Blogs > Cliopatria > Zimbabwe's Big Man

Mar 8, 2005

Zimbabwe's Big Man




On March 31 there is an election scheduled in Zimbabwe. It will be buried beneath all of the headlines emanating from the Middle East, but this is a crucial moment for sub-Saharan Africa and for democracy.

Robert Mugabe, the only President Zimbabwe has known in its almost-quarter-century of existence, has proven to be one of the last and most resilient of Africa’s scourge of “Big Men” for whom power and kleptocracy and appalling disregard for the welfare of those over whom they rule are defining characteristics. For a decade or more, Mugabe and his liberation ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), has operated unchecked, using bands of thugs-cum-political supporters to crush any political opposition, including the most resilient, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and its plucky, heroic, but up until now Quixotic leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

Mugabe was once a hero in southern Africa. Unfortunately, this status has lingered in some circles long after the justification for it evaporated. Whatever credit Mugabe deserves for having led the liberation struggle against Ian Smith and his white supremacists pales when placed next to his misdeeds of the last ten or fifteen years. The Mugabe of 1980 was a hero. The Mugabe of 2004 is a despot.

Even on legitimate issues – such as land reform – Mugabe has been nothing but a cretinous demagogue, allowing his political supporters, gangs of armed miscreants, to run roughshod over white farmers without any formal policy or program of redistribution or compensation. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how to redistribute land. All but the most retrograde will recognize that such redistribution is necessary. But to have allowed it to have become yet another in the succession of spoils for the favored and the well-armed was inexcusable. Land redistribution should have been part of a larger process to empower the black masses, to give them the land and allow Zimbabwe to return to its status as the breadbasket of Africa. Instead, crops sit rotting, if they are planted at all, and the black masses are dazed by a country that once was rich in not only natural resources but also in tourism but now is barren of both.

If land reform was mishandled and abused, the rest of the political situation in Zimbabwe has replicated and perfected the worst manifestations of Big Man bullying. Opposition leaders have been beaten, imprisoned, stripped of their wealth, forced to leave the country, and otherwise humiliated, largely on claims so farcical that they would inspire mirth were they not so devastatingly real. There is virtually no independent press, as Mugabe and his de facto stratocracy has run into the ground all papers that defy his shoddy misrule (four have been shut down in the last two years). People are afraid to speak out. Villagers interviewed in the western press are reluctant to have their names used for fear of recriminations to follow. In the most recent elections, in 2000, intimidation served its purposes, as those inclined to support the MDC, and there were many, chose to stay home rather than suffer the broken bones and lacerations at the hands of Mugabe's roving gangs.

So what are the prospects for hope for the upcoming elections? On the surface, things seem positive. Mugabe has pulled back his dogs, ordering his barely-controlled young brigands to keep their hands in their pockets for the upcoming parliamentary elections. Pre-election violence is down. Both the cities and the countryside seem relatively placid.

Is Mugabe softening? Is the last of southern Africa’s Big Men feeling the effects of the Mandela-ization of the region, albeit belatedly? Perhaps. But color me skeptical. As with his predecessors on the continent – Mobutu Sese Seku and Charles Taylor and Daniel arap Moi and Laurent Kabila (and the list runs on depressingly) – Mugabe knows when to bet and when to bluff. He realizes that with each passing election cycle he is closer to his last, and that thus maneuvering himself to win this campaign will suffice to maintain his power. Mugabe realizes that Condi Rice is watching and that Tony Blair will not cease with his noisome criticisms. In such a context, Mugabe realizes that it is wise to soften, to give in where he can in order to continue to rule. He knows that once the election is over with, he will have virtually free reign to operate however he wants to whitewash his sins and promote his legacy and exact his punishments.

Some within ZANU-PF are talking about winning a huge majority, two thirds or more of the upcoming vote. The MDC puts on a brave face and talks about winning rural voters and maximizing its strength in the cities. But Mugabe has already scared off enough opposition, has intimidated enough voters, so that the dirty deed is done. He can soften because his hardness in the past served its purposes. It is a cynical gambit in keeping with what has been a cynical region. The black masses will continue to suffer and the tourists will continue to avoid what was once a jewel on the subcontinent. The damage has been done. Whatever making-nice Mugabe does in this election comes only because he has done anything but in recent years. It is likely that only Mugabe’s death will breathe life back into Zimbabwe. I hope I am wrong. I doubt that I will be.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Derek Charles Catsam - 3/9/2005

Oscar --
I'm glad that someone apprecates the periodic Africa updates. Zim really is a tragedy, and one wonders if etting rid of Mugabe would be sufficient to allow that country to get back on its feet or if the damage he has done has been so systemic that the recovery will be long and painful. I fear the latter if the pattern elsewhere holds, but given the relative stability fo so much of saouthern Africa, perhaps the road to recovery in Zim will be easier to traverse than it has proven to be elsewhere.
Thanks for the comment.
dc


Oscar Chamberlain - 3/8/2005

Thank you for your continuing effort to keep at least some attention upon Africa. There are few things that have been more disappointing than Mugabe's betrayal of the ideals that brought down the apartheid regime. When contrasted with South Africa it is all the more painful.