Inundated with preconception, the task of defending Robert Mugabe is no easy one. Faced by a genuine disbelief and deep bemusement meshed with a swelling eagerness to find out just how I can shield a man who has become a legend in my eyes, but a monster and gorgon in those whose worlds he has toppled. I will explain how this larger-than life personality comes down to an incredibly astute statesman.
An honest and comprehensive response goes some significant way in constructing some small face to this multifaceted, most round, very rich character that has been at the helm of Zimbabwe since 1980, at the helm of Zimbabwean politics since 1960. But also a figure commanding curiosity, a figure whose real pith remains elusive to many writers of whatever motive.
Mugabe gazing has become the single largest preoccupation in opposition politics and diplomacy. So too is Mugabe-bashing, all of it founded on ill-clad malice so brazen, so obvious to pass for bona fide mischaracterization by those searching for a difficult truth.
Robert Gabriel Mugabe was in prison when he was elected to head the Zimbabwe African National Union; ZANU. He lost 11 precious years of his life in the jail of a colonialist whose freedom and well-being he assured from the first day of Zimbabwe’s Independence.
The people of Zimbabwe were angry and at the very end of their patience with a leadership class ready to compromise and out-sell the struggle to any bidder and cut a deal. But with him free now, the war was prosecuted with renewed vigour and greater effectiveness. He went on to steer the independence negotiations, dominating the Lancaster House talks that saw Rhodesia become Zimbabwe.
If hyperinflation was yesterday ravaging Zimbabwe and it is finally economically prostrate, importing rather than exporting maize, this is no more indicative of Mugabe’s poor economic management than it is of the resolve of the international financial system to cut down an irritating, independent-minded non-conformist; and teach him and all potential imitators a painful lesson.
Imperialism always deals creative challengers a crushing shut-out of its system with devastating effectiveness. And when, as in the case of Zimbabwe, this is compounded by a long and devastating drought and several years of unremitting Western sanctions, sanctions that are unilateral and not consistent with international norms and values, the world ought to know who to properly blame.
The current Zimbabwean backdrop has its origin in the unequal ownership of land. At the time of independence in 1980, the Europeans, 1 percent of the population, owned 87 percent of the land, and the Africans, 99 percent of the population, lived on 13 percent of the land. If this divergence would not change after Lancaster House, the entire liberation struggle would have been moot, and now that a new nation had been born, the rules must change-and they did. Mugabe sought to correct the socio-economic injustices that had relegated Africans to second class citizens.
In an effort to reassure the Europeans and the world 20 parliamentary seats were reserved for whites and a ten-year moratorium on constitutional amendment and land redistribution was imposed. A fast track land reform, “willing buyers, willing sellers” programme intended to correct inequitable land distribution and which Britain agreed to fund, was put in place. And then Britain reneged. Mugabe struggled to make Britain fulfill its obligation, but it adamantly refused. In 2000 the Parliament of Zimbabwe pushed through the amendment that allowed the occupation of European farms without compensation. And few days later and with this legal backing in place, independence war veterans, led the people in a symbolic invasion of European farms. Still, Britain wouldn’t budge.
The West condemned what they called violent land seizures, missing the irony involved; Mugabe had not been left with a viable alternative. Even though this excess could be legally justified, it could never be morally defended. Mugabe should not be blamed as the cause of the problem, but as an unfortunate leader who found himself in a situation to settle the problem he did not create.
While other political parties have tried to rubbish the land issue as an election agenda, the fact is lots of people have benefited from a deliberate decision by the party to improve the wellbeing of Zimbabweans who for long have been marginalised by successive repressive laws of the colonial system. Yes, the programme might have some pitfalls, but in terms of broad based empowerment agenda, the policy cuts across all social and economic facets of the country. It has indeed addressed one of the main reasons for waging the bitter liberation struggle and ensures that Zimbabweans have a hold on the means of production.
Mugabe has been in power for three decades. But if he has aged, it is not on account of worry about the support of the Zimbabwean people which he still enjoys; nor on account of anxiety for failure to deliver on the promises of ZANU-PF, which he already has.
Those who accuse Mugabe of overstaying forget that the question of term limit has neither meaning nor application in parliamentary democracy. The first British prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole was on the seat for 21 years, and his successor, Lord North was there for 12 years, while his own successor, William Pitt, the Younger, was there for 19 years. Lee Kuan Yew, who is today being hailed by the West, perhaps deservedly, as one of the world’s greatest statesmen, ruled Singapore as prime minister consecutively for 31 years. So, why can’t Mugabe?
To criticise Mugabe is to neglect the tripod of principles that his policy rested upon, education, rural infrastructure and the economy. And he has delivered. On coming to power, Mugabe wasted no time declaring Education for All by 2000, building schools, universities and launching adult education schemes such that within less than a generation he had produced Africa’s most literate society.
Trained by Jesuits, tutored by Marxists, moulded by the fire of liberation struggle and permanently defined by the tenor of Zimbabwe’s anti-settler-colonialist revolution, the reality is that Mugabe is the forward looking visionary captain of a country that will rise again.
President Mugabe belongs to a generation of leaders who were favoured by the gods of the land to defend the heritage of Africa. The message that the President is putting across is that “the people must own the means of production in their own land”, hence the land acquisition and the indigenisation programmes. He is instilling in his people a culture that promotes total independence and self-reliance. This brave bush warrior epitomizes in every sense of the word, the full flowering of that authentic, unconquered and unconquerable spirit of African manliness, an icon who is, to imperial arrogance, utterly defiant.
As someone who has actually lived in the Zimbabwe of the millenial era, I find this pseudo-intellectual apologist bullshit, based more on a desire to provoke than on actual empirical fact, deeply offensive, both to the oppressed people of Zimbabwe and to York Vision. The author knows little, if anything, about the reality of Zimbabwe, an AIDS-stricken dictatorship in which the tyranny of so-called war-vets and of a power-mad perpetrator of genocides against his own people, an old and ill fool, has replaced any vestiges of democracy or basic human rights. For the author to put forth such trash, in his smug, undergraduate ignorance, and defend a regime which does as much damage, if not more, to the African people in general and to the people of Zimbabwe in particular, as the colonial monster from which it was supposed to provide such a welcome respite, is shameful. Shame on you, Mr. Choto, for your ignorance, and your applause of a man who is no less an enemy of Africa than any racist colonialist or corporate vulture. The bread-basket of Africa is now the basket-case, Mr. Mugabe is a tyrant and a criminal, and the people of Zimbabwe would be much better off without Mr. Mugabe, but also without the uninformed fanboys who enable his numerous abuses of human and civil liberties to continue. York Vision would do better to deny a platform to this pathetic, aspirational posturing.
Pretty absurd piece of writing when compared to the massive amounts of evidence that this man has committed genocide of hundreds of thousands of his own people. His private armies are known to have raped thousands of women during his tenure and people are so poor can not even afford the most basic necessities. I have not lived in Zimbabwe like Eduardo but these facts are all very well known.
The bit you wrote about his re-elections wouldn’t look out of place in a satire magazine. Do you not realise why he’s won elections over the last 15 or so years? They are fixed! It’s widely known. Soldiers literally threaten people at polling stations! This has nothing to do with Walpole or Pitt. You can not compare two different eras. What a bizarre argument.
And the last paragraph sounds like the ravings of a mad man. No offence. – “This brave bush warrior epitomizes in every sense of the word, the full flowering of that authentic, unconquered and unconquerable spirit of African manliness, an icon who is, to imperial arrogance, utterly defiant.” – Wow, mental. You need to do some serious reading up on African history. He’s defiant to imperialists, true, but he’s also defiant to human rights, democracy and the will of his own people. A tyrant in every sense of the word.
I doubt very much whether the gentleman above understands Zimbabwean politics at all and the idea of free speech,allow me to educate him.
Mugabe has remained steadfast in defence of the indigenisation and empowerment programmes when others would have retreated to conform to the interests of the powerful and wealthy
nations,his capable hands kept under check the devastating effects of the illegal sanctions both declared and undeclared.
No other nation has been placed under such savagery and remained
calm and peaceful.Over the years, he has managed to transform the economic outlook of Zimbabwe from one that was controlled by a few individuals to a broad-based participatory one. The education policy for all adopted by Government at independence,the land
reform programme and the indigenisation drive were examples of policies adopted to include formerly marginalised communities.
So Eduardo read history correctly,do not abuse this honorable platform to lecture us on pieties of democracy when you have no understanding of the term itself!!!!!!!!!!!
The only old and ill fool is obviously you Mr Sandomingo. We took the land, and we’re never giving it back. Ever! Fact: Zimbabwe, despite hardships brought about by the imperialists, is still Africa’s most literate populace. In fact, the U.S is not as literate as Zimbabwe. Our yardstick for excellence is not the West and it’s ill-gotten wealth, which has bred a people with a complacence so complete, they will confidently eat their GMO food into obese irrelevance. We are very hungry as Zimbabweans, true, but we have seen the light. Live free or die! Hate Mugabe some more. We shall love him, cherish him, and respect his name, and jealously guard his legacy.
Excellent piece of work Michael, well written document i find it was with prudence, fairness and objectivity and not with misinformation, disinformation, distortions, bias and exaggeration as well as without failure to contextualize all facets of the situation.
Viva Mugabe
Your point about Zimbabwe having the highest literacy rates in Africa is simply not true. Why are you lying? You do realise all people need to do is google it themselves and they’ll find out what it’s really like. Fact is, in the past 15 years, education has suffered hugely from a lack of funding, political unrest and hyperinflation. In 2009, UNICEF found that 66 of 70 rural schools in Zimbabwe had been abandoned.
This is disgraceful hero-worshipping of an awful man and a devastating political failure.
Neil do not disgrace yourself on a public platform in a manner that renders you ignorant;
http://www.mapsofworld.com/africa/thematic/countries-with-highest-literacy-rate.html
http://www.aneki.com/countries2.php?t=Countries_with_the_Highest_Literacy_Rates_in_Africa&table=fb73&places=*=*&order=desc&orderby=fb73.value&decimals=–2&dependency=independent&number=all&cntdn=asc&r=-142-143-144-145-146-147-148-149&c=africa&measures=Country–Literacy%20Rate&units=–&file=illiteracy
http://www.moesac.gov.zw/index.php/home/80-zimbabwe-tops-africas-literacy-rate
I have supplied you with the above websites that prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimbabwe has the highest literacy rate. It is more disgraceful for you to peddle falsehoods bent on demonizing a well structured education program!!!!I challenge you to provide us with a website that suggests otherwise!!!!!!!!
It depends what you think of as literacy. Perhaps Zimbabwean children are capable of reading more so than other African countries but when you’re confronted with statistics such as school attendance rates being 20%, O level pass rates at 11% and 94% of rural schools being closed, I don’t know how you can argue that this is a success story.
In fact, the situation is so concerning to the international community that recently there were large donations of textbooks made to Zimbabwe by various Scandinavian countries. There is a common policy in Zimbabwe of disguising the lack of schooling by having a morning class for a certain set of children and a different one for the afternoon.
Mugabe started with free education when he came to power but once the economic situation became untenable, he raised fees to such an extent that they became more expensive than during colonialism.
Perhaps Mugabe had noble aims. Perhaps. Unlikely but perhaps. However, he is such a poor leader that he has let his country turn to an awful state and let tyranny rule.
Also ‘legend’. Judging from your word choice and writing style, you’re clearly the same person that wrote the article. You should write under your own name. Mugabe is not the success story you paint him as. He is a classic example of the potentially devastating consequences of poor leadership.