Here is the thing with Mbeki’s fabled “quiet diplomacy”: it has not, does not and will not work.
While Mbeki and his simpering entourage of struggle buddies have been donning their Armani suits and hopping north on their private jets for the last few years, Zimbabwe has steadily accelerated into anarchy under their entrusted watch. As a result of their cronyism and morally corrupt incompetence, we are now getting a small taste of what a failed state on our border is all about.
We have already been subjected to massive illegal immigration from Zimbabwe during the reign of the laughable, Hitleresque buffoon in Harare. It has placed massive strain on our already strained facilities from hospitals to police stations, schools to roads and jobs. While a manageable number of immigrants work hard and add to the economy, an unmanageable number of such immigrants form a desperate human tsunami, swamping the possible good that controlled immigration could offer, leaving destruction in its wake.
It is happening right now on our northern borders. Thousands of people are daily trying to join the millions already here. Massive illegal immigration is creating a refugee crisis that we South Africans can not hope to cope with on our own.
In addition, we now have to deal with a cholera epidemic that is almost certainly going to cross the Limpopo and start infecting and killing South African citizens. We have to deal with refugees that have no option but to turn to crime in order to feed themselves. We have to deal with an international perception that regionally groups us together with Zimbabwe and judges us by their actions. Those that know better have noted our inability to provoke change up north and lump us together anyway. Frankly, we deserve it.
Why are we in this position? We are here because nobody in charge of our country bothered to take the threat seriously when it was obvious what was coming. The media and opposition parties have been hammering on about this fairly obvious outcome for years now. So endless were the warnings and the horror stories that they have faded out into background noise. The ANC government’s response has been to respect the sovereignty of Zimbabwe, respect the leadership of Zimbabwe and respect the rights of those leaders to travel and visit our country and be greeted on the tarmac.
By mutual exclusion, their response has also been to disrespect the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe who did not vote these thugs into power, to disrespect the rules of law and democracy when the sham elections were hammered into shape by Zanu-PF militia and to disrespect the human rights of farmers, farm workers and millions of hungry Zimbabweans. People were beaten and murdered and had their generations of work, their jobs and lives destroyed and were doomed to starvation. We stood by and watched and then we sickeningly prevented the world from taking any kind of action in the UN and ratified their elections.
Seven hundred thousand people were bulldozed out of their homes. That makes Sophiatown and District Six look like a joke, yet how raw are those wounds? We stood by and did nothing and said nothing. Intimidation, beatings and killings are commonplace in Zimbabwe today. There is no free press. There is barely an economy. There is almost no food being produced. There are no viable hospitals. There is no free trade. Our leaders chose to ignore this whilst maintaining the respect for those who are in charge of this diabolical mess.
It is now obvious that without intervention, nothing concrete is going to change in Zimbabwe. Since quiet diplomacy has now thankfully died and gone to bunnyland where it belonged all along, what are the options?
There is, to be blunt, only one option: Zimbabwe needs to have the results of the last contested election enforced. The MDC needs to take power as per the election mandate given by Zimbabwe’s long-suffering people. The MDC will then have to get foreign support; an embarrassing necessity for yet another African disaster imposed on Africans by Africans.
Blaming the West’s actions a hundred years ago and hiding behind some colonial, racial excuse is simply bull. The country was more than viable when Mugabe took over. He had the hopes of the world with him. He killed those hopes along with his own people. It is his fault. It is Zanu-PF’s fault. It is not Tony Blair’s fault. It is not Britain’s fault. A Zimbabwean born, Zimbabwean bred, Zimbabwean megalomaniac has destroyed Zimbabwe. That is the hard, cold truth.
The stability of the region and the upholding of democratic principles and human rights demand change there in a voice so loud that it can now not be ignored.
It is also obvious that this will not happen without some kind of real pressure being imposed on the Mugabe regime to step down. It is also clear that any kind of power sharing deal is simply a joke and will be dominated by Mugabe. This will have dire consequences for Zimbabwe and for its neighbours. There would be no credibility; nothing would really change and quite frankly, Zimbabwe has spoken and they don’t want him any more.
So, since Zimbabweans and the vast majority of SADC’s people all want the same thing, why not implement the following:
One month from now, with the blessing of SADC and the UN, a repentant and suitably humbled South Africa should lead a coalition comprising a significant peace keeping force into Zimbabwe to stabilise the situation there. It should constitute representative troops from every SADC country and any AU country that can spare them. Negotiations should ensure as much prior compliance with the security apparatus and the military of Zimbabwe as possible to prevent open fighting. It is quite likely that under the current climate in Zimbabwe, the military leaders would be happy to make a deal to save their own complicit skins and abandon Mugabe completely at the threat of large-scale, unified military action from multiple states.
The peace keeping force should initially centre in Harare and Bulawayo, and offer protection to the MDC with a mandate to allow the party to take full governmental control of Zimbabwe, starting with those two cities. If Mugabe does not stand down, he should be captured, arrested and tried. If he does stand down, he should be arrested and tried. Why should he be afforded any kind of leniency? People with far shorter rap sheets are waiting in line at the International Criminal Court. He would fit in perfectly. His “struggle credentials” are now a joke. His motives for “struggling” were quite clearly for self-enrichment and the pursuit of absolute personal power. He is an embarrassment to actual struggle heroes and should be exposed as such.
Why has it become necessary to take such radical action? Should we not keep talking? Is military intervention ethically justified? Is this simply an emotional reaction that upon closer scrutiny will prove to be a bad decision?
Contrary to popular belief, governments of countries do not invade other countries for humanitarian reasons. It is often sugarcoated in this way to appeal to the electorate, a fundamentally emotionally charged mass of voters with no real interest in the gritty details of rule or national strategy. There need to be some very real benefits to the invading countries to necessitate such action. The NATO bombing of Serbia, the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the US backed invasion of South Ossetia are all recent examples of action taken purely for overwhelmingly strategic reasons. They were all coated in humanitarian sugar and in some cases there may have even been beneficial humanitarian spin-offs after the fighting and bombing stopped. Strategic gain, however, dominated the decision to invade in all cases.
Going to war is a huge decision and should not be taken lightly, but sometimes the options just run dry. As safe as talking is, it is has proven totally ineffective. SADC have a number of important strategic reasons to validate this action in addition to the compelling humanitarian necessity:
• Invasion for peace keeping reasons would almost certainly have overwhelming international and UN support should South Africa and SADC back the plan. The world is horrified by what is going on in Zimbabwe. The world is further horrified by the South African reaction and lack of condemnation. We are seen as complicit at best. We need to redeem our image in the eyes of the world with concrete action and earn back our respect.
• The regional stability of SADC is threatened. The worse things get in Zimbabwe, the worse things get for SADC countries. The quality of life of all SADC citizens is directly affected by the decline of Zimbabwe. Foreign investment in these lean times will be harder to come by as a result of Zimbabwean catalysed regional instability and the resulting poor image projected abroad. Refugees place enormous strain on the countries receiving them. Zimbabwe’s leadership is dragging us all down during difficult times. We need to stop the rot now.
• The physical well-being, safety and security of the citizens of South Africa is under direct threat from Zimbabwean refugees who are exporting cholera and crime into our country as a result of the collapse of their country. This poses a threat to our own domestic stability. Recent riots and killings are the tip of the potential xenophobic iceberg that will only become visible when the real tsunami hits. It is the mandate of government to protect our citizens from external and internal threat. Zimbabwe is now both. Action needs to be taken. Talking has clearly not worked.
• South Africa is funding the crisis in Zimbabwe directly with taxpayers’ money. We are paying for food aid for starving Zimbabweans. We are supporting millions of Zimbabwean refugees. We are exporting desperately needed electricity, providing urgent and expensive healthcare and we are allocating our resources to prop up an impotent mediation process. We have allowed Mugabe to destroy the economic benefits of a flourishing trading partner on our border. Zimbabwe’s ruin is costing us big money that we need for our own people. There is therefore a huge economic imperative for instituting regime change in Zimbabwe.
• Mugabe has begun to dismantle the working structure of the MDC, kidnapping activists and party figures. If he is successful, there will soon be no viable party to replace Zanu-PF. Removal of Mugabe under those conditions will either be impossible or create a power vacuum and almost certainly a civil war. Mugabe knows that invasion will be forced down the list of options if there is no viable replacement for his government. It is therefore critical to act quickly before he has more time to achieve this objective. The MDC is intact, has been voted into power, is ready to rule and can hardly do any worse than ZANU-PF. It is imperative that they get the chance before they are structurally incapable of doing so.
• It is in South Africa’s local and international interest to project our regional power in a globally acceptable and benevolent but firm way. If we do not do this and somebody else does, Nigeria for example, that country will become the conduit for international negotiation and the gateway to Africa. The benefits of being the portal country to a massive region cannot be underestimated in the context of our foreign policy strategy. We are in a unique position to project an image of a country that upholds universal human rights and democracy – good power. That image landed us 2010. We have not done much in recent years to improve this image, choosing rather to drag it through the filth and dump it in the trash. This is our chance to put things right and gain friends in high places.
• The timing of military action in Zimbabwe could not be better. The Zimbabwean military is unpaid and morale is therefore low. The crisis is getting major international media and condemnation of Mugabe and Zanu-PF is universal. Mbeki has been replaced in South Africa and would provide the ideal scapegoat for our previous indiscretions. Zuma needs a huge boost to his popularity and image both locally and internationally. It is a risk but should it pay off, he will instantly be known as the saviour of Zimbabwe and much less as the corruption king of South Africa.
• Regime change in Zimbabwe is as inevitable as the fall of apartheid was. The sooner it happens, the sooner the rebuilding will begin and the decline will end. The longer we wait, the longer it will take to rebuild Zimbabwe and the greater the problems that we will have to deal with here in South Africa. We have wasted enough time already.
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the security of our country and the well being of our citizens are increasingly coming under threat from the north. As well as having serious humanitarian reasons for catalysing regime change in Zimbabwe, there are some very compelling strategic reasons to do so as well. Those compelling strategic reasons should result in concrete action.
The time for talking is over. The time to act is now.
Mugabe does not negotiate. He manipulates, murders, tortures, lies and steals. We have put up with him for long enough. We do not need any more proof. We need a new neighbour. We need a new neighbour now.
Gerald – Thanks for the link. Here it is for those who want to read it…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122302000.html
In my opinion, it sounds like the desperate pleading of a desperate man in a desperate situation with only one hope left. He knows that the world will not enforce the results of the election his party has won. His are not wise words but the words of someone who has no options left. There are no positives in the agreement for power sharing unless the terms are fully enforced. Mugabe has shown time and again that he does what he likes and not what is required of him. Why would this ‘agreement’ be any different.
The one thing his article does describe is the inability of Zimbabweans to mount their own offensive (Sentletse et al, please take note). As per my original analysis, Zimbabweans are out of options, have no friends worth anything and are now completely at the mercy of this maniac with cholera, AIDS and the police and military killing at will.
In some respects, David Coltart has realised the same thing that this article outlines. Only via SADC demanding compliance with the power sharing deal will anything happen. The difference between he and I is that he possibly believes that the power sharing will work and that a small office with a SADC official in it will be enough to ensure this compliance. I think power sharing will not work and that an armed peacekeeping force will be required to enforce the election result. He is possibly being somewhat realistic to mildly hopeful while I am tending towards idealistic and demanding the impossible from the shirking slug that is SADC even though it is clearly the only solution that would actually work.
Grant.
On what premise is your regime change and/or military invasion based on?
Because to carelessly assume everyone in Zimbabwe or outside of it supports the MDC, or its policies, is not only naïve, but remarkably insensitive to the security and stability of Zimbabwe.
For if it isn’t, cast an eye at Guinea, Rwanda, DRC, Uganda, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan even, and you’ll discover how military-backed manoeuvres are often counter-revolutionary to peace and stability.
And, what of those, like me, who support Zanu-PF?
To be sure, there’s everyone reason to believe those in the invade-Zimbabwe camp, are either neo-imperialists or African atheists, who want to make it abundantly clear that post-liberation African leaders should acquiesce to western or like-minded demands.
(COPE seems to have joined this camp rather early.)
Close to half of the electorate voted for Zanu-PF and Robert Mugabe in the March 2008 elections. So, in your esteemed opinion, do you think, this half, would sit back helplessly if a so-called United Nations peace-keeping force were to literally stroll into Zimbabwe?
Fat chance!
ZANU PF still has plenty of support.
So would the peace and stability you desire across the Limpopo endure if unsolicited military intervention occurs?
Of course it would not. Take a look at Uganda, DRC and Rwanda. These three governments all accuse each other of sponsoring rebel groups to fight illegal wars in their respective countries.
If COPE were to win an election (when pigs fly, that is) the scenario noted above would come to haunt SADC (including South Africa).
Then, the real spectre of the Zimbabwe ‘situation’ affecting South Africa would come to life.
Senteletse, you need to stop your daft knee jerk lashing out every time a white South African like Grant criticizes a so called liberator like Mugabe. Why does such criticism drive you into apoplexy when you are now supposed to be equal, or you would deny white South Africans the same rights of expression their forefathers denied you? I thought being a sufferer of discrimination, you should be the last person to practise it?
Mugabe is a dictator, a buffoon and an embarrassment to all humanity white or black and he should be removed, by force if need be, and that is not a debatable issue. In fact, Mugabe should be captured and taken to the Hague for prosecution and then hanged, and claims that this would be a shame to Africans is utter nonsense. Mugabe does not represent right thinking Africans and he should pay the price as a lesson to all those other “Presidents” who have thrived on impunity and in the process made millions suffer.
It is even more embarrassing and such a crying shame that the Senior people in the South African Govt now propping up Mugabe have forgotten the help and assistance they received from most of Black Africa in the fight to bring down apartheid. It is now their turn and they should step up to the plate and do the right thing, otherwise, they will be having the same problem in South Africa 10 times worse down the road. Zuma already exhibits Mugabe like traits, what will happen once he is power?
This is a very well presented argument; the discussion of the strategic rationale for South Africa and SADC to act militarily now is well thought out, and quite rigorous. My first question was whether South Africa had the troops, but DGS has provided a response already. We have African Union/UN troops in Darfur, in the Eastern Congo, and soon more will be sent to Somalia. Guinea is fluid right now. The numbers in these others places are far fewer than the actual numbers needed to make a real difference. That’s the first concern.
Second, I’m not sure about the idea that the Zimbabwe army will not put up a fight, and that it is possible to secure “prior compliance” with them. If that were accurate, why they haven’t they already stepped in, given the certainty with which people seem to believe that they are ready to abandon Mugabe? That point doesn’t seem to hold.
Thirdly, the recent ICG report indicates that Mugabe has the support of Malaysia and Venezuela, and we know China to be supportive of him as well. Together with Russia and two possible vetoes, we cannot take for granted a UN Security Council backing of any military action by SADC.
Lastly, Mr Walliser, I think you are a little too dismissive, and predictably so, of the bigger historical picture that has led to where things are today. It is in vogue by pretty much everyone with a voice in the mainstream media to focus on the intensity of the now, oblivious of the build-up from the last two decades, in which Zimbabwe functioned in the neoliberal global order which facilitated, sanctioned and rewarded the manner in which Mugabe ran Zimbabwe. This problem has its roots in that history, regardless of the strong temptation to dismiss the global geopolitical atmosphere that made it possible for the problem to fester and get to where we are today.
To argue that this is a purely and locally Zimbabwean and African problem created by Africans themselves is a very fashionable thing to say today, and there’s very little patience for opposing views. But the urgency to solve the crisis right now and not have to worry about the possible ways things might not work out is to repeat mistakes we ought to have learned from by now. A better approach would be to do both: worry about immediate solutions while also being cognizant of the broader picture both historically as well as geopolitically. We know the root causes; they have not gone away because it’s been 100 years. And we know the risks of ignoring history and the current global ideological forces that are pushing certain kinds of solutions on Zimbabwe with well ochestrated agendas hoping to conceal themselves in a mantle Mugabe’s insanity readily provides.
Apart from a coiple of extreme views, Steve Sharra’s comment is 100% spot on. Could the Mail and Guardian’s editors enlighten us a little and explain to us, why the mainstream media chooses not to place the Zimbabwe situation into concise, historical context?
Grant
Thank you for your reply.
I agree with all you say on 24/12 @ 11.55 and have been writing much the same for years.
But at the risk of sounding as if I am arguing for the sake of it, I would except the Zim issue from what we otherwise agree.
The Zim crisis pertains (finally) not to domestic but to SA’s foreign policy. It is impossible to see any SA govt. initiating against a ‘friendly’ African state any action of a kind that would endanger regional stability: the political risks are overwhelming, especially given our military unpreparedness. (That over the last 10 years the ANC also had ideological reasons for doing nothing is too obvious to need stressing.)
Events in Zim have long since taken over from politicians and ‘policy’ and no one, near or close to the crisis, can any longer predict the outcome. As they say, events will now run their course.
For that reason, though I have the highest regard for Coltart, I also find his conclusion mistaken. Out of his own mouth Mugabe has made it clear no administration will be able to do anything, make any changes, or conduct any policy he does not agree with. In addition, no donor will lend financial support to a Mugabe-led govt. In ‘the west’ the gloves have publicly come off.
But, that apart, the insurmountable barrier to Tsvangirai joining the mockery of ‘a govt. of national unity’ is that it would make him, at the same time, both scapegoat and sell-out. The press and others urging this course on him would be the first to turn against him when he ‘failed’, and he and any remaining coherence in the opposition he has led would be destroyed.
Where does this leave SAn policy? Options, if they ever existed, are over. The rational route at this dire hour must be to act to ‘contain’ as far as possible the fall-out of the crisis: to keep our borders open and minister to the refugees we let in (we should have kept back our ZAR300m to care for them and combat cholera here first, unless we have plenty more where that came from);
to build our preparedness for any outbreak of disorder and fighting in Zim or along our borders;
and, withdrawing all further material support for his govt. and working vigorously now to isolate him diplomatically, to wait for Mugabe either to die, to be removed. or for his Zim state to disintegrate.
However terrible this conclusion sounds, all we know is things cannot go on as they are forever.
Gerald Horne
The Iraqis did welcome the invadors with cheers. What went wrong was the peace. The moronic Americans dismantled the police and the civil service and left a vacuum that they could not fill – which got filled first by criminals and then by terrorists. The ANC has done something similar to our civil service and police, for the same reason – they were white and Afrikans AND TRAINED!
Tafi
About 1 million voted for Zanu, about 1 million voted for MDC – and 4-6 million were not allowed to vote because they would have voted MDC. It has been explained many times. You say you support Zanu – are you living in Zimbabwe?
Tafi Mhaka
I agree with what you say, but I still have a difficulty with it.
In a democracy there is obviously no objection to you or anyone supporting Zanu-PF if you choose.
By the same token, there cannot be any objection to people supporting the MDC in a democracy, can there?
The problem more and more people have with Mugabe is that he will not accept that idea. It may be his history, an old-age lack of tolerance or, as many argue, that he is a dictator.
What is clear is that he does not believe in ‘democracy’ unless that means rule by Zanu-PF. Rule by Zanu-PF is what defines ‘democracy’ in his book and Zanu-PF alone represents an abstract collective known as ‘the people’.
Now whether you believe that has nothing to do with supporting COPE or the ANC, with America invading Iraq or any other country, the price of potatoes, the history of the universe, or any other issue.
You either believe that and are a Mugabe-type democratic or you are some other type.
Mr Sharra, much as there are historical problems that have been left to fester for too long from Zimbabwe to South Africa and Kenya, this should not be the excuse for letting our indisciplined and untrustworthy political leadership the room to maneuver and misuse the goodwill of ordinary folks who innocently elect them, a leadership that goes on to entrench themselves in office for personal aggrandizement. Personal aggrandizement is the critical motivation for the vicious leadership contests that bedevil Africa and the real cause of problems from Cape to Cairo. Corruption and greed breeds impunity, which then breeds cruelty and the utter ruthlessness exhibited by the likes of Mugabe and buffoons-in-arms like Zuma.
The idea that you can be removed by force if as a leader you do not behave responsibly, should be a powerful motivating factor in making the malevolent connivers now waiting in the wings of African political corridors to grab power to think twice, and that is why action should be taken against Mugabe yesterday, NOT tomorrow.
@Tafi
Please, please, please explain to me what makes you support Zanu-PF. Tell me exactly what it is that makes you think they are good for Zimbabwe. Is it the 90% unemployment they’ve achieved? Is it the Guiness Book of Records inflation figures? Is it the thousands now affected with cholera? Is it the way they’ve maintained the infrastructure? Is it the farms (with certificates of Governmental non-interest) they’ve stolen from the whites? Is it the fact that half the population is now in the Diaspora? Is it the wonderful example of a leader you have in Mugabe?
Or do you have a nice, fat bank account stashed away somewhere?
I really am interested – I have never been able to comprehend such crass stupidity, so perhaps you can explain it to me? And, at the same time, confirm whether or not you are living in Zimbabwe at the moment.
Steve Sharra – Thanks for an excellent comment.
To answer your points:
Firstly, one simply has to assume that Africa could field more troops than Zimbabwe alone should it come down to a real crisis. They are also better placed to fund it as a group of nations than a bankrupt Zimbabwe is and with international backing they should be able to outlast a Zimbabwean campaign. Whether Africa would practically commit to high troop numbers is the big question and at present I bet it is a resounding “no”.
Secondly, nobody is sure of exactly how the Zimbabwean military complex will respond but we can safely say that thus far they have not been under any kind of threat at all. Amass troops on a border and start talking invasion and the channels might open up quicker than you think. Nobody wants to be caught holding the maps in the bunker at the head of a defeated army and if that looks likely then talk they will.
Thirdly, I agree completely with this point. The way it could be handled though is to trade up with more important issues. The US could back off missile deployment in Poland for Russian co-op on Zim etc. There is always a deal to be struck and at the heart of it, Zimbabwe is not a strategic trump card to any major nation. They are an annoyance in Southern Africa and unfortunately our neighbours. That’s all.
Finally, your argument that Mugabe is somehow a victim of history and circumstance can’t be seriously entertained. Every nation and every person can claim that excuse. It is precisely when Africa finally understands that claiming victim hood makes you victims that they will begin to lift themselves up out of their mess. I dismiss the argument because it brings nothing to the table. It is a pointless claim. Had Mugabe allowed the democratic process to culminate in a change of government in Zimbabwe, there would be no crisis and no need to point to history to explain it. That decision was his alone and is an indictment on the man and his party and the herd of sycophants he keeps around him. Nothing more. Always remember, the Afrikaner had a turbulent violent history at the hands of the British with which to explain away apartheid. Nobody quite rightly entertained that explanation. Why should Zimbabwe and Mugabe be any different?
Anne – re Tafi (and, indeed, millions of people)
You mention all the reasons for not supporting Zanu-PF but leave out the powerful emotion that often trumps all reason:
Loyalty.
Tafi is correct to point to it as another factor that makes military action no certain remedy.
Paul Whelan.
I believe in deomcracy and fairness.
Anne.
The ZANU-PF government is not perfect. Nit-picking at will over the effects of the economic crises won’t mask the fact that the crises affecting Zimbabwe were achievable – if you will – through sanctions supported by the MDC and their western benefactors.
Grant
“Zimbabwe is an annoyance…”
Please.
Is this the Mail and Guardian or what?
Paul Whelan.
How true.
The ideological leanings of ZANU-PF, its policies and ideals are pivotal to its historic and continued contribution to the moulding of the Zimbabwe state.
And, muck like Barack Obama said of John McCain, many people, especially those outside of Zimbabwe, those who have never been to Zimbabwe, or engaged with Zimbabweans – “just don’t get it!”
ZANU-PF’s ideological beliefs are worlds apart from the MDC’s.
Suffice it to say, ZANU-PF has core African ideals, while the MDC, it appears, is severely compromised and totally lacking in this department.
Which is why, in spite of the economic crises, ZANU-PF retains widespread support.
For it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern why the EU or USA (and others) take a keen and inordinate interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.
Tafi – these are my views and not those of the M&G.
Yes, unfortunately Zimbabwe in global strategic terms is little more than an annoyance. Russia’s re-emergence after the Soviet era is a big issue. The Middle East, crucible of the world’s geopolitical plays for oil is a big deal. The global financial crisis is a biggie.
Zimbabwe is a local issue and would be a big global joke in so many ways if it were not such a humanitarian tragedy as well. It is big deal in Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent in SADC because the world judges us by your irredeemable unethical actions. That is why the major players in the world, like the UK who repeatedly get petty insults flying at them from Harare, ignore Mugabe and waft him off like the irritating fly he actually is. You flatter yourself if you think that the world cares who lives or dies in Zimbabwe to a degree beyond fleeting interest.
“The ZANU-PF government is not perfect.” – perhaps the understatement of our short century so far. Perhaps I could ask you to illuminate us, being a staunch ZanuPF supporter yourself, at what point you would turn away from the party? What would it take? Would they have to abduct, torture and murder more people than they already do? Would they have to destroy your once thriving economy further, should that even be possible? What would it take before you stop supporting them and why? What would it take for you to understand that the West is not ruining Zimbabwe nearly as much as Mugabe is?
“ZANU-PF has core African ideals” – ZanuPF has their own political interest and future at heart. They could care less about African ideals or African people. Remember, the people who are suffering most in your Zimbabwe under your party are all Africans. If African ideals involve the support of leaders who murder their people and drive them into unsheltered, diseased starvation then Africa’s problems start to become glaringly clear.
I put it to you that Mugabe has his own agenda in place. The time for liberation of Africa from the colonial oppressor is long gone. We now need to liberate Africa from her own home grown breed of oppressor and for that to become a realty, the people of Africa need to understand that they are no longer under the colonial whip but under their own whip. Start demanding your rights and vote with your head and not your heart and we might get somewhere. Muttering on about liberation and colonialism will get you what you currently have: bad leaders who manipulate your emotions and your cultural identity.
Good luck with that.
That was the most accurate assesment of the Zim crisis I have read. Our family is there suffering and I just don’t think any Zimbabweans can take it anymore. It is sad it has had to come to invasion but it is clearly the only way out now.
Something I would like Tafi to explain to me: why did the extremely onerous sanctions rightly imposed on South Africa not have the effect of turning our country into a failed state, when the minor sanctions imposed only on Mugabe and his cronies are blamed for this in Zimbabwe?
Tafi, in his blind loyalty, believes everything that is fed to him by Mugabe – unbelievably, considering that he obviously has access to views other than those dished out by the laughable Herald.
I notice you don’t answer my other question, Tafi: are you living in Zimbabwe at the moment?
@ Mhaka…you say
1 – “Which is why, in spite of the economic crises, ZANU-PF retains widespread support.”
2 – “For it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern why the EU or USA (and others) take a keen and inordinate interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.”
This “widespread support” is a function of blind ignorance and a consequential propensity to believe anything that comes from a politicians mouth. In any event I suspect that this support is a chimera fostered by a desperate regime
I am not a rocket scientist so please tell me why the “EU and USA (and others” take an interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.
Tafi Mhaka
You have made it clear that you believe in what I called above ‘Mugabe-type democracy’, often called also ‘African democracy’: that is, rule by one party or elite defines ‘democracy’ and – to quote your own words – the ‘ideological leanings, policy and ideals’ of the party ‘are pivotal to the moulding of the state’.
Now you say people outside Zim ‘just don’t get it’, but believe me they are not so foolish. It is just that what you call democracy they call fascism – which illustrates the point I often make that the word ‘democracy’ means different things to different people.
So let us drop talk of ‘democracy’ and look at our problems another way.
Is one-party rule (by Zanu-PF) producing anything that could be called good government in Zimbabwe? – even you, a Zanu-PF supporter, admit it is not perfect.
If it is not, how can it be improved, if everyone takes your position that the govt. cannot and should not be changed?
And though Zanu-PF still retains ‘widespread support’, perhaps we can at least agree it does not enjoy the support it did. How does the party ever accommodate the increasing number of people who do not agree with it and would like to see their govt. changed?
The only answer fascism has is to persecute and crush opposition, since it cannot by definition allow dissent and change. It is fulfilling an historical mission.
The result is an insoluble dilemma for everyone, the ruling party included.
Fascism failed in Europe and Japan last century, after the most devastating war in history, because
there was no way to change things peacefully, and it took endless suffering to do it another way.
That is part of the reason ‘the west’ muscles in all the time now. They have seen it and know where it ends.
Grant and Anne
Mugabe controls the media in Zimbabwe. Zanu also pays people to pervert other media. If Tafi is one of Zanu’s employees – you are wasting your time.
Hi Tafi
I was not aware that close to half of the electorate voted for Zanu-PF and Robert Mugabe in the March 2008 elections, which is why, in spite of the economic crises, ZANU-PF retains widespread support.
While I too, understand that the ZANU-PF government is not perfect, (what government is?), I didn’t understand that the ideological leanings of ZANU-PF, its policies and ideals are pivotal to its historic and continued contribution to the moulding of the Zimbabwe state.
I did not fully appreciate that ZANU-PF has core African ideals, and those who support Zanu-PF believe in democracy and fairness.
It is a great relief to know that Zimbabwe is only experiencing economic difficulties caused by the global financial meltdown, and without the meddling West, the so-called crisis in Zimbabwe would be history.
I can now rest assured that our continuing financial support for ZANU-PF will discharge our moral obligation to address the humanitarian suffering brought about by the USA and EU s’ demands upon the leadership of Zimbabwe, through interference and the wanton disregard for basic diplomatic principles.
Gee, I really thought there was some sort of crisis over there, with all this talk of military invasion and stuff
You have certainly dispelled any misconceptions I might have been labouring under.
Much appreciated, thanks man!
Excellent posts here people.
They are not going to help the people of Zimbabwe but they show just how different our views are and they go a long way to explaining why decisive action to a situation such a this is so difficult.
Well done.
Lyndall, you are so right – there is no point in arguing with people such as Tafi, it’s just a waste of time.
What I object to, as a South African tax payer, is being expected to bail him and his failed government out, and at the same time having to listen to utter rubbish about the west and the rest of us having any motive other than that of not being able to stand by and silently watch the suffering of the Zimbabwean people.
Joe
A small P.S.
These posts are not remotely connected to what action, decisive or otherwise, is taken in Zim.
They are merely comments on the situation.
Action is a matter for SA’s govt. – which means the ANC – and it has chosen to take no action, except to support the sitting govt.
Understanding the Zim tragedy begins with understanding why.
Why oh why does the common sense, the simple, easy-to-grasp, inarguable thinking Grant Walliser doles out mean nothing to the Zanu-PF supporters, or Sentletse Diakanyo et al.? Why? What is really going on here that they mistily and dreamily miss the point? I feel a blog coming on, have to try it from a different angle.Or maybe not. Very few people really care about Zimbabwe anymore I think, in any real way. Her citizens prefer to live in SA anyway.
Rod MacKenzie/Anne
There are different people and different views and different loyalties in the world – that is the answer to your question.
If you do give us a blog on Zim, Rod, it would be interesting to consider a)what can be done in Zim?; b) what is the ‘right’ thing to do (if that is different)?; and c) what are the implications for policy and ‘democracy’ when there is no general agreement on what to do?
Every commentator always assumes that it is ‘obvious’ what to do about Zim. Visibly, it is not.
Now, imagine you were SA president … what would you do?
Also, Anne, it is often useful to argue points with people of different opinions, like Tafi, if only to get straight your own ideas and beliefs by understanding others’.
In this connection perhaps you’ll notice that Tafi has not replied to my last post to him.
Couldn’t agree with you more Paul
I have made my feelings known several times to several people – so rather that re-write it here, I am just leaving the link below.
If it is not there, then it has not yet been approved – or struck out.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/12/27/wrong-mr-mantashe-invasion-of-zimbabwe-is-unnecessary/#comment-65540
Paul,
I agree with you that debating issues with others with different view points is be both enlightening and interesting.
But for me there are some things that are indefensible, like someone trying to justify Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. For me, Mugabe’s treatment of his own people falls into this catagory.
It’s also the concept of ‘having one’s cake and eating it’ that I object to. To demand the right to make a mess of your own country while at the same time expecting others to bail you out, and blaming everyone else for that mess is just not acceptable to me.
Anne
Make no mistake, I share your feelings.
What seems important to understand though is that while it is impossible by now to think of any grounds on which to support Zanu-PF – democratic grounds or grounds of social justice; good governance, hope for a better future or just basic ‘efficiency’; even common humanity and mercy – yet people do support Zanu-PF.
The most frequently heard explanation is that Mugabe is ‘standing up against the west’. But this flies in the face of reason itself when it is one’s own people who are suffering because of the gentleman’s ‘courage’.
Not even fear explains it, because many of Mugabe’s opponents have overcome fear of him.
So it leaves only loyalty. A bit like supporting your soccer team no matter how often it loses – but of course, horribly worse.
The question is, How do you change that?
Paul,
You’ve put your finger on my main objection to democracy. I know it’s the best option, but I’ve always felt that democracy is a very flawed system. Because loyalty is stronger than reason, and if you get enough blind loyalists they force anyone who thinks that reason is more important, when it comes to running a country, to exist under sub standard, and in Zimbabwe’s case, criminal governments.
I had always thought that education was the key – teach people to expect more and question what goes on around them. But then I watch educated people like Michael Trapido picking apart just about every single aspect of the ANC goverment, and yet his loyalty to them is unaffected, he will apparently vote for them no matter what.
Funny that people don’t expect the same loyalty when it comes to marriage – an institution where a promise of loyalty is extracted under oath. In a country with one of the higest divorce rates in the world, it is astonishing that nothing will make our citizens see that loyalty to a government who has failed in just about every aspect is misplaced.
I lived the first half of my life under a hated Nat government, now it seems that I will be forced to live the second half under an inept and greedy one. I will never be able to be proud of what they do, and I see the possiblities of where they are going in the example of Zimbabwe.
It would be interesting to see exactly how many supporters Zanu-PF actually has. I’ve often wondered. They talk about nearly 50% voting for him, but with all the vote rigging, coersion and bribery, I wonder how many truly believe in them? I used to think the only people who did were either Mugabe and his cronies, or those who gain financially. And then we get people like Tafi and others, and my belief in humanity takes yet another knock.
Anne
I wonder if these perspectives might help.
Among countless others, Churchill said something along the lines that democracy is a very imperfect form of govt., but much the best when you consider the alternatives.
The view has much truth in it, but do not stop there. Ask yourself whether southern Africa at this time has ‘democracy’. ‘Democracy’ hasn’t arrived, you know, just because the ANC, or Zanu-PF, or ‘independent’ analysts, or bloggers, keep taking for granted that it has, or because we all keep using the word.
You question how much support Zanu-PF has. But a straight look at the facts shows it is irrelevant how much support Zanu-PF has. Zimbabwe is not a democracy. It is a tyranny.
Back home, the opposing view says that what SA got between 1990-4 was not ‘democracy’, but a possible first step towards it: emancipation – liberty. Just as there are different forms of ‘democracy’, so there are different stages of it, steps on a journey. Things may have far to go before SA acquires ‘democracy’ to a standard that satisfies your hopes of it.
That is the point. ‘Democracy’ isn’t a once-and-for-all gift that the ANC (or anyone else) kindly bestows on ‘the people’. It is a culture – literally, a way of life – that grows slowly out of people’s lived experience.
The vital feature of that culture is not only a moral or spiritual quality ‘the people’ develop, say, a longing for freedom, but also institutional.
The ANC has in many ways weakened the institutional structure of SA’s bright new republic, especially in recent years, when the growing split in the party made both ‘sides’ panic at the prospect of losing the old certainty of power.
There is one very simple reason for this, which almost everyone even now shuns talking about. Through all the years so far, the most important institutional feature of ‘democracy’ has been missing: namely, real opposition – the chance of the people changing their govt. if they choose to. Opposition is the first blow to what all of us have most to fear – an otherwise blind loyalty.
Let us see if we are over, or st least approaching the end of, that stage. But even then, remember no one’s ever achieved ‘democracy’ in the sense of a final achievement, because ‘democracy’ is a permanent work in progress.
There is no perfect state of human affairs; only tyrannies claim to offer paradise on earth.
Democracy is forever just trying to get there.
Thank you – you have given me some hope for the future, and I hope that Cope proves to be the opposition we need in this country. It’s not that I necessarily agree with them, for me it’s still too early to tell what sort of people their leaders are. What is important is that as far as I can tell they are making people question that blind loyalty to the ANC, which must be the first step towards a democracy? I hope it will help to develop that culture of democracy, anyway.
The weakness in the ANC leaders is manifesting in their need to impress with blue lights and huge entourages. It is worrying, because it is a clear sign of the tyranny you speak of. And it is the path to Zimbabwe.
Ditto about cholera but hardly seesa gun in private hands in Zim and crime is low. Is it that all criminals have gone to SA? South Africans can not hide behind Zimbabwe for its crime record:its been like that well before the Zim problems. I am not saying there are contributory factors but just look in the mirror you may find your problems than in Zim. I havent had a gun held to me in Zim for the 40 years I lived there but I have been twice in SA in the two years that I lived there