Mugabe’s praise singers show contempt for ordinary Zimbabweans

(Although this was posted on the 19th, I wrote it on 12th May)

I was quite disturbed to read two opinion pieces in the SA Sunday papers, on Zimbabwe, where the authors were basically defending Mugabe.

In an article in The Sunday Times, titled “The West is conspiring to unseat that valiant warrior, Mugabe”, (www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=764077) Mohau Pheko repeats the tired old line that the MDC is an agent of the West, and that while Mugabe has had made ‘gross mistakes in governing’, the reason the West wants to unseat him is that he’s a ‘valiant warrior against Western superiority in Africa’. In another article (and now I can’t for the life of me remember which paper it was in), a former senior member of the Presidency in South Africa defends Mbeki’s approach, and again argues that the MDC is an agent of colonialism.

The thing is, these writers have some valid points to make*. In their articles they question why such a fuss is made about Zimbabwe and not about other countries where there are undemocratic governments, such as Uganda, and Swaziland, to name two. They point out that Britain and the West reneged on promises with respect to supporting land reform in Zimbabwe, and correctly remind us that all foreign countries are pushing their own interests.

But they then seem to think that if these things are true, it must be a logical conclusion that the MDC is noting but an agent of foreign forces, and that Mugabe’s actually the good guy (though of course he’s made some mistakes). But why can’t all of these things be true: that we should pay attention to other problematic regimes too, that a lot of the noise made about Zimbabwe is made by people and countries with their own agendas to push, that the MDC is a legitimate party with demonstrably legitimate support within Zimbabwe (and perhaps with some questionable alliances), and that Mugabe is a brutal dictator who may have done great things in the past, but who has now driven his country into the ground?

Arguments like those made by Pheko seem to spring from a need for simplistic judgments — the world must be seen in terms of black and white, good versus evil. So if there are some people and interests on one ’side’ that are seen as bad, then everyone associated with them must be bad, and the other side must be the good guys. There’s no allowance for the fact that the real world is complex. There’s a refusal or inability to accept that the man who was once a hero is now a villain, and that countries which have acted despicably in the past just might be doing a good thing by supporting his downfall (even if they’re doing so for the wrong reasons).

But perhaps more disturbingly, these arguments show contempt for Africa and Africans — contempt expessed by people who purport to be defending Africa and Africans against colonialism. Firstly, they show contempt for the MDC and other opposition politicians. There is the assumption that if the Americans and British offer support to the opposition, that the opposition is a puppet in the hands of these powers. There is no willingness to believe that the opposition may have agency in such alliances — that they may be strategically using what support and supporters they may get, for their own aims.

But secondly, there is utter contempt for ordinary Africans — in this case, ordinary Zimbabweans. A refusal to believe that ordinary Zimbabweans may have voted for the MDC not because they are being manipulated by crafty colonialists, but because they believe that it is in their own interests to do so (despite extensive measures by the state designed to make them believe otherwise). And a refusal to admit that it is more important to support and defend ordinary citizens who have been jailed and tortured and had their lives and livelihoods ruined, than it is to cling to a childish belief that one’s one-time hero can’t possibly turn into a monster.

(*Amid some others that are less valid — like Mohau’s condemnation of the MDC for calling for sanctions against its own country — excuse me, isn’t that just what the ANC did during apartheid? With good reason, and good results.)

This post first appeared on the Citizen Journalism in Africa portal: www.citizenjournalismafrica.org.

Doing us proud

I’ve been thinking how it’s so easy for a blog to become one big moan — and reflecting that I’ve been doing quite a bit of that over the past few weeks. Now I’m not one of those people who believes journalists should start closing their eyes and years to all the bad and depressing stuff that’s happening, and bring us only happy thoughts. But I do think that we need to remember that it’s not all gloom and doom. There is good news out there — and often there’s something inspiring or encouraging to be found even within supposedly bad news.

So, listening to the radio yesterday, I found myself feeling quite proud and encouraged. The first thing that caused this was the news that Tanzania has lost its fourth minister on corruption charges. Andrew Chenge, the Minister for Infrastructure has resigned amid allegations that he took bribes during the purchase of a radar (See www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=752835).

No, it’s not good news that there is corruption in the top political ranks in Tanzania, but it is very encouraging that it’s being rooted out. A couple of weeks back I went on a rant about this, saying Tanzania provides a good example to South Africa — so I’m happy that this good example is continuing. What was even more heartening was the comment by the Tanzanian government spokesperson who was interviewed — he said that it is the right thing for a minister to resign, even when there’s the appearance and suspicion of impropriety. To which I can only once again say, AMEN! and hope that some of my compatriots are listening.

The second encouraging thing is also a ray of light amid bad news. It’s a terrible and very worrying thing that there’s a shipment of arms headed for Zimbabwe. But it’s wonderful that the trade unions have so far been effective in preventing the ship from docking, unloading its cargo and thus delivering this deadly package to Harare. As soon as the news broke that there was a Chinese ship in Durban harbour, with arms on board destined for Zimbabwe, the transport workers’ union Satawu went to court and successfully blocked the ship from using an SA port in this way. The International Transport Workers Federation (IFT) prevented the vessel from docking in Maputo. Now Satawu has called on unions and employers in all African countries to prevent the ship from docking anywhere on the continent (See
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2309920,00.html). Cosatu, the SA trade union federation, is also calling on workers in China to support this effort to prevent arms from reaching Zimbabwe.

Who knows what the outcome of this story will be, but I am really proud that my fellow South Africans are making it as difficult as possible for these weapons to be delivered into the hands of Zimbabwe. Thabo Mbeki, are you listening?

(This post was first published on the Citizen Journalism in Africa portal at www.citizenjournalismafrica.org on 22 April)

A crisis by any other name

Originally posted on the Citizen Journalism in Africa portal on 14 April 2008 (www.citizenjournalismafrica.org),

Last week I wrote a comment in response to a blog by Sandile Memela, on the South African blog site, Thought Leader (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sandilememela/2008/04/09/why-mbekis-quiet-diplomacy-is-the-best-solution-for-zimbabwe-and-the-rest-of-dark-africa/). Memela’s blog was a defence of Thabo Mbeki’s ‘quiet diplomacy’. I ended my outraged response with the comment that in contrast with President Mbeki’s lack of action, Zambia’s President, Levy Mwanawasa was showing real leadership by calling a summit on Zimbabwe.

Well, it turns out my comments were a little premature. Yes, President Mwanawasa was showing more leadership than Mbeki, but clearly not enough. The SADC summit did issue a statement expressing concern about the situation in ZImbabwe, and calling for the election results to be released ‘expeditiously’ — but this seems to me rather wishy-washy and not nearly strong enough to ensure that strong action is taken right now.

By all accounts, the SADC heads of state were locked in discussions until 3am on Saturday morning. No, not hashing out the details of a high-level delegation to Zimbabwe, or possible measures to be taken against Robert Mugabe and his cronies, but debating whether the use of the word ‘crisis’, was appropriate. Apparently theologians during the Middle Ages used to have heated debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. The SADC summit’s agonised deliberations over the use of a single word seem to be to be just as useful and practical. As a guest on our national radio station, SAFM put it this morning, “if people are being harassed and even tortured because of their political allegiances, that is a crisis. When inflation is so bad that most people can’t afford to buy food, that is a crisis. In South Africa, we are experiencing problems with electricity supply and regular black-outs, and we refer to that as a crisis. So why is Zimbabwe not a crisis?” (I was in the car so couldn’t write down his exact words — but this is in essence what he said.)

But in the end, who cares what you call it — a dire situation, a crisis, a big big problem — the question is:  what do we do about it? Let’s have some concrete proposals of clear steps that need to be taken, with timeframes and dates attached, and consequences to be faced — not simply statements of concern.

But at least a statement of concern is more than anyone’s likely to get from Thabo Mbeki. “Crisis, what crisis?”, blared the headlines on Sunday, quoting our esteemed president. Not only does this make me spitting mad, but it makes me very, very worried. When I was a practicing journalist I had the occasion once or twice to attend press conferences addressed by Mugabe. I used to marvel that unlike other leaders, he didn’t try to put a spin on negative news. He just denied it outright. Where other leaders would say, ‘yes, this happened, but it’s not our fault because…’, Mugabe would just say ‘it never happened. The media lied. The photographs were doctored. It never happened.’ What worries me deeply now, is that our own head of state seems to be adopting the same denialist behaviour.

Of course, he has done it before — in the face of the huge HIV/Aids…um…crisis. But I thought that perhaps that was an exception, a special case, motivated by complex factors that many writers more intelligent than I have tried to explain, over the years. Now it is becoming clear that denial is a habit of his. I mean, even Jacob Zuma is starting to look better — at least he had the sense to criticise the delay in the release of the election results. What, Jacob Zuma looking like a better alternative to what we have? Now not only do I fear for Zimbabwe, but I fear for South Africa.

What also worries me about much of the public debate here about ZImbabwe, is that people talk as if it’s about whether Mbeki (and other leaders in the region) should back either Mugabe or Tsvangirai. Some writers have, for example, commented that Mbeki is reluctant to support Tsvangirai because the MDC grew out of the unions, and the parallels between this and Zuma’s backing from the unions in SA are worrying for him. This may be true, but it misses the point. It’s not about personalities. It is the people of Zimbabwe, and the ideal of democracy that need support.  Mbeki and others with power should be insisting that democratic principles and practices be upheld, and that the choices of the people of Zimbabwe must be respected.