“We hope the transition will be a peaceful one, relatively peaceful, and that Mr Mugabe will step down with dignity, gracefully.” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Desmond Tutu, in his uncompromised integrity, has continually called for peace and unity in Zimbabwe. His latest call, however, begs the questions of what exactly a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe would be, and to what extent peace is a trade-off with justice. What is justice in a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe? What is healing? What is necessary? What is possible? What is fair?
What will happen?
With the dust not settled but rather fiercely swirling, and the Zimbabwean election picture far from complete, the question of post-Mugabe strategies may seem just a little premature — but the day after a Zanu-PF stranglehold (if not the day after Mugabe’s) is definitely here with a majority MDC Parliament already declared. I think it is imperative that Zimbabweans everywhere, particularly those at home, consider the past 28 years, what needs to be built upon and what needs to be overcome, and how.
The past 28 years of Zimbabwean politics have been characterised by the oppressive rule of a single party. From the party’s inception, Zanu-PF’s opposition has routinely been treated with contempt.
The “alleged” murder of Josiah Tongogara to pave the way for a Mugabe presidency; the mass genocide of the Ndebele people in Gukurahundi; the violence of the farm invasions and, most recently, the suppression and torture of the MDC supporters with Morgan Tsvangirai himself being threatened, arrested and beaten — Mugabe’s track record, as well as those of his cronies, points to an violent, totalitarian regime that has reacted with brutal uncompromising force to everything vaguely perceived to be opposition.
Zimbabwe’s situation may not be dissimilar to that encountered in post-Saddam Iraq and even post-apartheid South Africa. In 1980, Zimbabwe itself faced something of the same in the transition from Ian Smith’s minority white rule to Mugabe’s new-hope, united state.
It is possible that the transition to a truly democratic Zimbabwe may be even more traumatic than the transfer of power from a minority white rule to a “majority” rule in 1980. The latter took place in a period of economic strength and agricultural abundance and power was gained from an acknowledged enemy. Here, Zimbabwe’s infrastructure is dilapidated at best; in decay at worst. Zimbabweans face internal political conflict but in a climate of economic collapse, hyperinflation and with a physically starving and a morally, emotionally and politically disillusioned population. A new and novice Zimbabwean government has a plethora of challenges to face: Is justice for a 28-year tyranny one of them?
In any event, who would be the beneficiaries of such justice, and what penalties would be extracted from whom? Individuals? Organisations? Corporations? Mugabe himself? All have been complicit — to greater and lesser extents — in the human rights atrocities against Zimbabwean people. The assumption, too, is that the new Parliament (and possibly new president) will inherit the current military, police and prison infrastructure in its entirety. These state organs have spearheaded much of the human rights abuse that preceded the previous and current elections, with the MDC and its supporters the primary victims. The new government will have to decide to what extent new and positive change can occur using old, corrupt and painfully culpable machinery.
As I see it, there are three broad options:
The first option is to live and let live. This basically amounts to ignoring the past, or at least not prioritising retrospective action in the face of the possibly more pressing social and economic challenges that face Zimbabwean leaders. This option will bring a certain (if unstable) peace, but to what extent does it do duty to justice? I fear this “justice” will be carried out by the public, should some political solution not be proposed. Perhaps not immediately, perhaps not even soon, but the scarred psyches of the Zimbabwean people will be revealed later, perhaps in violent crime reminiscent of post-apartheid South Africa.
Is brutal retaliation firmly entrenched in the Zimbabwean political psyche? If so, the second option in a post-Mugabe era is something of a witch-hunt in retaliation to the violent political persecution that has characterised his regime. Would such a witch-hunt exacerbate tensions as opposed to reliving them?
The third option is something in-between. This could take a number of forms — from legal prosecution of Mugabe and other Zanu-PF leaders linked to human rights abuses to a more wide-reaching and broad-based national reconciliation process. Retributive, restorative and transitional examples of justice abound. All are open to the new Parliament. This option presents the best possibility for both justice and peace, but the way such a process is approached is critical to its impact.
It is easy to say that revenge is best served cold, and perhaps even easier to advise a turning of the other cheek. In between are myriad options, each posing potential practical or ideological challenges. A new government will need a delicately balanced combination of moral fortitude, economic savvy and political astuteness — a tough ask in any context — and must balance recovery and reparations, peace-making and justice.
This blog has asked more questions than it has answered. For me, this is perhaps my most important contribution to the discussions on Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans everywhere need to start asking questions about their future: not only questions about when Mugabe will go, but also interrogating what we will do then.
Bryony Green is a hopeful Zimbabwean, excited at the possibilities for her country. She is (in no particular order) an eternal student, an avid cricket fan, interested in student politics and a freelance writer. Currently, her “real” job is studying towards an MPhil in development studies at Oxford University
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am and is filed under Perspective, News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
29 Responses to “The day after Mugabe: What then? What now?”
Zimbabwe will move on to a new presidency be it Mugabe (still ) or Morgan Tswangirai very quietly and peacefully. Its because the Zimbabwean is basically unwilling to fight. (Cowards is a word that just does describe them well but I wont use it out of respect of my Zim friends)they simply just dont want to see any blood especially theirs spilt.They would rather face a lion or a crocodile in the limpopo basin trying to cross to SA and beg ther tha stand up and fight for their rights.
Its not like Kenya which is endowed with brave people who would slice you throat at a moments notice at the slightest provocation.
If Mugabe finally steals this election we will see Mr Tswangirai flail his limbs and cry to Mbeki Zuma, Brown Blair and anyone who will listen. Because there is no oil in zimbabwe nobody will do anything. The Zimbabwean themselves will not take to th streets- they will simply pour into South Africa some more
Its a viscous cirle
Was he not the one who uttered the classic statement that Heaven is not only for Christians, but for anyone who does good works? Even though the very book his business is based on states in no uncertain terms that man cannot be saved by good deeds, but ONLY through accepting Jesus as his Saviour? He contradicts himself in such a gross manner, but he is still regarded as a man of integrity?
There are many different forms of courage. Zimbabweans who continue to earn an honest wage under extremely difficult conditions are extremely courageous.
In order for collective non-violent mass action to happen in Zimbabwe we need clear and visionary leadership from politicians like Morgan Tsvangirai, Simba Makoni and civic leaders.
We have already seen Tsvangirai “head south” for a chin wag with Zuma, ignoring the need to hold grassroots meetings with voters who feel like they’ve been left in the lurch.
Our opposition politicians need to realise that an election doesn’t end when the final vote is cast. And indeed, in countries like Zimbabwe where the vote is stolen, this is when the real work starts.
So if Tsvangirai is still in SA then please bundle him onto a plane and send him home with a post-it on his chest saying: “Check in with ordinary Zimbabweans, get out of 5* press conferences, and onto the street for real conversations with real people”.
It is important that Zimbabwe has its own TRC. We have experienced truly unacceptable and criminal acts perpetrated by Mugabe/Zanu PF. Gukurahundi and Murambatsvina are worth noting.
Thank you, Bry, for an important, thoughtful article. I agree with you that it is NOT ok to move on after Mugabe (if we ever get to the fabled post-Mugabe Zimbabwwe) as if nothing happened and let him go off into the sunset. He must be held accountable. Failure to do this will mean more Mugabes in Africa, and in the rest of the world. It is not ok, it has not been ok, and the message needs to be sent out: you cannot mess around with people’s freedoms - economic and otherwise - especially when those people have trusted you with those freedoms and ever hope to retire gracefully.
Thanks Bryony, for your thoughts on a matter that is gone beyond sore for mankind - Zimbabwean or not. I am not sure that I am comfortable with the comparision that Haiwa has made between Zimbabwe and Kenya. True, the two countries have some serious things going on - but Kenya moved into a tribal thing and I do not see that as the case with Zimbabwe. I have not heard of rumours, to say the least, of major nepotism cases in Zimbabwe. It is not to suggest that there is no nepotism at work in Zimbabwe but I believe that the country is dealing with a case of dictorship by an individual - with the support of either like-minded opportunists or mindless/braindead imitations of leaders in the country. What is happening in Kenya could have gotten as bad as the genocide in Rwanda a couple of years ago (and I must add, God forbid that it should happen), and this could very well happen to Uganda - since Museveni is considering another term - on top of three terms already in presidency. The Kenyans were not slightly provoked - for the Kukuyu’s to fight with whomever only shows a lack of progressive and development-evoking maturity in the population of a country. If Mugabe were to employ people with whom he shared a tribe, would murdering people from his tribe contribute to the solution of the country? Did it bring a solution to Rwanda? The Kenyans that decided to murder fellow country men on the basis of the tribe that Kibaki belongs to displayed a fierce shallowness - that caught the attention of the international community. The solution to Kenya did not come from getting rid of Kibaki’s tribe-mates - but rather from realising that a genocide was in no way going to bring peace to the country. The power-sharing solution that was agreed upon has very little to do with one’s tribe - lest the Masai decide to start a war too. What you refer to as bravery by Kenyans murdering fellow Kenyans could also be interpreted as plain immaturity. The same applies for Zimbabwe - there can be a peaceful transition; if people should die for a cause, let it not be on the basis of language or tribal distinction and/or discrimination. However, even I am keen to see or know what this transition will be - and if I may add, what it will cost!
Bryony, will you return to Zim, or consider returning, if it becomes apparent that real change is going to happen? And do you believe that other young Zimbabweans will return, or is the damage done, are bridges burned, and is there no hope for a regeneration in terms of young, skilled Zimbos of all races returning?
Mugabe attacked another tribe and did kill a lot of its people and for that he must stand trial in the Hague.
I still wonder why africa clings to its european borders. Zim is still Rhodesia as the borders were designed by Rhodes not Mugabe. Kenya is an example of african countries that are a mismatch of tribes creating disgruntled minorities who have to resort to violenece to get heard.
A lot of conflicts would be solved if africa united peoples into their own countries. That is, africa left to africans would not have created Zimbabwe as it is today.
It is time for africa and maybe here the SADC ‘countries’ can take the lead and start to create a ‘union of southern african states’ comprising of say a shonaland that includes all Shona traditional land only. Likewise for the Matebele / Ndebele, Swazi, Xhosa, etc. Put all these states into a federal union where no dictator can get control.
Your union of federal ethnic states is scarily reminiscent of Apartheid homeland strategy. Not only is it ridiculous to think that we can divvy up Southern Africa according to ethnic groups simply logistically (especially in terms of who then gets access to/control of the key productive areas); but it falls into a common trap of presuming a well-formed pre-colonial ethnic identity on which cohesive governance could be based. Many historians argue that ethnic identities - while they certainly did exist pre-colonisation - were solidified and came to assume their current form through the process of colonisers identifying leaders, codifying languages, and constructing ethnic identities to their own best interests. Taking up your suggestion would indeed no longer be a question of clinging to colonial borders, but would simply be replacing that with clinging to another version of colonial creation.
I think it’s incredibly dangerous for us to fall into the trap of assuming that ethnic identity will always be the prime political identity of people. When politics becomes more closely contested, ethnicity is often used by political parties as a mobilising tool. It is this act that must be stopped - rather change the way that politicians drum up ethnic fears/identity/loyalty, than buy into the fact that ethnic groups somehow can’t get along peacefully.
I tend to agree with the neccessity for some kind of TRC (although I am not sure we should call it that…), but the way in which such a process is played out is critical. What kind of reconcilation/justice are we looking for?
Tash, to answer your question, I am really not sure. It is a very painful thing to leave a country you love, and I am not sure that (at least some of) the current generation of Zimbabwean ‘exiles’would feel that returning would never be worth it. I know my parents would never go back. I would be keen, I think, if I felt I had the place to really make a difference - the politcal will and resources need be there.
All I’d say is that even in the unlikely event that Mugabe fails to “win” a runoff, any political transition would no doubt occur under condition of immunity for Zanu-PF officials. It’s nice to think about what a ‘just’ outcome might be, but I can’t help feeling that it would take a radical turn of events from this point for Mugabe or any of his cronies to be prosecuted.
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu is if anything a man of high integrity and very perceptive of human kind (violence will lead to more violence). He is being realistic saying “relatively” peaceful and he is no doubt suggesting that Mr Mugabe steps down with dignity as this is more likely to lead to a peaceful outcome. He has always advocated for peace through non-violent means – yet also saying that peace is only truly achieved through justice for the marginalised.
I don’t believe anger, revenge or retribution is likely to have positive outcomes. You ask what kind of reconciliation / justice to look for. Having researching the lessons learned from the TRC using Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s high moral fibre and insight as guidance the following emerged.
•We need to be able to deal with the past, acknowledge the truth, be able to forgive, and restore imbalances.
•We are all bound together in one delicate network of interdependence and in order to be human, we must recognise the humanity of others.
•Huge gaps between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ pose the greatest threat to reconciliation and stability.
•We need to go beyond retributive justice to restorative justice.
•We need to build a culture of respect for human rights and seek to enhance tolerance.
•We need to celebrate our diversity and build bridges between us.
Initiatives and policies that began to address the above – positively harnessing the lessons learned from South Africa and Archbishop Desmond Tutu - and thereby seeking justice and reconciliation, I believe could pave the way to the beginnings of a path to peace.
Bettina Grönblom Hammerich on April 9th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Good one Plato…and I must say that I agree with Bev Clark…thanks for enlightening me about Mugabe killing people of another tribe. I wonder if the issue he had with them had to do with their tribe? Like Janet says, ethnic identity does not in any way speak of the political identity of a people. Not all Shona’s think alike - culture continues to experience dilution (not that it is the main reason to a lack of shared political identity by an ethnic group). As the East African community, we could all be a swahili community but we do not share the same political “sentiments” hence the Kenya situation, Uganda, DRC… atleast Tanzania holds true to something…
Bryony, could I ask, if you do not mind - do you think that even in Zimbabwe’s current state, there is no room for you to make a difference? Other than within the politics of governance?
A well thought through blog, especially as some of your ruminations must have been painful.
After majority rule the miniscule 270 000 whites were scattered like autumn leaves to the four corners of the earth. They were a very resilient and resourceful people. Many have now done well in their new adopted homelands and almost all are now totally disillusioned with Africa (particularly with South Africa appearing to be about to slide into chaos). This handful of amazing people was none the less a great loss to Africa. Somehow, we should have explored ways to encourage them to stay and provide the same enthusiasm and commitment to the new state as they had to the old. But that’s all ancient history now…
In the end, the Zimbabwe people will get the leadership they deserve. This brutal axiom is sadly true of all countries.
The generally peaceful people of the area of Zimbabwe in 1980 were forced either through their desperation for peace or by their poverty of mind of not knowing a fraudster to accept mugabe as their leader. He is the master of intimidation and ruthlesness. They knew then just as they know now that the depths to which he is prepared to go aren’t worth physically fighting against. So long as he has military support from his friends in the far east he will kill every last honest man standing using the high jacked name of liberation and sovreignty.
His counterparts in The SADC get week at the knees’and can’t think rationally when they so much as hear those two words spoken by a black man. It is easy to see an oppressor when he is white but when he is black he becomes invisible.
Some within his party are true freedom fighters but the people who do his dirty work for him would have been executed or behind bars for life in any lawful civilisation.
Unfortunately they the guilty hold the keys to the prisons that they should be in.
The only way they can be defeated is to deny them the rights that they are denying the people.
They must not be permitted (personally) to benefit from the resources of the country.Their children must be denied access to foreign education.
J W Braunstein - although I agree that the perpetrators of political crime… or more aptly the politicians who perpetuate crime… should be incarcerated in Zimbabwe’s current system, I think the question I was looking at is what to do afterwards… Is jailing them still the right answer then? It may well be. In which case, do we want a Zimbabwean-only trial? or an international one? None of these are easy questions.
Cynthia, I really do feel that I cannot make a difference in Zimbabwe at the moment. At least, I cannot make the difference I would like to make, or do the type of work that would fulfil and challenge me. I am quite sure that many people can and are in Zim and loving the work they are doing, and much amazing stuff is bein done. This is just a personal feeling.
At present Zimbabwe DOES NOT HAVE a President and will remain so until the next one is sworn into office. And that can only happen after the election result is announced.
Unauthorised use of the military is tantamount to a coup!!!!!!!!!
Dealing with the crimes of a past political elite is subject to a political deal when they lose power. The TRC solution was specific to SA after Apartheid, and with all the risks and everything that was at stake it proved to be somewhat successful. A TRC-style solution cannot be assumed in every regime change - there will no incentive for tyrants who hold all the power to be just.
What is more important is the politcal culture. In the case of Zimbabwe South Africa, the SADC and the African community generally have completely let the PEOPLE of Zimbabwe down. They have all supported the political elite at the expense of the people; a fact of the situation in Zimbabwe is that Mr Mugabe has the support, explicitly and publicy stated as a form of solidarity, by all African governments. Why is this?
If the African Union or parliament charged Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF with crimes against humanity, or simply held them to the responsibility of incompetance in the very least the suffering the people have had to endure would not have lasted years. This crisis should not have gone on after 2002; really it should have been quietly stopped after 1996.
It’s a question of values then. Good governance, no matter what, against what the political leadership is happy for African people to sacrifice.
@Janet
What is SADC currently doing - single passport entity, common curency in the near future. So many people see the way forward in a southern african federation. Get used to the idea as it has black leadership support and drive.
Now I ask you - if England had been divided up with Scotland getting the top half, Wales the left bit, France the right bit with an enclave for the royalty around London. Do you think that there would be a peaceful coexistence?
BUT the English did exactly that to the Matabele / Ndebele, Swazi, Sotho, Hutu, Tutsi, etc etc.
If the Matabele were not under the Shona would the murders of the past have happened?
Africa needs to rethink its national borders so that minorities are not trapped in different countries just like the bulk of Europe has done.
if the mdc is able to take power, i think it will be a situation in which that, basically, people will be too busy trying to put the country back together again as opposed to any kind of retribution.
honestly — name any other country that, after so long a time, insists on trying to get justice via the ballot box ONLY; that is, no political group associated with rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters or anything like that, and on top of that, spend almost a decade of trying to get that without running around shooting or killing people that don’t agree.
cowards isn’t the word to use. there is no cowardice in pacifism. there is no cowardice in desiring peace. i’m sure that few people noticed but after the mozambican civil war, there were riots because the armed groups didn’t disarm *fast enough*. maybe the desire for peace at all costs is the real shona trait and mugabe and his cronies were bitten by the european bug.
@mundundu, I think you are right. The MDC will have many - possibly more immediately pressing - priorities. My concern is that Zimbabwe is a nation in psychological shock and trauma, and that some kind of psychological healing is imperative - just as important as the economic and commercial health of our country. It just often doesn’t appear that way.
I am not looking for retribution. For all I care, Mugabe and anyone responsible for what has happened in Zimbabwe can live happy lives elsewhere… I just feel that the ‘injustice’of such a solution, or the brutality of witchhunt murders of all these people, will do more damage in the long run.
It is good to have an article suggesting that Mr. R.G Mugabe could leave the 28 year seat. I thank you in that regard for an article that looks into the future rather than longing to create debates of binary nature and finger pointing.
However, I tend to worry over the inaccuracy about the 28 year tyranny mentioned in the article. This is not the case as the Zanu-PF has been the choice of the people of Zimbabwe as its government since independence in 1980. Taking into accord that Africans vote for the parties that liberated them.
In short, the fact that Zanu-PF was the people’s preferred choice of government is by no means a tyranny.
However Mr. Mugabe’s refusal to step down as party leader and president is tyrannical because of the human rights violations that he has committed to ensure that he is not removed from power.
I wish to draw your attention to the following information:
This is a summary of Mr. R.G Mugabe before and after independence.
Titled: “Mugabe in a nutshell”
His Life
Born February 21 1924 in Matibiri village near Kutama Mission in Zimbabwe’s Zvimba District.
• Graduated with a BA degree from Fort Hare, in Alice in the Eastern Cape, in 1951.
• Rose to prominence after joining the Zimbabwe African National Union in 1963.
• Arrested in 1964 by the Rhodesian government for “subversive speech” and spent the next 10 years in prison.
• While still in prison, Mugabe was elected leader of Zanu in 1974.
• Led the guerrilla war against white minority rule in Rhodesia in the Bush War which raged from 1964–1979.
• Elected to head the first government as prime minister on 4 March 1980.
• Between 1982 and 1985, Mugabe’s armed forces crushed resistance from Ndebele groups in Matabeleland and the Midlands, killing more than 20000 Ndebele civilians.
• In 1987 the position of prime minister was abolished and Mugabe assumed the new office of executive president of Zimbabwe, gaining additional powers in the process.
• On December 22 1987 , the Zimbabwean African People’s Union merged with Zanu to form the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front .
• Mugabe was re-elected as the country’s president in 1990 and 1996, and in 2002 amid claims of vote-rigging and intimidation. His term of office expired at the end of March 2008.
• In 1994 Mugabe was made an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by Queen Elizabeth II. But the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee later called for the removal of this honour.
• Mugabe married Grace Marufu, 40 years his junior, in a Roman Catholic wedding on August171996 . His first wife, Ghanian political activist Sally Hayfron, died in 1992 from kidney failure. They were married in 1961.
• On April 62000, Parliament pushed through an amendment from a draft constitution, allowing the seizure of white- owned farmland without due reimbursement or payment.
• On March 9 2003, US President George Bush approved measures for economic sanctions against Mugabe and other high-ranking Zimbabwe politicians and froze their assets.
• On December 8 2003, Mugabe withdrew his country from the Commonwealth.
• On July 3 2004, a report adopted by the African Union executive council, which comprises foreign ministers of the 53 member states, criticised the government for the arrest and torture of opposition MPs and human rights lawyers, the arrest of journalists, the stifling of freedom of expression and clampdowns on other civil liberties.
• On April 8 2005, Mugabe attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II, a move which was seen as defying of a European Union travel ban imposed in February 2002.
• As of September 2006, Mugabe’s family owned three farms: Highfield Estate west of Harare, Iron Mask Estate in Mazowe, and Foyle Farm in Mazowe. These farms were seized forcibly from their previous owners.
• On February 6 2007, Mugabe orchestrated a Cabinet reshuffle, ousting ministers such as his veteran Finance Minister, Herbert Murerwa.
• On March 11 2007, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested and beaten after a prayer meeting in the Harare suburb of Highfields.
• On March 30 2007, it was announced that the Zanu-PF central committee had chosen Mugabe as the party’s candidate for another term in 2008.
• On February 23 2008, Mugabe launched his election campaign on his birthday in Beitbridge, a small town on the border with South Africa.
• General elections held in Zimbabwe on March 30 2008.
It is vividly clear that things started going wrong in Zimbabwe in the year 2000. Therefore the 28 year tyranny mentioned in text is inaccurate. Moreover the truth is that tyranny started in the year 2000 and above. It is on that note that the economies of scale in Zimbabwe became imprudent and futile.
In the text there is an error of articles in paragraph 5 which reads as follows: “. . .points to aN violent. . “ which should read as “. . .points to A violent. . .” Furthermore, Plato is forgetting something about the good book and that is the fact that it is interpreted differently from one person to the next. For example, Reverend Martin Luther King Jnr. used the bible to get rid of segregation in America. Interestingly P.W Botha used the same good book to polarise Afrikaners and various Europeans with Apartheid racism.
The fact that Plato recognised this contrast is a good thing however to use this to discredit the Archbishop is grossly incorrect as the bishop has not been given an opportunity to defend his statement about who goes to haven and who does not. Anyhow, the focus of the text was not on what the bishop had to say about Zimbabwe but the article was rather about what will become of Zimababwe if or when Mr. Mugabe steps down.
One should also be very careful about opposition parties particularly to what they say. This is because opposition parties are opportunistic and will exploit such opportunities in their favour so as to win votes. One should be careful about contrary results and statements made by opposition parties as they may be plots to simply win votes or secure certain standings, impressions and beliefs.
I do not feel it is accurate to describe the ‘tyranny’in Zimbabwe as beginning in 2000. Yes, indeed, the pronouced economic depression and political suppression became noticeable then, but events like Gukurahundi in the 1980s show that the tyranny of Mugabe;s regime is not such a recent phenomenon.
Also, i didn’t dispute that he was elected by the majority in the beginning. Elected leaders can be tyrannical…
I’m afraid things will not get much better once Mugabe is gone. First of all because most of the white farmers have left the country. Secondly, those who stayed won’t get their farm back and lastly, Morgan being not very well educated, won’t be able to clean up the mess.
Bryony, an interesting piece indeed. In the spirit of ‘looking to the future,’ there are some harsh realities that many Zimbabweans may be forced to accept.
For instance, the exit of Mr. Mugabe will probably be contingent on a guarantee that he will not be prosecuted for any crimes he may or may not have committed, ditto for some of his closest cronies. Second, as pointed out, the state structure will remain in place for the successor to inherit. In order for this to function, the people in charge will probably be able to keep their recent acquisitions handed out by Mugabe for support. Thirdly, many of the issues that faced Zimbabweans will still exist.
It is regularly assumed that one day, in order to garner political support, Mugabe decided to allow a policy of ‘land reclamation’ be carried out by ordinary people. The more complex truth is that this general action was started at the grassroots level and Mugabe quickly had to claim it as his initiative and in so doing dramatically radicalize himself and his economic policies to remain politically viable; a sharp political move if you are desperate to remain in power whatever the cost.
As such, how is that yearning from ordinary Zimbabweans to be sated? How do the axes change when the catalyst was a popular reaction to gross inequalities in land distribution? It seems incredibly shortsighted to concentrate on the necessary Mugabe exit without considering what real reconciliation will mean.
This is not some process of trying to ‘heal’ a wounded national psyche, which, at any rate, will not result in much more than an official tick next to a bureaucratic process that acts as a dress-up for a natural process that will take a long time to complete. It will mean addressing a radically shaped geography of people with new and important senses of entitlement. The MDC leader, or whomever, as a democrat, will be subject to this, the most pressing desire and the most important one politically, socially and economically.
How then does a faithful ex-pat act? This justice is unexpected from the large community that has lived the terrible reality of leaving their country and what does this new configuration mean for the hope of possible returnees?
I’m quite staggered about Zinmbabwe elections, coz parliamentary seats results were issued. What is then the problem with presidency results, so this manifest that Mugabe would not accept any apshots, he don’t want change in particular.
I’m afraid things will not get much better once Mugabe is gone. First of all because most of the white farmers have left the country. Secondly, those who stayed won’t get their farm back and lastly, Morgan not being very well educated, won’t be able to clean up the mess.
The Gukurahundi mass Ndebele murders I am aware of. However the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans still voted for him. Which is why Joshua Nkomo was pressured to be part of Mugabe’s government.
As Mugabe’s part or even campaign of getting rid of a strong opposition such as the ZAPU of which Nkomo was its vehement president.
Haiwa Tigere, your comment made me laugh with the sheer lack of knowledge and commendations of murder and violence. No wonder Africa is consumed with so much strife and bloodthirsty actions. I didn’t know that valuing the life of another makes you a coward.
Well done Bryony for your article. I am also excited of the possibilities of Zimbabwe.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
The Community of Mandela Rhodes Scholars comprises recipients of the Mandela Rhodes scholarship. It is a diverse and interesting group of people, with students from various backgrounds, fields of study and areas of interest. Their one commonality is the set of guiding principles set out by the Mandela Rhodes Foundation: leadership, reconciliation, education, and entrepreneurship.
All the recipients, past and present, have displayed some form of involvement in each of these domains and were therefore selected for this prestigious and humbling scholarship aimed at the development of African leadership. It is open to all African students and allows for postgraduate studies at any institution in South Africa. For more information visit www.mandelarhodes.org.
Loading ...
Zimbabwe will move on to a new presidency be it Mugabe (still ) or Morgan Tswangirai very quietly and peacefully. Its because the Zimbabwean is basically unwilling to fight. (Cowards is a word that just does describe them well but I wont use it out of respect of my Zim friends)they simply just dont want to see any blood especially theirs spilt.They would rather face a lion or a crocodile in the limpopo basin trying to cross to SA and beg ther tha stand up and fight for their rights.
Its not like Kenya which is endowed with brave people who would slice you throat at a moments notice at the slightest provocation.
If Mugabe finally steals this election we will see Mr Tswangirai flail his limbs and cry to Mbeki Zuma, Brown Blair and anyone who will listen. Because there is no oil in zimbabwe nobody will do anything. The Zimbabwean themselves will not take to th streets- they will simply pour into South Africa some more
Its a viscous cirle
(Report abuse)