AFRICA’S ENIGMATIC HERO

Aug 03, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

The election victory of Robert Mugabe in his country’s parliamentary elections – and no doubt also the presidential vote – represents a massive blow for western imperialism. For years, they have tried to foist their favoured candidate on the people of that country, getting as far as forcing a power-sharing arrangement after the disputed elections of 2008.
Mugabe’s words after that vote were instructive. He told his supporters that they brought this situation on themselves. Had they come out then as they did this past week, there would have been no disputed elections and no need for him to have had to share power.
Power-sharing never worked in Zimbabwe. It failed primarily because the very idea is alien to the electoral system in that country. But it failed also because it was always seen as a holding arrangement until new elections were held.
The results of this week’s elections in Zimbabwe are a confirmation of the people’s dissatisfaction with the workings of that arrangement. It is a lesson that the local opposition parties should be particularly interested in, because they have the most to lose from the failure of shared governance in Guyana and therefore they are the ones who should be trying to be more conciliatory.
If they do not make a concerted effort to reach an accommodation with the ruling party, then the public, including their supporters, will become increasingly frustrated and will reject the opposition, as has been done in Zimbabwe, where an 89-year-old leader was swept back to power this past week.
Mugabe has made a great many political mistakes, just like Mandela did. But Mandela is the poster-boy of neo-liberalism. Mugabe is their arch enemy.
Mugabe was betrayed by the British who failed to honour the commitments made during the Lancaster House Agreement in relation to funding for land reform.
Mandela did not have that problem. He signed away the future of Black South Africans in his agreement with De Klerk. Constitutional guarantees were provided to the rich landowners of South Africa as part of the deal that led to the end of apartheid rule.
Mandela made peace, like Arafat did, and like Arafat that peace turned out to be lop-sided. And for doing this, Mandela became the darling of eco-liberalism, their favorite poster-boy, the communist and convicted freedom fighter who turned to peace and preserved the economic system in South Africa. Today that system fails to fulfill the great expectations of the supporters of the party of Mandela.
Mugabe also signed an agreement in which certain promises were made. He was betrayed by the British who did not honour their pledges. This failure triggered the terrible farm occupations. The tragic development cost many lives in Zimbabwe, and was used by British imperialism to galvanize global opinion against Mugabe.
Mugabe should not have allowed those occupations to occur. He should have intervened and stopped it. Many atrocities were committed in the process and Mugabe has to accept responsibility for this happening.
As a consequence of his failure to intervene and what seemed as tacit encouragement of the occupations, he faced international sanctions. These sanctions have crippled his economy and brought immense hardships to his people. He will still have to face the judgment of his people for his mistakes, and that judgment may not be kind.
Mandela has no such problem. Recognizing his own frail health, he stepped aside from the Presidency. In so doing he spared himself from an unkind judgment from his own people, who today are blaming the African National Congress (ANC) for the sloth in improving their lives. The social inequities now have constitutional protection. This was all part of the agreement that was signed by Mandela during his deal with De Klerk.
For now he is considered their greatest hero. But eventually the disaffection will hurt the ANC. The ANC probably will not lose power, but they certainly will suffer political fallout similar to what Mugabe suffered after he turned a blind eye to the farm occupations.
Had there not been these occupations; had Mugabe found a better way to solve his land problems, had he not decades earlier railed viciously against his former political ally in the revolutionary struggle, he could have today been hailed as the ultimate hero of the continent.
Ironically, that title will go to Mandela, because he opted for a path of democratic reform and constitutional guarantees that perpetuate the social inequalities in his country.
But Mugabe must not be counted out as yet. He has achieved a heroic victory in this week’s elections. He has defied western imperialism and decimated at the polls his western-supported rival. It may perhaps be his last hurrah.
He still has a formidable task ahead of him to restore the economy of his country. But in winning the election, he benefitted from the frustration that the people felt over the failure of the power-sharing government.  And he may still have a chance of redeeming himself and emerging as Africa’s enigmatic hero.

---

---