Zimbabwe Review

Reflections on Zimbabwe

Archive for May, 2008

Britain’s diplomatic ineptitude in Africa

Posted by CM on May 25, 2008

by Chido Makunike

The article about Malloch Brown in The Guardian’s May 9 edition (Malloch-Brown’s vision for Africa: having an aid policy is not enough) shows what is so wrong with Britain’s general engagement with Africa.

Malloch Brown may be the UK’s grandly titled “foreign office minister for Africa, Asia and the UN,” but it is not for him to have “a vision for Africa.” Someone please kindly tell his lordship that the idea of a British “vision” for Africa is outdated by, oh, about 50 years. That is what the end of colonialism was about, for natives to do their own visioning! That the process is wrenching and difficult does not at all alter the desire of people all over the world to determine their own destiny.

Interestingly, within hours of its initial appearance, the heading of the article was changed to From the UN to Whitehall, with a will to change our view of Africa. Perhaps someone at The Guardian or at Whitehall noticed just how patronising the original heading was.

Malloch Brown seems to think his title is an excuse to think and talk like a British colonial governor of old. Alas Lord Malloch Brown, I doubt that the natives today will take kindly to this. I am one native who does not.

The article mentions Zimbabwe as “the immediate preoccupation.” Whose? If the suggestion is that it is Britain’s special “pre-occupation,” that is utter nonsense, and a sign of how successive British governments have failed to get over a patronising colonial hangover with regards to Africa.

The Guardian says, “Britain, as the former colonial power, has to tread delicately.” The emotional British political and media frenzy over Zimbabwe in the last few weeks hardly qualifies as treading lightly. Zimbabwe is in deep distress but it is no longer Britain’s particular responsibility. British concern over events in Zimbabwe should not go beyond that of any other member of the world community of nations. It should not be that of a mother hen-picking a recalcitrant child.

Malloch Brown holds forth on Zimbabwe’s recent controversial election. In arguing for a run off election between Mugabe and Tsvangirai, which the opposition leader has now accented to, Malloch Brown makes the valid point that because of the closeness of the presidential election’s results, a run off would hopefully produce a decisive winner, “to prevent a weak compromise government.” He then shockingly goes on to pick sides with “the cleanest way is for a second round that gives a decisive victory to the opposition, which seems the likely result.”

That may indeed be the likely result, but in what capacity is Malloch Brown, an appointee of a foreign government, showing a partisan hand like this? Is this an example of Britain treading lightly? This is shoddy from someone who earlier in the article speaks somewhat boastfully of his international experience at the UN. Regardless of Malloch Brown’s or official Britain’s preferred Zimbabwean ruler, surely they should limit any comments to a process that gives a decisive victory to the Zimbabwean people by enabling them to make their choice freely and having it respected. That choice may well be, and probably would be for the opposition but it is not Malloch Brown’s business to say so.

That Britain cannot stand Mugabe is no secret. Malloch Brown is probably not far off when he guesses that “true support for the MDC is running at 75%.” But how is that Malloch Brown’s business? Particularly given Britain’s unhappy engagement with Zimbabwe and Rhodesia before it, it is hard to see any way in which his haughtily speaking of the country’s electoral mess from the vantage point of a colonial administrator discussing events in a territory he governs helps. Not only is this an inappropriate role for the official of a foreign country, it is just such unhelpful comments from British officials over the years that have so compromised Tsvangirai and the MDC. One does not have to be a supporter of Mugabe’s to find Malloch Brown’s whole tone offensive, as I do as a Zimbabwean.

Malloch Brown says Southern African leaders “probably” have a better finger on the pulse than Britain does. Those leaders have fumbled helplessly over how to assist in trying to help prevent Zimbabwe’s implosion. But Malloch Brown’s casual insult disguised as a back-handed compliment is rich, given Britain’s long and continuing diplomatic ineptitude towards Zimbabwe. Whatever the Southern African leaders’ faults, they certainly do not suffer from the colossal British failure to understand African sensibilities in regards to Zimbabwe. That failure includes not being able to distinguish between the antipathies of many Zimbabweans to their ruler from a desire to determine their own fate without interference from other countries, least of all ex-colonial master Britain.

If his job is primarily that of a diplomat handling his country’s relations with other countries, it is hard to see how Malloch Brown’s comments and whole attitude can do that in regards to Zimbabwe. That attitude is why Britain’s levels of goodwill and influence in Africa do not match the level of “help” it renders.

Britain’s bond with its African ex-colonies has left enough in common between the two sides that in the post-colonial era could have been cultivated to build positive, mutually beneficial relations. That this has not happened is partly a result of Britain’s surprising failure to learn to deal with those countries in ways that foster genuinely good relations built on mutual respect even when there are areas of disagreement.

Added to the failure of many African countries to “grow up” into the responsibilities of self-determination has been Britain’s failure to get beyond thinking of Africans as still being under its charge. Even a supposedly enlightened “Africa hand” like Malloch Brown shows this attitude, which has helped make relative Johnny-come-lately China leapfrog over countries like Britain in its diplomatic and increasingly commercial relations with Africa. Despite all the unknowns of the developing ties with China, African countries have embraced relations with a country which is so much “stranger” to them than Britain partly because of how they chafe at Britain’s continuing nanny attitude.

Having no small role in the history of countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe that has partly contributed to their present-day turmoil, Britain largely fails to influence developments in them positively. The Guardian refers to frustration, apparently by bwana Malloch Brown, “that Zimbabwe is hindering a repositioning of Africa in the eyes of the west, as not just being this broken problem, this dependency region of catastrophe, aid and climate change.”

One wonders how much Malloch Brown has his finger on the pulse if he attributes Africa’s image in the Western mind, developed over centuries of stereotypes, to Zimbabwe’s travails of the last few years. Many elements of the turmoil in Zimbabwe are unfortunately the “normal” state of being in many African countries, though for some reason without quite the same level of British “concern” such as that purportedly being shown by his lordship for the oppressed Zimbabweans. The unusual levels of cynical British “concern” for Zimbabwe belie Malloch Brown’s contention in The Guardian’s article that “the dispute is no longer seen as between Mugabe and the colonial power, but between Mugabe and the world.”

In terms of image, Mugabe has increasingly become his own worst enemy, but the thinking of official Britain exemplified by Malloch Brown’s blatantly partisan and interfering comments leave one in no doubt that it has “concerns” in regards to Zimbabwe that go beyond the neutral, the benevolent and the humanitarian. To make that so apparent, as Malloch Brown does, is merely the latest example of the kind of diplomatic ineptitude that has helped leave Britain with little or none of the kind of leverage it would wish to have in Zimbabwe and others of its former colonies.

Perhaps if Britain tried much harder to get its finger on the African pulse it might have better relations with the natives, thereby also serving its interests better than even throwing aid money in order to buy influence has been able to do.

Advertisements

Posted in Politics | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

The complexities of Zimbabwe

Posted by CM on May 2, 2008

by Chido Makunike*

A month after Zimbabwe’s March 29 elections, the winner of the presidential poll remains unknown. The delay adds considerable additional complexity to the many undercurrents of the country’s problems.

By virtue of the suspicious, poorly explained delay in announcing who won the presidential poll, the authorities in Harare have ensured that the only outcome that will be widely believed by a sceptical world would be one in which main opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai emerged the winner. Any other result would be widely dismissed as what the authorities were “fixing” to produce a favourable outcome for President Robert Mugabe in the time since the election.

Even a close result requiring a run-off election between Mugabe and Tsvangirai would be seen by many as engineered to give the ruling party a second chance to mobilise the state machinery to do whatever it took to ensure the “right” result for him. Yet the results delay and whatever other gambits the authorities are likely to serve up arguably can no longer serve to impart even the veneer of electoral legitimacy on Mugabe.

It would be one of many recent defeats for Mugabe to resort to out rightly thwarting the electoral will of the people. But he does nevertheless need a façade of democracy. He has often responded to his Western critics by saying they have no authority to chide him on the basis of his democratic credentials. “We brought democracy at independence in spite of Western support for the racist, anti-democratic government we replaced” has been his argument. He points out that by the measure of regularly held elections, Zimbabwe is far more democratic than many other countries that are in much better books with the Western world than it is.

Mugabe makes this point to bolster his argument that Western opposition to him is not because of any concern for the welfare of Zimbabweans, but is due to his stinging criticism of the double standards of the West, as well as his refusal to be compliant with Western expectations of how an African leader should conduct himself. It is precisely Mugabe’s fearlessly expressed, hard-to-fault arguments about the West’s relations with the rest of the world that makes him such a hero to many in Africa and beyond, even as Zimbabweans have suffered steep economic decline and increasing repression at home.

If the veneer of democratic legitimacy such as that imparted by regularly scheduled elections, no matter how flawed, has always been so important to Mugabe, why would he seem to risk throwing it all away now? Whatever the presidential results will show when released, the opposition MDC’s unprecedented win of a majority in the concurrently held parliamentary election is a convincing indication of the level of disaffection with the rule of Mugabe’s ZANU-PF. His actions since March 29 do not at all suggest a man who respects the right of the voters to choose their leaders.

For the three election cycles up to the mid 1990s, Mugabe’s desire for the perception of a strict adherence to at least the forms of electoral democracy, if not the substance, was relatively easy to achieve. Independence-era euphoria and “gratitude” may have been lifting with every election, but until about then, Mugabe could count on genuine popularity to make his party’s re-elections a foregone conclusion. Mugabe has now shown that his dedication to those electoral forms is not quite so strong after all, now that the evidence suggests a likely majority of the electorate want him gone.

Merely conducting an election cannot bestow democratic legitimacy when it is clear that the only results that will be respected are those in which the incumbent wins. By so awkwardly making this obvious, Mugabe’s government has trapped itself into the equally unhealthy situation in which much of the Zimbabwean electorate and the world would now only believe a result which showed Mugabe losing. This has made “the Zimbabwe crisis” take on a dimension far beyond what can be resolved by the much anticipated release of the results of the presidential poll.

The desire to hold on to power and privilege, and fear of prosecution for past crimes are the usually discussed reasons for Mugabe and ZANU-PF conducting themselves with so little dignity in the face of evidence of an electorate earthquake of rejection against them. But genuine revulsion at what Tsvangirai and the MDC are perceived to represent is no doubt also part of the intransigence of Mugabe & Company in conceding defeat.

There is a self-serving element to Mugabe’s painting of the MDC as stooges of the West who are bent on reversing the efforts to have Zimbabwe’s political independence also have economic teeth for its citizens. Yet Tsvangirai and the MDC have ineptly only fuelled these suspicions in their words and deeds over the years. Mugabe and ZANU-PF in turn have largely failed to convince a majority of Zimbabweans that the claimed slavishness of the MDC to their Western backers is the reason their country is in such poor shape. Mugabe & Co. may genuinely worry that Tsvangirai and the MDC wish to “sell out” the country to the West and “reverse the gains of the revolution” by restoring the economic dominance of whites in commercial agriculture and other sectors of the economy.

But if so, electoral democracy required that Mugabe sold that message to the electorate more convincingly than the MDC made its pitch of a need for change and renewal. The MDC has arguably won that battle for the hearts and minds of Zimbabweans, helped considerably by the country’s desperate economic state under Mugabe.

Instead of accepting his failure to sell his message of “Things are bad because we are besieged by powerful external foes, stick with me while I work out a plan to thwart them and improve things,” Mugabe has instead arrogantly chosen to accuse the electorate of not fully understanding what was at stake. His stance is essentially that the electorate are mistaken to buy Tsvangirai’s message and reject his. And if he can get away with it, he seems inclined to “correct” the misguided electorate by hanging on in power regardless of the popular will!

Yet the price one must pay for accepting a system of electoral democracy is to respect the will of the people even if one believes that will to be wrong. You then revert to opposition, sharpening your message for the next election. The current impasse is partly because of the refusal of Mugabe & Co. to respect this rule of the game because for the first time its result has been unfavourable to them.

The MDC had begun to make inroads into reversing the suspicion with which it was regarded in many African capitals by a belated diplomatic outreach to them. Those efforts have in recent weeks become compromised again by the over-the- top eagerness of the Western political establishment and media to take sides in the Zimbabwean election. In the days leading up to the election, and since then, the Western political and media establishment abandoned all pretence of merely being onlookers who were just interested in seeing that Zimbabweans were able to freely exercise their vote. Zimbabwe’s economic, political and humanitarian problems are severe enough, but the Western media, particularly that of ex-colonial master Britain, went into an absolute frenzy to depict the country as a virtual war zone.

Whether or not it was a coordinated campaign to give Mugabe that has made it so easy for the West to come to hate him the decisive final push out of power, in their shrillness the Western political and media establishment only served to give credence to Mugabe’s long-held claim of a Western conspiracy to depose him for not being pliable in the mould of most African leaders. Britain had kept a relative distance in the months leading up to the election, correctly fearing that any unusual interest would be used by Mugabe as proof of its dishonourable neo-colonialist intentions. But at the time of the election and immediately after,

Britain seemed to smell Mugabe’s blood and lost all self-restraint in the excitement of the prospect of seeing its old nemesis gone. It was almost as if Britain were so certain of Mugabe being deposed that it no long felt the need to maintain the façade of being a neutral observer.

Western shrillness has only grown since the election, with the Zimbabwean authorities also feeding it by the astonishing games over the election results, as well as the jailing of some Western journalists for slipping into the country to report on the election without getting accreditation to do so under the country’s tight media laws. But the effect of all this has been to justify the paranoia of the Zimbabwean authorities about a claimed coordinated Western “regime change” agenda.

Such an agenda could not justify the flouting of the popular electoral will, but it is not much of a stretch to guess that the unseemly eagerness of the West to interfere in and influence the election against him would only have made Mugabe and his whole political machinery feel inclined to dig in even in defiance of the voters. It is therefore quite plausible to speculate that the Western eagerness to “help” the MDC to ensure Mugabe’s exit may in the short term have served to do the exact opposite.

In the immediate term the desire of the West to see the back of a troublesome-to-them Mugabe probably overlaps with the wishes of many Zimbabweans who put the blame for the political repression and economic hardships in their country squarely at Mugabe’s door. But it is not at all certain that those similar desires perfectly coincide. Neither Britain nor the US have an honourable history in regards to Zimbabwe, so their posing as great champions of democracy and defenders of its peoples’ best interests have a hollow ring.

Mugabe has indeed degenerated into a despot who has refused to accept any responsibility for his country’s mess. But he is no worse a ruler than many others who dare not point out the West’s double standards and who are quite happy to have their countries be client states in return for being absolved of scrutiny over their governance records. Therefore the West and the Zimbabwean citizenry want a change from Mugabe for likely very different reasons.

If Mugabe somehow survives the electoral and diplomatic onslaughts against him and hangs on for several more years, the ill-advised Western intervention on behalf of the MDC would provide him considerable ammunition against the opposition party. This may make little difference to the voters’ feelings towards him if economic decline and hardship continue, as is likely to be the case in a situation where the Western world would be even more resolute in closing doors off to Mugabe’s government. Yet if Mugabe were able to stem the slide, say by paying serious attention to improved agricultural productivity, he might well be able to say “you saw how the Westerners behaved during the 2008 election; their conspiracy against me was not a figment of my imagination.”

With the economy continuing on its present slide, few outside his immediate circle and the die-hards in his party would listen to this argument. But with even modest stabilization, his idea of radical land redistribution remains popular enough amongst even his opponents that the argument could gain political currency to his benefit and at the expense of the MDC.

Even if Tsvangirai and the MDC assume office, their doing so with such open support for it as the West has shown will be a double edged sword. If the expected massive Western financial support flows in a way that quickly results in a stabilization of the economy that is widely felt at the grassroots, the whiff of the suspicion of the MDC having agreed to be “stooges” in return for Western support would be neutralised, at least in the short term. The need for a return to economic stability is probably the one issue that unites people across the country’s criss-crossing political divides.

But in the absence of either quick or widely-felt economic recovery, the tag of “Western stooge” around the necks of Tsvangirai and the MDC could remain a potent political weapon in the hands of a ZANU-PF that no longer dominates parliament, but nevertheless has only a handful fewer seats than the MDC. This assumes that ZANU-PF adjusts to being a minority party without disintegrating, which in turn also depends on how successfully they can choose a leader to fill Mugabe’s very large shoes. Without dramatic economic recovery, ZANU-PF in opposition could remain a formidable thorn in an MDC government’s flesh, with its Western backing becoming more of an albatross to it than a blessing.

Having won a majority, the MDC has not spent much time contesting the legitimacy of the parliamentary results. If they are considered to be a true reflection of the electoral will, it is astonishing that the ruling ZANU-PF did as well as it did, winning almost half of the popular vote and the number of parliamentary seats. With the rate of inflation said to be close to 200,000% and virtually every other economic index being strongly negative, one would have expected the ruling party to have been electorally wiped out.

Herein lie some of the nuances of the Zimbabwean crisis that much of the media we are exposed to is either oblivious of or simply not interested in relating. Mugabe has increasingly become repressive, he has been a brilliant ideologue but a very poor manager and he has simply stayed in power longer than was advisable for his own legacy. But his broad message of an unapologetic, assertively expressed desire for African empowerment retains its appeal and has led to a sea change in how black Zimbabweans think about what their independence should mean.

To say many and probably most Zimbabweans want Mugabe to step aside is not the same as saying his ideas have been largely rejected by them. For example, most would want his flawed land reform effort to be fixed to work, not for it to be reversed. The MDC was slow to understand this and other nuances of Mugabe’s complex legacy, losing it precious early time and support in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. Now the opposition party is careful to say it would not return land to its previous white occupiers, but would make sure it was productively used by the new black landholders. It remains to be seen if the MDC’s Western backers understand these nuances and would it to negotiate the minefield of balancing the need for reviving the economy with the political imperative of a strong desire for African empowerment that will remain one of Mugabe’s strongest legacies despite his failure to translate that desire into concrete, practical reality.

There has been talk of a Kenya-like ‘government of national unity.’ Both sides naturally posture against it. It may still be emerge as the immediate way out of the present crisis. But as in Kenya, such a compromise solution robs whoever the winner is of the spoils of electoral victory. When the game is played, all the participants are fully aware that they could lose by a mere handful of votes.

Whether in Kenya or Zimbabwe, another potential flaw of a GNU is to rob the electorate of two or more competing visions of how their country should be ruled. It may avoid conflict in the short term, but it also effectively allows political parties to put aside their competition for power because the GNU allows all of them a chance at the feeding trough. There is also

the potential of them collectively ganging up against the citizens they usually claim are their whole reason for being.

Resolving the current impasse is undoubtedly the most urgent order of business in Zimbabwe. But the country’s tortured and violent history, the cynical external interests seeking to exert their influence for their own ends, the huge ideological gulf between the two main political parties and the closeness of the results announced so far suggest that whichever way the immediate crisis is resolved, there is much difficult long term ahead to getting Zimbabwe back on a track of political stability, psychic healing and economic growth.

*article originally published on Pambazuka News, May 01 2008)

Posted in 1 | Leave a Comment »