President Mugabe’s ‘ambiguous revolution by political default’
By Takura Zhangazha
On the occasion of
his eighty-eighth birthday, President Mugabe gave what appears to be two
separate interviews where he talked on matters to do with his political and
personal reflections. The first interview which appeared in the Sunday Mail
seemed to be less rehearsed while the second one which appeared on the state
controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) television seemed to be a bit more cautious
and diplomatic particularly with regards to his counterpart political parties
in the inclusive government.
But overall the interviews had the same intention
and probable effect to his supporters of presenting the Zimbabwean leader as a
‘revolutionary’ who is keen on being known and remembered as such. That is well
and good since we all have the right to be persuaded by one political
idea/individual or the other.
And since President Mugabe said in his ZBC TV interview, we
are all ‘sons and daughters of the soil’ and are entitled to different
opinions, I have an opinion on his leadership and the issues he has raised on
his 88th birthday.
My initial point of analysis is with regards to his reference
to the revolutionary intentions of the current policies of his party, Zanu Pf.
This, he argues, is via the ‘taking back’ of the land and now the ongoing indigenization
processes in mining and other sectors of the economy. On paper, the language
appears revolutionary and talks to what can be considered nationalist sentiment
stemming from the liberation struggle. In reality and practice, the policies
that have and are being undertaken have been largely indicative of ‘revolution
by default.’
This should be taken to mean that the land redistribution
was done under specific political pressure that made it more of a political
survival strategy than a value based revolutionary one. But the land
redistribution exercise has occurred all the same. It however remains a ‘default’ policy
position which is now controversially being undermined by the Mugabe government’s
ambiguous commitment to leasing off large tracts of land to bio fuel companies,
safari operators and mineral exploration companies. This has led to the
eviction of villagers as well as negatively affected the environment. As a
result, there is a growing chasm between the nationalist rhetoric of the
president and the realities on the ground.
Where the president mentions indigenization of the national
economy as one of his policy priorities he has not done a clear ideological
examination of what exactly he means. It is inadequate to merely equate the 51%
taking over of a multinational company or bank by indigenous Zimbabweans as
revolutionary in and of itself. There must be clarity as to the ideological
purpose of taking over such companies as well as the expected societal end
product.
The current rush by big business in offering communities shares in mining
concerns is more indicative of a new found ‘elite cohesion’ around wealth
accumulation and does not particularly point Zimbabwe toward a more equitable
and economically just society. Wanting a share in a company on the basis of
'indegeneity' is the stuff of identity politics and nowhere near being positively
revolutionary. Given the fact that there is a new found global ‘new scramble forAfrica’ Zimbabwe’s political economy is likely to lean further toward an
African neo-liberal and unjust framework. In so doing, the indigenous business
people will be more of a ‘comprador bourgeoisie’ for global capital, no matter
whether it is coming from the West, the Chinese or the South Africans.
A second point of analysis about President Mugabe’s
interviews is where he outlines his views on the contentious and problematic
issue of leadership succession in Zanu Pf. In both interviews he contends that
he is still capable of leading. It is however in the Sunday Mail interview
where he comments on how the matter is a serious cause of division in his
party, a point which indicates his rather convenient claim to championing his
party’s unity in place of leadership succession. It is a convenience that he
must know will not last, not by dint of age but by the fact that political parties
that have been in power for as long as Zanu Pf have always had an evident
successor (even his erstwhile friends the Chinese have an evident successor). It is therefore a serious indictment on his leadership style that it is not evidently so for his own
party, no matter how many congratulations he may get on his birthday.
On the other matters that relate to elections, the constitution
and his colleagues in the inclusive government, the President’s views have been known for
some time now. Save to say that his insistence on elections is now clearly
based on the constitutional prerogative of the President to call for them as he
states in the ZBC TV interview. Essentially he indicated that he has no problem
with unilaterally calling for an election this year, with or without a
constitution. Whether that becomes a reality or not is probably dependent on
the ability of the other GPA principals and the SADC appointed facilitator to dissuade him from calling for them in 2012.
Finally, it is evident that President Mugabe has great admiration for Fidel Castro
of Cuba and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. He makes mention of the two leaders to
stress the need for exemplary leadership or to make an historical point in
relation to either sanctions or the African Union. In this, he may be
indicating how he might want to be remembered but I wouldn’t know if like
Castro, President Mugabe is persuaded that ‘history will absolve him’.
Hi Takura, this article is the first to articulate the ambiguities of Robert Gabriel Mugabe's legacy. A revolution that lost its way begins to implement a "revolutionary" programme of land "reform" and "re-distribution of wealth" only in response to an imminent loss of political power. The result is messy. Your article is a perfect rejoinder to Nathaniel Manheru (that Permanent Secretary masquerading as a revolutionary intellectual). The sad reality is that ZANU PF has no Che, has no Castro, no Cabral. A party fixated with looting the national coffers and natural resources has no time for ideology.
ReplyDeleteI'd have liked to see you develop the 'revolution by political default theme' a little further especially with regards to both land reform and indigenisation, interrogating the ideological claims of the two policies in the context of their conception, formulation and implementation by President Mugabe himself in Zimbabwe, and what the historical record provides by way of comparative context across the Global South.
ReplyDeletethanks for the comments, the Zimbo and Chofamba. On the issue of exploring the 'revolution by political default' I must confess that I thought it would have become a bit more complicated.But fair comment, Chofamba, maybe i should have expanded it further.
ReplyDelete"The current rush by big business in offering communities shares in mining concerns is more indicative of a new found ‘elite cohesion’ around wealth accumulation and does not particularly point Zimbabwe toward a more equitable and economically just society. Wanting a share in a company on the basis of 'indegeneity' is the stuff of identity politics and nowhere near being positively revolutionary."
ReplyDeleteAh Paradzai, ok. am trying to understand 'your' comment.
Delete