Yes, I said dictator. Robert Mugabe had the chance to be a statesman - that time passed 8 years ago. He was a freedom fighter, widely and justifiably admired for freeing Zimbabwe from the oppressive white-dominated rule of Ian Smith.
But he has failed since then and hence disappointed right-thinking black people of conscience around the world. He's just turned into another petty, cruel, embarassing African dictator- freedom fighter turned horrible stereotype.
As I listen to the radio call-in program right now, one of the so-called 'Pan-Africanist' Mugabe apologists is trying to wrestle Tony Marshall into an ideological corner, arguing "wouldn't you agree that Robert Mugabe has done a lot for Zimbabwe" and then trying to justify his seizure of the white-owned farms in 2000 that, in many people's eyes, started the whole ball rolling.
Depending on where you stand, it brought down the wrath of racist white super-powers on him and Zimbabwe and they in turn started supporting the 'puppet' Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai OR it was the start of an oppressive and desperate time in Zimbabwean history where Mugabe used that and other ruses to hold onto power.
But I argue differently. The farm seizures were merely a red herring and I saw that from as far back as 2000. Mugabe never gave a shit about returning land seized during colonial times to black Zimbabweans, ok?
The real tipping point for Zimbabwe's descent into hell was in February 2000 when they held a referendum, that while it made minor news around the world, did not capture the headlines the way the farm seizures that started a few days later did. But I noticed it. And when the land seizures started, I saw it for what it was. So the real deal...
In February 2000, the ZANU-PF administration held a referendum they were widely expected to win. From the archives of the World Socialist Website (the first archive reference I could find to the referendum - like I said, it wasn't big news then):
Zimbabwe: Referendum defeat for Mugabe shakes Zanu-PF government
By Barbara Slaughter and Stuart Nolan
22 February 2000
Last week voters in Zimbabwe rejected the new constitution being proposed by President Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF). In a result that surprised most commentators, the vote was 578,000 in favour of the new constitution and 697,754 against. Turnout was low at just over 20 percent. Voters in the cities, like Harare and Bulawayo, voted No by three to one, whilst in the rural heartlands that were expected to vote Yes there were widespread abstentions.
Mugabe has declared that he will "abide by the will of the people". In an interview on the BBC, a spokesman for Zanu-PF said of the Mugabe presidency, "He shall rule this country for as long as he likes." But the vote was a huge blow to the party that has ruled Zimbabwe since independence in 1980.
In recent years there has been widespread opposition to Mugabe's authoritarian rule. Taking place in the run-up to parliamentary elections in April, the No vote in the referendum has been widely interpreted as a plebiscite on the Zanu-PF government and Mugabe's leadership.
Indeed it was. Referendums are funny that way. Often the people's rejection of a referendum is not so much a rejection of the issue at hand, but of the government of the day. The Bahamians rejected a perfectly reasonable referendum on women's rights in March 2002 and rejected Hubert Ingraham's Free National Movement in general elections three months later.
Mugabe saw the writing on the wall. Zimbabweans were pissed off with them, even though as the WSWS report indicates, he offered a 'sweetener' for them.
The proposed constitutional change was Mugabe's authoritarian response to the crisis facing his regime. Zanu-PF's propaganda declared that the new constitution was a final break with colonialism. Invoking Mugabe's national liberation credentials, they said that the No voters were "sell-out Zimbabweans" who wanted to retain a colonial-style constitution.
The main provision of the draft constitution was to strengthen Mugabe's grip on the presidency. Under the present constitution he should step down in two years time, when his current term expires. The proposed change would have limited future presidents to two terms, but as it was not retroactive, Mugabe could have stood for another two terms. The draft constitution would also have made his government and military officials immune from prosecution for any illegal acts committed while in office.
Mugabe added a clause empowering the government to seize land held by white farmers, demanding that the British government pay compensation. This was a ploy to win the support of the rural masses, whose land was stolen during the colonial era. The voters did not believe him, however. Since independence, and despite the enormous sacrifices made in the struggle against British colonial rule, the land redistribution promised has not materialised. More than 6 million black Zimbabweans are crowded into barren communal areas. The few transfers that have taken place have gifted the most fertile land to Zanu-PF officials and their relatives.
Unlike Ingraham, Mugabe was not about to go down like that. He saw the writing on the wall and used the land seizures as a cover for his greater aim - to hold power. He knew his standing and reputation within the Pan-Africanist and liberation movement. He knew that a simple power-grab would be too obvious, too blatant. He needed an enemy to frame himself against and an excuse for oppressing his own people. Hence, he painted it as a black-white, colonialist vs. liberationists issue.
But it never was. Mugabe has subverted the true intentions of the Pan-Africanist movement and is not worthy to join the (admittedly small) club of true liberator-statesmen such as Nelson Mandela and Julius Nyerere. He could have been a statesman. but instead he has put himself firmly in the company of African despots a la Sani Abacha and many others.
Moreover, he has brought disgrace to the Pan-African movement. These mealy-mouthed Pan-Africanists who run around defending him as if they are caught in some time warp where Mugabe is still a noble freedom fighter or some reality warp where Mugabe really gives a damn about his own people, SHOULD BE ASHAMED! Yes, I'm looking at you David Commissiong- you and your ilk. How can you claim to be a Pan-Africanist and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the cruelty, privation and oppression that is REALLY being inflicted on African brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe? How can you ignore the people because you are so enamoured of the leader? Do you have no concept of what democracy is? If a black man is in charge, is that all it takes to be ok with you? Can you not see when black people treat their own abominably?
SHAME ON YOU!
*whew* I wanted to get this out for a long time - thank God for blogs...
0 comments:
Post a Comment