had foreknowledge of — the 2000 land grab,
formulated by the architect of land-policy genocide, aka war
veteran Chenjerai Hunzi, whose nickname was Hitler.
Hunzi was a clever chap who understood (and manipulated) the
depth of Mugabe’s hurt, his isolation and insulation and the
ingratitude accorded to him by a stream of indifferent UK
powers, from Thatcher to Blair, coupled with broken promises
regarding the Lancaster Agreement, in which Britain would fund
the buyout of land in order to create equal distribution.
According to the doctrines of the Lancaster House Agreement of
1979, agreed upon by the relevant negotiators of which Mugabe
was party to, the underlying principle of necessary and
inevitable land distribution would be rooted in “willing buyer,
willing seller”.
Mugabe, the liberator of Zimbabwe and once of the most promising
leaders the African continent would ever witness, later won
1980’s election, becoming president.
Unfortunately, even though Mugabe allowed for Ian Smith to live
on in Zimbabwe, untouched even while Smith waged numerous
campaigns against him, the British never made good on what was a
fundamental and crucial aspect of independence.
In 1992, 12 years after Mugabe stood at the helm of the nation
and 13 years after the Lancaster Agreement came to life, the
majority of arable land was still in the hands of, more or less,
5,6% of the nation.
Following on the basically inert heels of the 1985 Land
Acquisition Act, formulated in the vein of Lancaster, the goal
of the Act created in 1992 was to increase the velocity of land
distribution and to garner tangible and explicit support from
Britain.
But all to no avail. The wealthy farmers waged the war against
the already established compulsory distribution, the British
openly snubbed Mugabe by negating the terms — and Mugabe got
very angry and, in doing so, the victim became the aggressor, as
usually happens; each party parasitically dependent on the
other. In many cases, the lines become blurred when past glory
against oppression translates to present triumph.
In 1998, Mugabe personally supervised phase two of the
land-reform and resettlement programme. The aim was restitution:
balancing unjust acquisition of commercial land from farmers
both black and white; apparently, just like in the new South
Africa, Zim-style BEE made use of black front-liners — what
would be called false fronts in the Old West, a one-storey house
with a face that extends several storeys above, providing the
false impression of a much larger institution or edifice.
Landowners refused to cooperate with the government; Britain did
not press them.
Collectively, the UK was said to have reluctantly contributed
more than $35-million to the process.
Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda spoke of the dismissive manner in which
Thatcher and others dealt with Mugabe’s repeated pleas regarding
the process and the necessity of restoring the funds to buy land
— to meet the prices set by white Zimbabwean landowners, in
reference to the “willing buyer, willing seller” clause.
However, Thatcher was firm in her giving Mugabe the middle
finger, cancelling payments, remaining ambiguously subversive on
the issue and generally warning Mugabe never to discuss the land
issue publicly.
Hunzi initiated discussions with various branches of Zanu-PF.
Prior to the 2000 breakaway, 1999 saw Tsvangirai quickly forging
alliances with the white farmers, minority Ndebele and others
who would be affected by what he knew would be coming: a civil
war.
Mugabe, in a deadlock with the white farmers, decided to throw
in the towel and strap on his boxing gloves. In 2000, he allowed
for word to be given to the military, which would thereafter be
handling the land distribution by force, rape, threats, physical
torture and intimidation.
In truth, the world has largely misunderstood Mugabe, the
Methuselah of African dictators — a man caged less by his lust
for power than by the hubris of his pride. Never was Mugabe
thanked for his sacrifices, never was he fully appreciated for
his statesmanship or his generosity to men who lived their lives
stealing the lives of others, such as Ian Smith.
Mugabe gave and gave until he was bankrupt in every way. Then he
struck back in resentment, anger, rage, all suffused with
bloodied wounds that had not yet healed, forever being salted by
the actions of those who did not appear to recognise the
original sin — the arrogance of apartheid, be it through the
ellipsis of economics or physical occupation..
Instead of a thank you for the graciousness of the once humble
and human Mugabe, the UK responded with a big merry f*** you.
So Mugabe responded with a f*** you of his own, relegating his
countrymen to the status of collateral damage in his quest for
recognition, respect and retribution — by any means necessary.
The ANC and Mbeki understood all of this. For years, the dictum
of quiet diplomacy has been a slow, long and tedious process to
extract Mugabe from the reins of power, replacing him with a
Zanu-PF member who held within his grasp the support of the
party.
Simba Makoni emerged, today — he has the secret support of the
bulk of Zanu-PF members. But there is no doubt that Makoni was
complicit every step of the way; he is not a compromise
candidate but a convenient and necessary tool to stabilise
Southern Africa, stymieing the ripple effects of civil war,
migrations, refugees and a bankrupt nation that slowly but
surely is sinking our corner of the globe.
Mbeki has over the past several years constantly proposed a
unity government with Tsvangirai or Arthur Mutambara at the
helm, with a Zanu-PF representative as second in command.
There are who question whether Tsvangirai, who has already begun
to rule his half of the MDC in totalitarian style, is nothing
more than a political opportunist.
One journalist I interviewed stationed on the South
Africa-Zimbabwe border bubbled with excitement at the thought of
the MDC coming into power.
“They want change, the people want change, change is needed,” he
said. “Tsvangirai has been beaten physically many times, he has
opposed Mugabe.”
That’s it in a nutshell.
It appears that the entire world is under the editorial
direction of just one newspaper when it comes to Zimbabwe; the
media — instead of being a forum for dialogue and discussion —
have served as a conduit to conceal and manufacture one specific
interpretation of events.
Western journalists seem content to ask Tsvangirai Marie-biscuit
questions and it is clear that he already has the backing of the
foreign countries, especially the UK. He has yet to be properly
grilled; he has carefully selected his interviewers, such as
David Frost, who sounded more like a nurse than a journalist.
Unlike Mugabe — who is without his cronies still a very insecure
boy, somewhat whiny, a bookish leader surrounded by brawny
sycophants ready to carry out his every bid — Tsvangirai
operates more from a state of calculating instinct.
Key members from within the MDC claim dictatorship-style rule
courtesy of Tsvangirai has already begun.
Lucy Matibenga, MDC secretary for women’s affairs, claims that
Tsvangirai was in the process of replacing her with a close
friend’s wife who lacked the necessary skills.
“If we cannot hear dissenting voices from the party and its
members [MDC] whilst we are in opposition, I shudder to think
what will happen when we are further up the road.”
But others place huge trust in Tsvangirai; another journalist,
Iman Rappetti of e.tv, stationed on the South African border,
said: “No way are the MDC compromise candidates. Change is
coming; if not, there may be Kenyan-style violence.
“The people are exhausted; there is no healthcare, no education,
no trade, energy crisis; so they have expressed themselves
politically.
“Mugabe is power-hungry; the delay in releasing electoral
results is buying time for Mugabe. They are stealing the
elections.”
Not difficult to do (or believe) considering that the Registrar
General, Tobaiwa Mudede, is Mugabe’s nephew.
So the case has been presented as one that is for Zimbabwe and
against Mugabe, but to what extent is it a distortion of
reality?
According to Adam Habib, political analyst: “There are two
perspectives. The first is that the MDC is perceived as
grassroots leadership; the second assumption by some is that the
MDC has links to foreign powers, the US and UK with the
perspective that the MDC is the foreign ‘alternative candidate’.
“People can find evidence within the MDC for whichever
perspective they want to hold.
“The policy of quite diplomacy has not worked. Mugabe has been
wily, undermined possible alternatives who may have arisen from
within Zanu-PF; South Africa has been trying to facilitate
change through Mugabe’s exit for years. The agenda has been to
get him out.”
On Makoni, Habib said: “Simba Makoni is not the ideal candidate.
Zanu-PF requires someone who can ensure that the transition is
smooth and that the party remains intact. Not the case with
Makoni.”
My personal favorite is Arthur Mutambara, one-half president of
the one-half MDC faction. Mutambara is a serious brain,
articulate and comfortable discussing future growth and
development as opposed to future (and further) stifling of
dissent — from whichever direction it may come.
If Mugabe slaughtered a nation out of a sense of righteousness
transmogrified as pride, then Tsvangirai is equally capable of
using a nation for gain, be it in power or any other vector.
Tsvangirai is, after all, the man who does not recognise the
other half of the MDC faction. His actions reveal much of his
nature.
But the future is fluid and, of course, it can only get better
for Zimbabwe.
*Khadija Sharife is a
22-year-old freelance journalist,
musician and the Deputy Director of
the Phoenix Environmental Institute.
Her works appear frequently on
international media and journals
including South Africa's M & G
publications to which she has reserved
accreditation. More of Khadija's
articles are available on her blog at
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/khadijasharife
. |
