Zimbabwe Information Center in North America
A project of the North American Coalition for a Free Zimbabwe (NACFREEZ)
Letter from America
August 27, 2007
Zimbabwe is a class society in need of a class struggle
An analysis of statistics coming out of Zimbabwe clearly shows that the country is now two nations, divided into two classes. There is a small group of mostly top ZANUPF leadership that is incredibly wealthy. Then there are millions of Zimbabweans who are at different levels of poverty. The poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer.
In a classical Marxian situation the Zimbabwean state has become the protector for, and handmaiden of, the ruling elite which has surrounded itself with the top elite factions of the military, police and the CIO.
Because they are well protected by the army top brass this ruling elite in engaged in an orgy of looting the state to satisfy their selfish needs. They consume what they do not produce, meaning they are insatiable consumers but they are not capable of generating wealth and they have no entrepreneurial skills of any significance.
While the rest of the country is still starving and living a pathetic life the ruling elite are drowning in affluence. They can travel anywhere in the world, except where they are subject of targeted sanctions. They educate their children abroad in very expensive schools and most of their consumer items are imported from abroad. According to reports relatively little of ZANUPF leader, Robert Mugabe’s mansion, for example, is made from local materials – the rest is imported from China, Malaysia and other countries that are still friendly to Mugabe.
Members of the ruling elite who are directly and significantly benefiting from looting the state wealth probably do not number more than one-half million or even much less.
Yet on the other side of this class divide are millions of suffering masses. They are all affected adversely by poverty, unemployment, inflation, disease like HIVAIDS, shortage of food and other consumer items have disappeared from the stores. The masses also suffer from human rights abuse and the absence of the rule of law in the country.
Mugabe’s regime is aware that it is taking a big risk by allowing rampant unemployment which stands at over 80 percent, an ever spiraling inflation, a general decline in the standard of living to be a daily feature of the masses in Zimbabwe. Historically people have staged revolts that in some countries have toppled the ruling administration.
A key question is: How come a few members of the ruling elite are able to maintain so much control of the starving masses? The easy answer to this is the military and the youth militias thugs. It is estimated that the army and the militia thugs number 80,000. Then there is an intricate network of CIO members and informers also numbering in the thousands. But this alone does not guarantee security. Reports that army supremo Constantine Chiwengwa was booed by soldiers shows clearly that all is not well in the army. More on that later.
In addition to the militarization of the Zimbabwean state Mugabe and ZANUPF have used all kinds of tricks in the book to keep Zimbabweans under his subjugation. He has used an old colonial strategy of divide and conquer. Factionalism within ZANUPF, the opposition movement as well as tribal or ethnic consciousness within the population are all subject to manipulation by Mugabe who will do practically anything to create and exacerbate these divisions.
Mugabe has also, by controlling the mass media tried to ensure that Zimbabweans are given only his and ZANUPF version of the situation in the country.
But the measures Mugabe has taken to perpetuate his rule are to a large extent dependent for their success on how far Zimbabweans will allow fear of the army to overcome them from demonstrating; or how far Zimbabweans will depend on the state owned media for their information; or to what extent Zimbabweans will allow themselves to be divided on tribal, ethnic, ideological grounds.
The biggest challenge for civil society leadership is how to help Zimbabweans break out of this divisive culture of fear and ethnic, tribal or ideological consciousness. As long as Zimbabweans identify themselves along these divisive lines they will give Mugabe the ammunition he needs to keep them under his oppressive domination.
A class analysis of the Zimbabwean situation will help the opposition movement to strategize a more united campaign against Mugabe. In some ways the majority of Zimbabweans at grassroots level would appear to be united as evidenced by the poplar, enduring, sustained, nationwide and grassroots support Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC enjoys. So there is indeed a strong foundation to forge a united front against Mugabe.
But the opposition movement needs more than a foundation in the anti Mugabe struggle. Civil society leadership must now build upon that foundation by closing ranks and developing a united campaign. Save Zimbabwe movement is an essential aspect of that united front. But it has had some logistical and ideological problems.
There are two formulas that should be the guiding principle for the opposition movement’s united front.
The first is that the structure for a united front against Mugabe must be democratic and recognize multipartyism as an essential ingredient in any democracy. To this extent unity in diversity must be a cardinal principle in any united front. What this means is people within the united front must be free to start or maintain their own parties. The united front will, therefore, be a coalition of several parties and organizations, each maintaining its own identity but united in the campaign against Mugabe.
The second formula is that the united front must recognize and respect the sanctity of free and fair elections. National leadership in the post Mugabe Zimbabwe must and will be determined through free and fair elections. Any squabbles or ambitions for leadership or positions of power must be deferred until after the national elections. Some leaders in the opposition movement assume holding a leadership position during the campaign against Mugabe will automatically translate to maintain that position after the elections.
The problem with the unity agreement proposed for the divided MDC was it encroached on the people’s sovereign right to decide who will lead or represent them. If the proposal for a united front was to avoid splitting the opposition votes at the elections then primaries should have been proposed to ensure that each candidate for any constituency was the genuine representative of the majority of the people in that constituency rather than an imposed compromise candidate just to ensure some equity in political representation in the united front.
Thus, while multipartyism is an important characteristic of the opposition united front the people must have the final say on who will represent them in elections. If, for example, smaller parties lost in the primary elections, their leadership and supporters would be obliged to support whoever the candidate the people elected. But this would not mean the death of the losing political parties. It would simply be a message for them to do better in the next elections.
But why do some people resist this formula for a people-driven political representation? It’s because they lack the maturity to accept that political representation must be guided by elections rather than an imposition from a few leaders. When some people enter politics and aspire to be leaders they bring with them the excess baggage of tribalism, ethnicity, race, intellect, regionalism and ideological consciousness. They see this excess baggage as a passport that will give them a short cut to the position of leadership without necessarily subjecting themselves to the judgment of the people.
A united front against Mugabe should be coalition of all the people who share the common goal of removing Mugabe from power. It does not matter whether they are disgruntled member of the army, police, CIO or whether they belong to different parties. What matters most is they all subscribe to two basic goals and principles, namely, getting rid of Mugabe and subjecting themselves to, as well as accepting the outcome of, free and fair elections.
Mugabe has isolated or marginalized the vast majority of the Zimbabwean population including his own supporters. The rank and file members of ZANUPF, the army, police, and CIO are suffering just as much as other Zimbabweans. In some sense they are as much oppressed as members of the opposition movement. In fact, the whole country the entire nation has become one mass opposition movement. This is why Mugabe is scared stiff of free and fair elections.
A key element in the strengthening of the opposition movement is getting rid of identities that tend to divide people.
The opposition movement should ban from their vocabulary the following divisive identities : tribe, ethnicity, race, gender, ideology, and social status.
The opposition movement should be led by leaders who are first and foremost Zimbabweans rather than Shona, Ndebele, white, black, urban or rural or man or woman. This is probably the message grassroots Zimbabweans are sending to their civil society leadership. When MDC leader Tsvangirai travels around the country he is received with enthusiastic support from both the Shona and Ndebele. Try sending Mugabe to Tsholosho to address a rally and you will see the night -and -day difference!
There is therefore a good potential, based on what already exists among the Zimbabwean masses, for forging and strengthening the united front in the opposition movement.
Civil society leadership in Zimbabwe must transform themselves into a truly people-driven leadership with no hidden agendas or excess baggage of identities that tend to hinder the direction and efficacy of the liberation struggle.
Zimbabwe is now a class society. The struggle against Mugabe is now a class struggle between the minority ruling elite and the filthy rich, on one hand, and the suffering masses on the other hand. There is virtually no middle class in between to act as a buffer zone. This helps the suffering masses to see clearly their enemy and their oppressors.
In a class struggle the united front has no interests other than the overthrow of the oppressor and the institution of the rule of law, democracy and free and fair elections to spearhead a human socioeconomic development agenda that will benefit all Zimbabweans.
Fifty years ago the African National Congress made two declaratory statements that became the guiding principles for the anti apartheid struggle. These were: South Africa and its wealth and resources belong to all people who live in the country, and, the people shall govern. This is also the clarion call in the anti Mugabe struggle – the redefinition of the struggle as that of restoring dignity, basic human rights, democracy and the right through free and fair elections for all Zimbabweans to chose a leadership of their own choice as well as the right to determine how all will benefit from the national resources and opportunities.
MDC