Zimbabwe on the couch

I think the answer lies in an examination of the relationship between an abusive father, his family, and the community surrounding them. An analysis of the dynamics of abuse offers a valuable insight into the personality’ of Zimbabwe and explains why Zimbabweans are so forbearing, willing to compromise and, at times, appear so compliant to outside eyes: totally dominated by this dapper little man with his Savile Row suits, mincing gait and limp-wristed handshake.It has been fascinating, also, to watch the behaviour of the media over the course of the election stand-off: initially gung-ho and full of rhetoric about the abject failures of his rule, jostling for position to witness his downfall, they are now, quite literally, struck dumb by his ability to outmanoeuvre them, standing at the border-posts and in their secret locations’ within the country, their microphones dangling and their mouths hanging slightly askew.The saddest thing of all to witness has been the vicious crackdown on his favourite whipping boys now that these meddling outsiders’ have run out of things to say.
Subtle, complicated relationship
The abusive father doesn’t just walk into the house and immediately vent his rage and frustration on his children, arbitrarily beating them because he is an intrinsically evil man. The relationship is far more complicated and subtle than that. The father is an isolated and lonely figure. He cannot understand why his efforts in everyday life are continually frustrated and his methods of problem-solving ineffectual.
The harder he works, the less he seems to achieve, and he feels he has no control over his environment outside the home, perceiving others as being to blame for his failures and disappointments there.
The house is quiet when he gets in; the children keep their heads down, avoiding direct eye contact. They are submissive and do everything they can to please him, to avoid the outburst of anger and subsequent abuse that they know will come if they step out of line, but, as the evening progresses, the tension rises despite their best efforts.At last it comes almost as a relief when the youngest spills his cup of milk and the beatings begin, the father screaming at them as they cower in terror: Look at what you made me do to you! This is all your fault!He is aroused by the exertions brought about by the thrashing he gives his children. His eyes are bright and he trembles, his fist raised in triumph. He emphasises the correctness of his ideology in delivering the abuse, constantly reiterating that he is only doing his duty in correcting the recalcitrant behaviour of his family.Initially respectful, even worshipful of their father, as the children mature they become restive and discuss amongst themselves their mutual hatred of the abuser: they construct fantasy scenarios of his destructionand removal from their lives. But whenever one of them shows any form of open defiance, the crackdown is so immediate, brutal and all-encompassing (including the meek and submissive siblings among them), that they are eventually knitted into a cohesive, self policing unit that becomes absorbed solely with self-preservation at the expense of liberty and self-expression.
Aiding abuse
The family unit becomes increasingly isolated from the gaze of outsiders and concerned relatives as the father shields prying eyes from the effects his abuse is having on the well-being and behaviour of his family. His spouse is sometimes a buffer, capable of shielding the family from the worst of his excesses, and sometimes an aid in the abuse.If a natural ally does not present him/herself, he may co-opt one or more members of the family as his sidekick, favouring him or her over the others, and reinforcing the us versus them’ concept within the unit, threatening catastrophic scenarios and shameful exposure of their complicity in them, should the family dynamic be exposed.If outsiders dare to poke their noses into his affairs, they are viciously rebuked and counter-accused, and he is quick to blame them, citing their interference as the direct cause of any harm done.Physical child abusers have been found to have low self-esteem, a negative self-concept, feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, and an external locus of control (perceiving outside forces as being responsible for their misfortunes). They often suffer poor impulse control, and may become aroused while hitting a child, may be self-righteous or always right’, and may misinterpret scripture to rationalise abuse. Not much is known about his upbringing or feelings of self-worth, other than that he was abandoned early on in life by his Malawian father, was very close to his mother growing up and was educated in a mission school, but it is clear that Robert Gabriel
Mugabe is an isolated, irascible man prone to outbursts of venom and irrationality when backed into a corner.
Intolerant of criticism
He is famous for venting spleen on his opponents and name-calling. He is intolerant of criticism from any quarter and his relationships with Western governments, particularly Britain, have been at times hilariously troublesome and characterised by stand-offs of titanic proportions.The gradual tightening of his grip on power in Zimbabwe has always been within the scope of an increasingly draconian law, developed as the independence of the judiciary became compromised. Zimbaweans often mention the death of his wife Sally in 1992 as a loss of a valuable brake’ on his extremism, and his marriage to Grace as a spur to it.
His physical assaults on the citizens of Zimbabwe are seldom perpetrated without self-proclaimed justification, and are more often than not excused, sometimes initiated, and usually backed up, by his politburo and the courts. In his mind, the blame for the dysfunction of his country rests firmly and squarely with outside influences beyond his control.In a 2004 interview with Sky News, he used the tenets and rhetoric of Buddhism to justify his actions. See a pattern emerging, here?The cult of personality and rule by fear has been subliminally present since Mugabe took office, as the Ndebele well knew in the 1980s. The meltdown of Zimbabwe is often blamed on the forced land reform of 2000, but in this analysis it represents a tipping point as Mugabe lashed out to regain control of his family’. The abusive relationship had, in fact, been steadily escalating in the 1990s and the Zimbabwean people, as victims of it long-term, may have been understandably compliant and absorbed with self-preservation in the years leading up to the formation of the Movement For Democratic Change in 1999.In recognition of the need to resist the constitutional reforms’ that would entrench Mugabe’s power-base and make him president for life, the MDC, like cocky teenagers up for a fight, delivered a bloody nose to the President in the referendum of 2000. Mugabe, like a shocked and chastened parent, took a momentary step back. And then stepped right back in as controller and patriarch, determined not to make the same mistake again.Since then Mugabe and his sidekicks in Zanu (PF) have used increasingly violent backlashes to control an increasingly defiant family. But that family has now come of age.Using this framework for understanding the dynamic of Zimbabwe and its relationship with the entrenched paterfamilias it is struggling to overthrow, where do we put the friends and relations’ anxiously and ineffectually hovering on the sidelines, knowing something is terribly wrong but entirely unsure how to fix it? I think I’ve already answered that question: totally sidelined.
Dysfunctional family
In any dysfunctional relationship, those closest to the family are usually the last to acknowledge a problem exists and subsequently the last to react. The SADC countries are then, as first cousins, acting entirely according to type and cannot be relied upon to act with the decisiveness necessary to save the day. The African union, as slightly more distant relations, have been called upon, but are hand-wringing and hesitant to acknowledge a situation that could possibly bring the whole extended family into disrepute. Britain, the EU and America represent the social workers who are unable to intervene, hampered as they are by political correctness and the defence of the rights of the perpetrator.The UN should, as the repository of the rule of international law, be able to step in and save the day, but it has gone on holiday for the month of April and left cousin Mbeki (who doesn’t recognise there’s a problem) in charge, and, anyway, even if cousin Mbeki wanted to do something about it, there would be Mugabe’s old pal China to convince that his best buddy’s abuse of human rights represents in any way, shape, or form an unacceptable method of governance.The MDC will win in the end, as all desperate people opposing tyranny do. In the role of a fearless big brother leading his siblings to safety, Morgan Richard Tsvangarai has taken the knocks and almost succeeded in facing the old man down. So far so good. I only hope he and the Zimbabwean people will survive the last, fearful lashes of a disgruntled and discredited tyrant. I also hope that those capable of offering protection put aside their pride and their fears and offer it now. And those that have kept the spotlight so mercilessly illuminating the process don’t turn it away to allow the unspeakable to be done in the shadows.And as for those who insist on standing at the sideline, watching the spectacle of David defeating his giant, I hope they don’t dare to question his right or ability to govern the land he wins with his sling of protest and his calls for justice that fall like stones on the brow of Robert Gabriel Mugabe and Zanu (PF), because those calls will have been the only stones cast from his side in this terrible struggle.