Zimbabwe Information Center in North America
A project of the North American Coalition for a Free Zimbabwe (NACFREEZ)
By Stanford G. Mukasa
Letter from America
May 21, 2007
MDC
Part 1. The historical context of mass action in Zimbabwe.
The situation in Zimbabwe has confounded many theorists and analysts. After seven years of unmitigated rape and pillaging of Zimbabwe Mugabe is still forcibly ruling an unwilling and tired population.
Judging by the liberties and excesses Mugabe has taken on Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans one would expect daily demonstrations against his rule.
The question that must be asked at this juncture is : How does one explain in theoretical terms the situation in Zimbabwe?
We are in the age of democracy and popular awareness of the notion that a ruler only rules with the consent of the people, as opposed to the Middle Ages when rulers were believed to have been appointed by God and therefore not subject to any criticism or censure by the masses. Neither were the rulers accountable to anyone but God, so it was believed.
But today awareness of one’s democratic rights as well as inalienable rights is the starting point in any strategies for the defense and protection of those rights. It would be simplistic to assume that Zimbabweans do not know their rights and, therefore, are not aware that their rights have been usurped by what essentially has become a government of criminals.
If we all agree , therefore, on the basic premise that Zimbabweans do indeed in this age of democracy know fully their rights and are aware these rights have been taken away by a regime that no longer rules with their consent, then the logical question to ask is : What are Zimbabweans doing to regain their democracy, if ever they had one.
If ever they had one? Does this mean that democracy is a utopian ideal that Zimbabweans never had? Except for the pre-colonial times Zimbabweans never enjoyed full democracy or human rights. However, there is hardly any Zimbabwean alive today who can tell what democracy was like in pre-colonial times.
The Zimbabwean experience with the notions of democracy and human rights falls into two eras: the colonial era and the post colonial era. Black Zimbabweans had neither democracy nor human rights during the colonial era. In agitating for independence during the colonial era Zimbabweans were hoping to achieve that utopian ideal of democracy and human rights. This was how they defined independence. It meant they would be masters of their house. They would control their destinies and, in the words of an exuberant Tanzanian “ it also meant we could drive on the any side of the road if we so desired.”
But Zimbabweans were quick to expand their knowledge about, and yearning for, freedom, self determination, and basic human rights from experiences of other countries. Nationalists like Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Nelson Mandela and a host of others whose fiery speeches inspired many young Zimbabweans in the hey days of the colonial era authored the roadmap to independence. Nkrumah in particular brought about an awakening across the length and breath of Africa and the realization that the Africans cannot just sit and accept colonial domination, but must stand up and campaign for independence.
The 1950s saw the emergence of a new nationalist leadership across Africa who spearheaded a mass campaign usually aimed at social and economic improvements for Africans. What set Nkrumah apart was his fiery rhetoric demanding outright independence and unity for Africa. His position reflected the resolutions of the pan African conferences whose latest meeting in the UK declared that Africans who had contributed to the war to free Europe from Hitler now deserved and demanded freedom from colonial rule.
Zimbabwe was also caught in the political agitation for independence. When the main nationalist movement split into ZAPU and ZANU the people did not lose their vision for independence. Although there was violence between political parties the colonialists did not have any illusions about the fact that the people had awakened and could not be content until they attained independence.
According to former British prime minister, Harold McMillan, the winds of change were sweeping across Africa. So intense, so determined, so fervent and so excited were the masses that a spate of demonstrations mushroomed throughout the continent.
The result were swift and immediate. One after the other, African countries gained independence. The sixties were really the year for African independence. By the end the decade only the countries in southern Africa and those under Portuguese domination were not independent. This led to an even more determination to free them.
It was within this context of popular agitation that Zimbabwe finally gained her independence in April 1980 – over 20 years after Ghana gained her independence. Zimbabwe’s independence like that of most Africa had been arrived at through negotiations forced by , among other factors , the mass agitation.
What was particularly significant about Zimbabwe’s independence was that it was supposed to have qualitatively benefited from earlier experiences of other African countries.
Shortly before they left for Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo were told in no uncertain terms by the then leaders of the frontline states, namely, Julius Nyerere, Kenneth, Kaunda, and Samora Machel that they should learn from the mistakes of the way leaders of other countries handled their independence. They were told not to be vindictive especially towards their political foes, notably, the whites whom they had fought against.
They were also told to bring true independence and basic human rights because that had been the essence of what they had fought in the armed struggle. Nyerere specifically admonished Mugabe to work towards meeting the people’s expectations and avoid being selfish or putting themselves over and above everyone else.
When Mugabe won the 1980 elections he initially appeared conciliatory. For this he endeared himself to the masses who looked up to him as the unifying force in a country that had been racially and politically divided. And indeed Mugabe’s first government included leaders from other parties. Joshua Nkomo and his top officials in ZAPU also got seats in Mugabe’s cabinet.
The former commander of the Rhodesian army, Lt.Gen. Walls, became the first commander of the new Zimbabwe army. The former minister of Agriculture, David Smith, was retained in the Mugabe cabinet.
But barely one year into Zimbabwe’s independence and amidst such a promising beginning the country was plunged into a near civil war when ZANLA and ZIPRA excombatants exchanged heavy artillery fire.
This was followed three years later with one of the most criminal acts of genocide when, under the pretense of fighting the so called dissidents Mugabe’s fifth brigade massacred over 20,000 mostly Ndebele.
Had a UK based newspaper and the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission not revealed this genocide the rest of the country and the world would not have been aware of the extent of the massacre.
Nevertheless, Zimbabwe was enjoying a healthy economic growth. Its strong commercial agriculture was the engine that transformed Zimbabwe into the breadbasket of the region. A noted political scientist, Dr Ali Mazrui , even called Zimbabwe a glimmer of hope in the decaying garden of Eden of Africa. Mugabe himself won a United Nations award in food production. He was even knighted by the British and picked some honorary degrees.
What is difficult to explain is that the same Mugabe who was gaining national and international recognition for economic gains of the early years of independence was also a cold calculating killer who ordered a massacre of thousands of the people of Matabeleland.
For the Ndebele mass protest came in form of the 1985 elections when ZANUPF was wiped out of the electoral map of Matabeleland.
The only member of ZANUPF who survived was the late Herbert Ushewokunze. So vicious and decisive was the protest vote against Mugabe in 1985 that some people believe it was a major factor that led to the unity agreement of 1987. The Ndebele experience is a model for mass action. Here are a proud and resolute people who even after this callous massacre still stood up against Mugabe at the ballot box.
Mugabe’s rude awakening was simply that no amount genocide or intimidation whose threats were daily being propagated by then Minister of Defense Enos Nkala could ever subdue the people of Matabeleland. Nkala at one time boasted to a captive audience in Nkayi – no sane Ndebele would willingly attend ZANUPF rallies – that ZANUPF government could make life miserable for them if they did not stop supporting what he called dissidents. Yet the cases of actual convictions of dissidents were few and far in between.
During the first five years of his rule Mugabe appeared to have escaped the national and international spotlight on his unspeakable genocide. But that also gave Mugabe the impression that he could not be challenged or that he could meet any challenge head on and prevail. The fact that he united ZANU and ZAPU under the name ZANUPF meant simply that ZANU had swallowed ZAPU. Such was to be the character and style of Mugabe for the next 20 years or more – the Machiavellian strategy of coercion, intimidation and violence.
There is, therefore, a historical context to Mugabe’s behavior. When he was faced with a real mass protest at the end of the 1990s, especially from the new-look ZCTU that had shed off its image of being an appendage of ZANUPF Mugabe resorted to the only tactic he knew – coercive violence. It is reported that the mass actions against the cost and standard of living reached a crescendo and could have destabilized the Mugabe regime.
Many people believe that the riots at the end of the 1990s marked the end of the honeymoon with Mugabe from the rest of the country. It had ended much earlier from Matabeleland.
The year 2000 was to be the year Zimbabweans were going to show Mugabe the exit and push him out at the general elections. Mugabe knew it too. But from his experience in Matabeleland he knew exactly what he needed to do to survive the elections.
For Mugabe the elections were now a matter of personal survival. If ZANUPF lost the 2000 parliamentary elections that was not only going to be the end of his political life but the end of the world for him. And he could not, by any stretch of imagination, see himself an ordinary Zimbabwean stripped of the enormous powers he held as head of state as well as all the protective machinery of the army, police and CIO.
Mugabe had come face to face with the anger of the Zimbabweans in form of protests led by the ZCTU but also in form of the rejection of his attempts to reform the Constitution. He saw the rejection as personal. In some ways he was right. Zimbabwe saw in the Constitution expanded powers of the president and they rejected the entire package.
The emergence of a real opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, was a manifestation of the maturity of the people’s exasperation with Mugabe. Mass protest had now taken an organized political mantra . And it was going to be unleashed against him through the ballot box. This explains why Mugabe in his desperation took all the measures to rig the elections. But so vast was the mass protest vote against him that Mugabe nearly lost the elections of both 2000 and 20002, not to mention 2006 – had it not been an extensive rigging as well as the arbitrary way the election results were announced.
Mugabe knows that the Zimbabweans have on three electoral occasions rejected him. But like a jilted lover who refuses to get the message Mugabe has forcibly imposed himself on the unwilling Zimbabweans. In gender relations this is called rape. It is a criminal offense punishable by a lengthy jail sentence.