Is Anti-Imperialism Incompatible with Pro-Democracy in Zimbabwe? By Godwin Murunga

The red flag one is most likely to be confronted with for criticizing the thoroughly illegitimate ‘leader' of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is imperialism and racism. If you are an African criticizing Mugabe, you are likely to be accused of being guilty of working in cahoots with racist-imperialists. Names of George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are consequently liberally dropped and proven and uncompromising critics of imperialism like Horace Campbell (author of Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The Exhaustion of the Patriarchal Model of Liberation, 2003) run the risk of being lumped together with pro-imperialists just because they dared criticize Mugabe. In other words, one is guilty of racist imperialism by the simple fact of voicing a demand for democracy in Zimbabwe which Mugabe has avidly abrogated.

Unfortunately, the people who tend to raise the race/imperialism flag, especially on the listserves, tend not to be Zimbabweans. Like me, most do not have a serious radical and revolutionary record and connection to the country. They are actually late entrants into the anti-racism and anti-imperialism "hall of fame." Since they hardly have any serious connection to Zimbabwe, they may not understand the plight of the average Zimbabwean who has to deal with the daily consequences of a ravaged economy and a dictatorial regime. The tragedy is that they have transformed the debate on Zimbabwe to a shouting match between those perceived to be pro-imperialism against those who are anti-imperialism but with little regard to what is the more crucial thing; the reality of dreams deferred for average people in Zimbabwe due largely to Mugabe's autocracy and mismanagement.

This claim of deferred dreams for average Zimbabweans is countered by the exaggerated and misleading assumption that the West is responsible for the collapsing economy in Zimbabwe. Others, like the editors at New Africa, used to rely on the excuse of the drought that ravaged the region. They argued that all would be well once the drought is over. The first argument regarding the culpability of the West is partially true and many have expended enough energy dissecting it. But the argument is only partially valid! The argument about the drought was shortsighted because the drought was temporary. The time for a reality check has come and gone and Mugabe has failed to acquit himself on both counts.

Let me start with a brief anecdote that recently brought home the tragedy of Zimbabwe under Mugabe. I was asked to speak at the Africa Liberation Day celebrations last month at the same venue where our Samuel Kivuitu and his Electoral Commission of Kenya commissioners bungled the Kenyan election. I spoke generally about getting the basics right in developing an African Union government. I emphasized the need for Africans to be able to freely move across the continent. Somewhere in my argument, I mentioned the then ongoing xenophobic attacks in South Africa. I also noted how Robert Mugabe learned from and benefitted from the pan-African vision. I was not forceful enough in taking a critical stand on xenophobia and dictatorship. In the audience were two keen observers who pointed out my rather lukewarm interest in these two issues. One of them, a Zimbabwean, was very eloquent about the Mugabe's atrocious ways. He claimed to have resisted British colonialism and was met with violent reprisals. He then claimed to have opposed Ian Smith's white minority misrule and was met with fresh violent reprisals. He now claims to be opposed to Mugabe's dictatorship and has been met by similar violent retaliation. In both instances, he observed, the reactions to his resistance have been similar. They have included brutal police responses leading to tortures, maiming and political murders. He concluded by arguing that all he would have expected was that Mugabe's response should have been different.

I use this anecdote to re-centre the plight of Zimbabweans in the discussion on Mugabe. To my mind, a different and better way of framing the Zimbabwean problem is to ask whether anti-racism and anti-imperialism are incompatible with demand for democratic leadership. In other words, is it possible to be against the machinations of George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and still expect and demand that African leaders remain democratic, ensure development and social inclusivity? My answer to this question is affirmative. It is also my reason why Robert Mugabe deserves to be chastised and dismissed as a first step to constructing a different future for Zimbabwe.

As of last year, I was willing to cut Robert Mugabe some slack for his anti-imperialist rhetoric. As of this year, and especially following the just-ended electoral fraud of which (I think) Tsvangirai is partly responsible, I will have none of his manipulation of anti-imperialism to drive Zimbabwe down. First, Mugabe's big failure has been his inability to effectively use the severing of relations with the West to institute some forms of autonomous development for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe, indeed Africa, deserves autonomy from the West. Those who shout anti-imperialism hardly remember that sanctions constituted a golden opportunity for Mugabe to show the dreaded West that without foreign aid, Zimbabwe could still remain a shinning example in the middle of Africa of how to prosper without dependency on the west. Instead, what we have is hyper-inflation and dictatorship of the highest order. Rather than protect citizens, Mugabe's regime has become the chief perpetrator of human rights abuses against citizens, in some instances hiring thugs to abuse basic citizen rights.

Many of those who shout imperialism to critics of Mugabe will also write paying glowingly tribute to Fidel Castro. It is lost to most of them that Fidel Castro faced similar sanctions like Mugabe from the West but has acquitted himself with credit in Cuba. He took advantage of the US-led sanction to install a form of leadership that may not be democratic in the manner in which imperialists expect but in which all social indicators suggest that Cubans enjoy better education and medical services than many so-called developed western countries. Land reform was crucial for Cuba and Castro did not carry out land reform in an inequitable manner like Mugabe. These indicators and the social inclusivity involved have vindicated Castro and endeared him to all of us. What does Mugabe have to show? All he has misleadingly managed to illustrate is that dependency on the west is critical to survival of the Zimbabwean economy. This is what makes Gordon Brown feel vindicated to arrogantly lecture us on democracy. The US and others cannot evince a similar sense of vindication towards Cuba because Castro's success has been a good lesson.

Secondly, and here I am using discussions I recently had with my colleague Jimi Adesina of Rhodes University, Zimbabwe had capacity for independent economic development in the mineral commodity boom which should have counter-balanced the decline of white commercial farming. If Zimbabwe lost its foreign exchange earnings from commercial farming, it gained in mining. Less than a week ago, Anglo-American was defending investing $400 million in platinum mining in Zimbabwe. What can Mugabe show for the mineral wealth? Consistency is part of the deal and Mugabe should not just be anti-imperialist when talking about Blair and Brown and not when dealing with a London-based miner like Anglo American!

Other than counter-balancing foreign exchange loss from commercial farming, shouldn't earnings from the mining boom have been used to significantly improve food security in Zimbabwe? After all, commercial farming has never sufficiently supplied Zimbabwe's subsistence needs. The country has historically depended on small-scale African cultivators for food. As Adesina notes, "while agricultural tradables depended on the white commercial farmers, food production in Zimbabwe had always depended on small-scale African cultivators or agriculturalists. The claim of drought does not explain why Malawi, in the same geographical zone, is fully back with food surplus and Zimbabwe is not. The claim of sanction also does not help, since these are small-scale cultivators rather than combine harvester cultivators. And the re-appropriation of land is from white settlers and cannot explain the crisis of food production." It is about mismanagement and the excessive avarice of the elite around Mugabe.

Adesina's argument is by far more solid than a thousand red flags by newfound anti-imperialists who do not seem to appreciate how demeaning and dehumanizing life has become for Zimbabweans forced to cross borders into neighboring countries that are unwilling to host them. In such places, they are derogatorily referred to as "the Zimbabweans" and, in other instances, have become targets of xenophobia in many Southern African states. When the name of your country is reduced to a derogatory reference and your self-confidence demeaned, that is obviously a very dehumanizing experience. The same people who wax lyrical about racist imperialism come from countries where foreigners from Somalia, Uganda, Sudan and DRC have historically been haunted and repatriated into refugee camps and where few of us are willing to stand up and be counted for this basic denials of human rights.

The late Archie Mafeje reminded all who cared to listen that it was never the intention of African nationalism to replace imperialism with dictatorships and mediocrity. African nationalism aspired for higher goals. Pan-Africanism was never about defending mediocre leaders just because they were black. Nationalist African leaders needed to be better, not the same or worse, than the imperialist. They needed to guarantee freedom based on democracy, economic growth and social inclusivity. Robert Mugabe has failed on all these tests. He waves his 1970-80 anti-imperialist credentials to the acclaim of those of us lucky not to be Zimbabweans. At the same time, he is viciously destroying the dreams, potential and future of young Zimbabweans who will live the consequences of his mediocre and dictatorial rule for the next generation. This, in my view, does not and should not inspire anyone to shout against racist imperialism.

Godwin R. Murunga, Nairobi, KENYA