|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Read more on
|Zimbabwe||Africa Peace & Security||Africa Politics & Human Rights| URL for this file: http://www.africafocus.org/docs07/zim0709a.php
Format for print or mobile
Zimbabwe: Pan African Response
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Sep 23, 2007 (070923)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
"For anybody genuinely concerned about the future of Africa there
can be no politics of convenience. To be sure, the Zimbabwean
crisis is not the only crisis in Africa ... [But it] is arguably
the only ongoing crisis in which one side (the incumbent
government) and its supporters have mobilised African support and
silenced many by asserting more or less that its critics are
sympathisers, supporters or agents of foreign interests and former
colonial masters. This has wrongly narrowed the framework of the
debate on the Zimbabwean crisis." - Rotimi Sankore
This issue of AfricaFocus Bulletin contains an article by Rotimi
Sankore, published in Pambazuka News, calling for all Africans to
stand up for human rights and social justice in Zimbabwe. Another
AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today has the latest report on
Zimbabwe from the International Crisis Group.
For earlier AfricaFocus Bulletins on Zimbabwe and additional
background and links, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/country/zimbabwe.php
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
Pan Africanism and the Zimbabwe Crisis
Why all Africans must stand up for universal equality, human rights
and social justice
Rotimi Sankore
Pambazuka News 319
http://www.pambazuka.org
*Sankore is a Pan-Africanist and Human Rights Campaigner.
First, a statement of principles; Every African is obliged to stand
up for equality, democracy, human rights and social justice - not
just for ourselves as individuals or only in our villages, cities,
countries and regions - but for all Africans across Africa
regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, political or religious
beliefs. These must be the bedrock of genuine Pan-Africanism. All
of Africa's anti slavery, anti colonial and liberation struggles
regardless of their shortcomings [and yes they had shortcomings]
were based on these very principles and the concept of an Africa
United for social and economic development is nothing but empty
rhetoric if it is not based on them.
Consequently for any body genuinely concerned about the future of
Africa there can be no politics of convenience. To be sure, the
Zimbabwean crisis is not the only crisis in Africa, and this writer
believes that all African's must engage any crisis that endangers
the social and economic development of Africa on the basis of the
above stated principles - be it in Darfur, DRC - or Zimbabwe.
However, the Zimbabwean crisis is arguably the only ongoing crisis
in which one side (the incumbent government) and its supporters
have mobilised African support and silenced many by asserting more
or less that its critics are sympathisers, supporters or agents of
foreign interests and former colonial masters. This has wrongly
narrowed the framework of the debate on the Zimbabwean crisis into
an oversimplified context of African nationalism and anti
colonialism versus imperialism and colonialism. If the name of
Africa is being invoked in justification of government policy then
Africans must have a position on it. As we sometimes say, you can't
call on your people, and not expect your people to call on you.
The above in turn underlines an outstanding feature of the crisis
- that the current Zimbabwean government is based on the country's
liberation movement - which was supported by the majority of
Africans, people of African descent and anti colonialists
universally against the undemocratic minority white Rhodesian
regime of Ian Smith and its supporters. The Zimbabwean government
has re-mobilised this historical support by positioning itself as
continuing the liberation struggle to "reclaim our land".
By framing issues in terms of: Are you for land reform or not? Are
you for or against white farmers? Are you for or against
colonialism? Are you for Africans or the colonialists? President
Mugabe has posed in a more sophisticated way; the rhetorical
statement so crudely articulated by George Bush that it eventually
backfired - "you are either with us or with the enemy".
Such "you are with us, or with the enemy" rhetoric regardless of
the cause which claims to serve, its sophistication or crudeness is
dangerous to human rights, to social justice and ultimately to
Africa's development because it suggests that anything can be done
in the name of defending 'us' against the alleged 'enemy' or even
worse, that anything can be done to alleged 'enemies' in the name
of defending 'us'. It also suggests that no wrong can be done in
the name of fighting the alleged 'enemy' and ultimately that
anything but unquestioning loyalty is betrayal.
The continuously evolving logic of such rhetoric is that the
definition of enemy is elastic and 'they' [but not the government]
can be held responsible for anything and everything that goes
wrong. Any acceptance of such a political philosophy by either
African citizens or leaders will stagnate intellectual progress in
all fields and place Africa in a state of permanent backwardness.
We must make no mistake about it - all of human progress - in
science, technology, the social sciences and politics, philosophy
and the arts - is based on challenging and improving the status quo
or building on previous 'standards'. Put simply, all of human
progress is based on rigorous examination of existing conventional
wisdoms and on dissent. Every African and in this case every
Zimbabwean must therefore have, and exercise the rights to freedom
of opinion, expression, association and assembly without fear of,
or actually being beaten senseless, incarcerated or killed. A
situation in which people face potential sanctions for not toeing
the official line - are assaulted by 'law enforcement' agents
merely for singing and dancing [to anti government songs], women
are detained for peaceful protests, passports are seized and
lawyers are beaten for representing clients is absolutely
unacceptable. If it was wrong for minority white regimes to have
such policy and practice, it is even more wrong for a black
majority government based on a liberation movement to do the same.
Africans cannot accept any policies from people on whose behalf we
protested when the same treatment was meted out to them. All
Africans must therefore stand firm against any idea that being in
'opposition' means people are not human, or that they are human but
don't have human rights. It's a question of principle. All
political parties must be aware of the possibility that they will
not always be in power - including ZANU-PF. Then they will expect
their rights to be defended.
If the state of social and economic development is a key indicator
of the state of affairs in a country, a no less important indicator
lies in the possibility that all citizens can criticise their
government and its policies, offer alternate opinions and
ultimately change their government by civil means if that is the
wish of the majority. No government - not even the governments of
or leaders of liberation movements can arrogate to themselves
perpetual wisdom and power.
People can debate indefinitely whether or not the Zimbabwean crisis
is as a result of poor government policies, or has been provoked by
sanctions and dirty tricks campaigns by 'colonialists' or both.
What there is no debate about is that there is a political crisis
linked to the apparently indefinite stay in power of President
Mugabe. There is absolutely nothing anti Mugabe about anyone
wondering if after 20 years as President another Zimbabwean out of
its over 12 million citizens - whether from his party or any
opposition party - cannot be elected to lead the country.
In Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and other
countries leaders of liberation or anti-colonial movement
governments have stepped down and are still living - Mandela,
Kaunda, Chissano, Nujoma, Mkapa and the list is growing. In Ghana
and Zambia where the last African Union and SADC summits
respectively held and the Mugabe government made it a point to
mobilise its supporters there have been successful changes of the
party of government in 2000 and 1991 respectively without the roof
caving in on those countries. 20 years is enough for any President
to make contributions to the progress of his or her country. Nobody
needs foreign governments to tell us that. On the whole African
democracy is not perfect but on the balance it is heading in the
right direction. Zimbabwe cannot be an exception to this
progressive trend.
The African Union under the stewardship of Chairperson KonarT
(himself a former leader of Mali that also led by example) has come
a long way from the OAU and it must underline this point. It is a
sign of progress that the AU leadership and many member governments
have so far agreed with African rights campaigners that leaders of
countries with unresolved rights and governance issues cannot Chair
the AU unlike the days when even the worst of despots like Idi Amin
could Chair the former OAU with impunity. The AU and SADC must
continue in the spirit of the AU constitutive Acts, SADC
Declaration and other key principles and discourage the idea that
African leaders must stay in power indefinitely so as to avoid
defeat by colonialists. The colonialists have essentially been
defeated. That is why the country is called Zimbabwe not Rhodesia,
and President Mugabe not Ian Smith has been President for 20 years.
Yes some foreign interests will continue to meddle in Africa,
whether directly or through proxies - this happens in almost all
parts of the world. But the future of Africa is now in the hands of
Africans. Our governments can therefore not adopt the same
repressive policies of the colonialists in the name of continuing
the fight against them. It is important to emphasise that democracy
is imperfect universally and also that the pendulum of power often
swings from one end to the other between ideologies, parties, and
factions within parties. Parties also evolve and change and what
they stand for today may not be what they stood for yesterday or
will stand for tomorrow. For example, the world watched in
disbelief during the 2000 Bush versus Gore election fiasco in the
United States which were it to have happened in Africa under the
same circumstances would have been described as "typically
African".
In the spirit of parliamentary democracy with no term limits,
former Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher whom presided over the
last days of the Rhodesian regime and whom regarded the ANC in
South Africa as a 'terrorists' was tempted to go on indefinitely
after 11 years as UK Prime Minister until hounded out in tears by
anti poll tax mass protests and her own party. Most recently former
Labour leader Tony Blair under pressure from his own party and the
public barely managed to negotiate a dignified exit after 10 years
in office.
In Latin America where some governments would consider themselves
as liberation type governments, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas
for instance lost elections in 1990 to openly foreign backed
Contra's after coming to power in 1979 on the back of a popular
rebellion that overthrew the Somoza dynasty. By the 2006 the
Sandinistas had been voted back into power. How may people looking
at US politics today would realise that founders of the Republican
party in 1854 included anti-slavery activists and that the
Democrats now heavily supported by African Americans once benefited
handsomely from slave owners. The point here is that majority of
African countries have been independent for only between 13 and 50
years and Africans must take a longer-term view of political
history.
If despite obviously democratic imperfections many African and non
African countries have managed to change leaders and parties of
governments without the world coming to an end, there is no reason
why it is impossible for Zimbabwe to have a future without
President Mugabe in power, or for President Mugabe to live without
being in power. Even Ian Smith leader of the Rhodesian government
that committed countless atrocities against Africans and swore that
Black majority rule would never happen has lived in post colonial
Zimbabwe - and is now a grand old man of 88.
There is nothing personal about upholding democracy; the interests
of the citizens of a country must always come before that of the
leadership of any government. The above underlines the fact that
people can also debate without end about whether the Zimbabwean
economy is collapsing, has already collapsed, or will never
collapse. The fact is that an estimated three million [undoubtedly
very Black] Zimbabweans have fled the country with many living as
refugees in neighbouring countries. They must be running from
something. We now face the debacle of armed racist farmers on the
South African Zimbabwe border fulfilling their racist fantasy by
being presented with opportunities to hunt down and round up
Zimbabweans fleeing across the border in the name of defending
South Africa from invading "illegal foreign criminals". Even if the
present Zimbabwean government claims it bears absolutely no
responsibility and that drought, withdrawal of credit lines,
sanctions or even the cycle of boom and bust that has caused
recessions even in advanced industrial economies is responsible for
the economic misery, the fact is that it is almost impossible to
offer alternatives without being "bashed".
No one but the government can be blamed for the rash of legislation
that has no other role than to contain, intimidate or suppress
criticism and peaceful opposition. The laws and policies speak for
themselves "Public Order and Security Act", "Interception of
Communications Act" and so forth. How many people demanding
uncritical loyalty for the Zimbabwean government would happily live
under laws which its just a question of a matter of time before
anyone becomes an arbitrarily victim. It makes no difference if the
foot in the boot kicking you and your rights into a dungeon is
Black or White. A kick is a kick.
'Sanctions' cannot be blamed for everything. By way of comparison
Cuba a country of similar population and even greater antiimperialist
zeal has faced well-documented and comprehensive
blockades, sanctions and invasions [not to mention numerous
assassination attempts against its leadership] by "foreign
interests" over a greater 40-year period and on a scale far
surpassing anything Zimbabwe will ever experience. Despite obvious
democratic deficits, the Cuban government has won grudging
admiration of even its critics because healthy life expectancy in
Cuba - at 67 and 70 years respectively for men and women
respectively - has risen and been sustained at a level equivalent
to and in some cases higher than in the most advanced industrial
countries. In Zimbabwe current healthy life expectancy has sunk to
34 years and 33 years respectively for men and women, also making
Zimbabwe one of the countries in the world where men are expected
to live longer than women.
This is not an endorsement of any section of, or all of the
opposition, or even of hypocritical foreign policy from some
countries - but rather of the right of all citizens including the
political opposition to exist without fear of repression. Just as
we know that being a liberation fighter does not guarantee that
anyone will be the best possible leader in government, we all know
that being an 'opposition' movement or leader is not a guarantee
that anybody will do better than those they seek to replace.
Regardless, one of the indisputable conditions for the development
of Africa is that the principles and culture of democracy must be
institutionalised. No one should insult the memory of countless
Africans murdered by colonial settlers to facilitate stealing of
their land by suggesting repressive laws are necessary to implement
or defend land reform. Without doubt land reform is a necessary
part of social justice for Africans, but it must be judicious,
equitable and transparent land reform based on respect for human
rights and the rule of law - not land reform used as a political
cudgel to 'bash' all critical voices.
I have heard some people argue that the 'enemies' of Africa now
crying about human rights did not burden their conscience with such
luxuries when benefiting from 400 years of industrial scale
slavery, colonialism and brutal exploitation of Africa and its
peoples. In other words, that 'white farmers' deserve some of their
own medicine. Not only does such thinking reduce Africans to the
moral bankruptcy of colonialists, it also fails to understand that
it risks granting unlimited and indefinite power to Africa's actual
and imaginary liberators such that we may all end up be shackled by
them. Africa's liberation movements drew their moral strength from
the fact that on the balance, they fought for social justice, human
rights, equality and democracy - for all - not for card-carrying
members of ruling parties.
The philosophical algebra of this equation is that there should be
no expectations that these principles can be discarded as
inconvenient while still counting on the unwavering support of all
Africans. Africans must therefore unite for social justice and
human rights across Africa - including in Zimbabwe. Some people
also think that because of either real or imagined 'western'
hypocrisy we must always give unconditional loyalty to the Mugabe
or any government that claims to be defending Africa against
'imperialism'.
The hypocrisy may be real but our primary concern must be the
welfare of Africans, not whether President Bush as part of his
politics of convenience - supports the Musharraf military regime in
Pakistan which was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1999 for
overthrowing an elected government (while simultaneously passing
the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Act), or even whether some of
the western media engage in 'colonial mentality' reporting which
fulfils negative stereotypes of Africa. Our health care system,
education, food and overall social justice and development must
come first. It is impossible to build on development achievements
if everyone must agree with official policy. Regardless of party
affiliation nobody's stomach is neutral on the question of hunger.
No disease asks for your party card.
While all Africans with any dignity must remain firmly
anti-colonial and anti-racist, we must also view with scepticism
any blanket anti- western and anti-white rhetoric. Not withstanding
that some foreign governments described the ANC and other
liberation movements as "communists" and "terrorists" or both,
while simultaneously supporting bandit governments such as the
Mobutu regime, Africa's anti colonial and liberation movements were
supported by millions across the world including from the West.
Even some governments such as the Swedish were proud supporters of
liberation movements and post independence governments long before
it became fashionable to do so.
President Mugabe is a former teacher and one of Africa's most
educated and experienced leaders. After over 2 decades in power, he
does not really need anyone to tell him that it is not only
possible to be in office without being in power; it is also
possible to be in power without moral authority. Once any leader
anywhere gets to that point it is irrelevant what you claim to
stand for. What will become relevant is that you did not stand down
when you should have done so - of your own free will - and in the
best interests of your people.
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org
|
