Saturday, April 16, 2005

Zimbabwe's 15 minutes

Posted by Mickey Z on 04/16 at 07:06 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus

  1. Today (18/04.05) is the 25th anniversary of the liberation of Zimbabwe. Your article is not only timely but refreshing.

    Posted by George Shire from United Kingdom  on  04/18  at  05:27 AM

  2. Thanks, George...I didn’t realize today was the anniversary. This interview has gotten mixed reviews but I always see value in getting a maximum number of viewpoints out there.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from   on  04/18  at  07:53 AM

  3. Ralph Borland, a regular visitor to this site, tried to post here but had problems. As a favor, I’m posting his comments in two or three parts and will alert Greg Elich should he wish to reply. Here goes:

    Hi Mickey,

    I read your interview with Greg Elich on Zimbabwe’s elections. I see that your interview is getting linked to from a large number of other sites too.

    As you know, I live in the neighbouring country to Zimbabwe, in South Africa. I also lived in Zimbabwe as a teenager. My parents are Zimbabwean and on the left. Soon after independence was won in Zimbabwe in 1980, we moved from apartheid South Africa to live there.

    I grew up with family friends who had smuggled weapons into then-Rhodesia for the liberation fighters, South African political exiles, and other people excited by the possibility Zimbabwe represented. We were ZANU supporters, and dismissed any criticism of Mugabe’s government as right-wing propaganda. We believed the large-scale massacres of opposition party ZAPU
    members, based in the minority SiNdebele-speaking ethnic group in the South, were the work of apartheid South African ‘third-force’ insurgents, bent on destabilizing newly independent Zimbabwe. Of course, as is now well known, the massacres were in fact the work of the Zimbabwean army’s notorious North
    Korean trained ‘5th brigade’. And living in Zimbabwe over the eighties and nineties we saw the country unravel under government corruption and it’s collusion with the IMF and it’s ‘structural readjustment programs’.

    It was because of this last fact that I was carrying a sign saying ‘I’m from Zimbabwe and the IMF fucked us up’ at a big rally in Washington DC in 2000-something and that was why a woman who’d come up there with the International Action Centre came to speak to me about Zimbabwe. She was surprised and confused that I was critical of the current land seizures in
    Zimbabwe; she had been told by the IAC that Mugabe was some kind of socialist hero, standing up to the colonialists, and giving land back to the people. I explained that most people in Zimbabwe understood the need for land distribution, but that the government had been buying up land since independence, at first with money from the British, but had been passing
    reclaimed land out amongst political party leaders, and this was in large part why there was still so many landless people. It was now politically convenient for Mugabe to say the lack of proper land redistibution was the result of white intransigence. The new wave of land ‘redistribution’ was also done with no training or material support from the government and no plan for sustainability.

    I’ve since seen this support for Mugabe from some in the American left, I think because in a romantic way it sounds like they should support him; a Black African socialist, leader of a country whose name came to symbolise liberation from colonialism (see Bob Marley), resisting western attempts at interference, redistributing land to the people… what’s not to like, right? His willingness to impoverish Zimbabwe at the request of the IMF needn’t be scrutinized. And the fact that he’s an authoritarian leader who had large numbers of his own populace killed? But he says the right stuff - and that’s what counts right?

    We on the left should as careful about falling for left-wing mythologies as right-wing ones. We all know that what Bush says the reasons are for doing something like invading Iraq are not his real reasons; why do we believe other heads of hierarchical, authoritarian structures because what they say
    accords with our political allegiances? Actually, a better word would be our political ‘aesthetic’. The reluctance to criticise states who fly our flag goes way back in the history of the left.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  04/24  at  05:20 PM

  4. Anyway, to Greg’s article. I’m not going to go through all of it, but just
    to say that statements like “the government of Zimbabwe had in fact
    successfully implemented regional election standards well before the
    election” are incorrect. There are many, many reports, from a range of
    sources, that Zimbabwe had not followed SADC guidelines. Claiming that the
    only problem with the elections was that “insufficient attention was paid to
    voter education” is to discount a much broader context of intimidation and
    murder of opposition activists and supporters in Zimbabwe. I have friends
    who were tortured by the Zimbabwean Central Intelligence Organisation for
    their political activities. There are plenty of political refugees from
    Zimbabwe in South Africa. The point with Zimbabwe’s elections is not to say
    the MDC should have won (extremely doubtful) or that ZANU does not enjoy any
    popular support, but that the conditions do not exist for meaningful
    democratic process. Of course, they don’t exist in America either, but
    because America is hypocritical in condemning Zimbabwe’s government, does
    that mean we support the Zimbabwean government?

    We need to not let ourselves be pulled into the ‘with us or against us’
    rhetoric; Mugabe presenting a picture of defiance to the Western powers
    might give you a politically romantic frisson, but that doesn’t mean you
    should assume he’s worthy of your support. Believe me, your real allies in
    South Africa and Zimbabwe are not the state, who are as cynical as your
    governments, but nongovernmental activist groups resisting the state. Groups
    like the Anti Privatization Forum or the Treatment Action Campaign in South
    Africa. The experience of living in a post-colonial country is one of
    disillusionment with revolutionary rhetoric. ANC politicians still call each
    other comrade as they shuffle their capital, and half the country lives
    below the poverty line.

    The majority of people suffering under Mugabe’s rule are poor and black. The
    white farmers whose farms where taken are a small number.

    some articles about the elections in zimbabwe:

    Southern Africa must show its teeth on Mugabe, Date: 11-Mar, 2005, By
    Allister Sparks


    “... Zwelinzima Vavi, the leader of the Congress of South African Trade
    Unions, Cosatu – the key partner of Mbeki’s ruling African National Congress
    - has said it is already too late to save Zimbabwe’s electoral process, and
    that the political dice are so irretrievably stacked against the opposition
    that, with only three weeks to go, the election cannot possibly be free and
    fair.

    And George Bizos, the renowned South African human rights lawyer who
    defended Nelson Mandela in the Rivonia trial 40 years ago, said in a recent
    interview in London: “Mr Mugabe would like this election to be certified as
    free and fair in the hope of getting some relief from the terrible situation
    which he has led his country to.

    “I don’t think that he should get such a certificate, because in order to
    have a free and fair election you have to have the rule of law, an impartial
    and independent judiciary…, prosecuting authority and competent police
    force. None of these things exist, nor can they be put in place before
    election day.”

    http://www.daily-news.co.za/content_pull/art_pull.asp?cat=tkp&link=..%5Carti
    cles%5C2005%5C03%5C11%5Ctkp_11032005_01917.asp

    --

    Zimbabwe Falls Short on Election Guidelines:

    University of Zimbabwe analyst Brian Raftopoulos says the latest changes
    implemented by the government still fall far short of compliance with the
    SADC guidelines. Mr. Raftopoulos says contrary to government claims, the
    electoral commission is not running the election and the voters roll is
    still a mess, with the names of some voters who have been dead for years
    still appearing.

    “I don’t think it (implementation of the new rules) will substantially
    change the form of the election because the electoral process is still being
    run by the Registrar General against whom opposition parties have been
    sending complaints for the last two decades, in particular the central
    aspect of that process which is the voters roll which is still not available
    to any opposition party in electronic form. So I am sure this election will
    be no different,” he said.

    Beatrice Mtetwa, a human rights lawyer says she cannot understand how the
    South African leader could conclude things have changed enough given the
    reality in Zimbabwe.

    “Clearly the failure to have one electoral body running the elections, a
    body that would have been impartially chosen that immediately puts a flaw in
    the elections. There is no way that an electoral commission that is largely
    put in place by persons who have been appointed by the president can be said
    to be impartial”

    http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2005_03_29_3114.html

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  04/24  at  05:23 PM

  5. ‘Flawed system must go’ - interview with Lovemore Madhuku, who argued for a
    vote boycott
    http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=214980&area=/insight/insight_
    _africa/

    --

    ‘Free and fair elections in Zimbabwe?’
    http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20041011091810288

    --

    some others:

    http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=201198&area=/insight/insight_
    _comment_and_analysis/

    http://www.star.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=225&fArticleId=2477515

    --

    cheers,

    ralph borland

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  04/24  at  05:23 PM

  6. My schedule is extremely hectic, so I’ll just make a few brief comments.
    Like many other nations, after the demise of socialism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe lost access to trade and credits and felt compelle to adopt a structural adjustment program in order to have access to credit.  And like many nations, that program had a deleterious effect on living standards.  What Ralph does not mention is that unlike many nations, Zimbabwe jettisoned that program (in 2001).  Not coincidentally, this corresponded to the start of the Western campaign of sanctions and threats against Zimbabwe. 
    Ralph sees a tendency for the left to support Zimbabwe.  I wish I could see it.  All I see is a left so blinded by bogus human rights arguments of Bush and Blair that they end up baying for blood, and forgetting what a left out to stand for:  equity, justice, land reform, and the right to steer one’s own path regardless of the wishes of imperialism.
    And yes, Zimbabwe did adopt the SADC Protocol on elections.  I detailed a few of the specific points, but I see nothing in the SADC guidelines that wasn’t put into practice. 
    (part 1 of 2)

    Posted by Gregory Elich from Ohio  on  04/30  at  11:31 AM

  7. (continued)
    Ralph tacks on an article ("Free and Fair elections in Zimbabwe?") which makes a number of intentionally distorted points.
    1.  the names of voters who are dead on the rolls.  This is normal.  You could update the rolls on Monday and on Tuesday you’re going to have some names on the rolls of voters who are dead.  Unless you can convince people not to die of cancer, heart attacks, accidents, etc. between an update to the rolls and election day, you’re going to have the names of dead voters on the rolls.  This report, which parrots the line of the MDC and Western reporters, tries to present it as something sinister.  The reader is supposed to guess that this is an indication of fraud.  Again, according to the SADC election guidelines, as put into practice in Zimbabwe, opposition party monitors were stationed at each polling site, and involved in the process, and no vote was official until they signed off on it.  The MDC itself, as I pointed out, checked with their monitors, and found that MDC party members who were at the poll sites verified that the official election results for their sites matched exactly the totals they saw and signed off on.
    2.  The article claims that the voter rolls were not available to the MDC in electronic form.  Nice piece of distortion.  It’s that “eletronic form” that is misleading.  The average reader will conclude that the voter rolls were not made available.  Period.  In fact, the voter rolls were posted and made available to the MDC in January 2005, three months before the election.

    Posted by Gregory Elich from Ohio  on  04/30  at  11:40 AM

  8. (continued, last part)

    3.  The article claims that the election committee was “largely put in place by persons who have been appointed by the president.”
    Not true.  President Mugabe appointed the head of the commission.  All of its members, without exception, were appointed by Parliament, by both parties, ZANU-PF and the MDC).
    And finally, Ralph quotes criticism of the Zimbabwean government by George Bizos.  But then, he would say that, wouldn’t he?  He was on the MDC payroll.  The MDC hired him to represent MDC leader Tsvangirai at his trial for treason (for attempting to arrange a coup d’etat to overthrow the government).  I’m not familiar with any cases of a lawyer acting against and speaking against the interests of his client.  So of course he’ll parrot the MDC line.
    And finally, I do have to wonder about a Western left so taken with the Bush-Blair propaganda that they enthusiastically support the MDC, a party that has in its program and statements, promised a massive privatization campaign and to put the economy at the service of Western corporate investors, to grant low tax rates to them, to offer them Zimbabwean state firms at bargain prices, etc. etc., and a return to a structural adjustment program.  The usual neoliberal prescription that means only poverty and economic decline for a nation and wealth for corporate vultures.

    Posted by Gregory Elich from Ohio  on  04/30  at  11:48 AM

Next entry: It was 44 years ago today...

Previous entry: Taken for grant-ed...one Zimbabwe or another