The Guardian – described by a columnist in the British Sunday Times as ‘a small circulation north London newspaper’ – would have been less sanguine if the inhabitants of north London had been bulldozed without warning or compensation for the proposed high-speed train line. This would, of course, have been an outrage.
But Murambatsvina? Well that’s Africa, innit? It is this patronizing tone that enchants the Vigil as we read The Guardian’s latest musings on Zimbabwe. Why should we worry about The Guardian? Well, it sets the agenda for the BBC for one thing. Go into any BBC newsroom and you will see scribes buried in the paper. The Guardian is essential reading because it tells them what to think.
So what’s the Guardian’s current narrative on Mugabe? Misunderstood, demonized, rebel with a cause. An article by the British academic, Ian Scoones, on the Guardian Africa Network website talks of ‘anecdotal evidence’ that Mugabe is ‘softening his clenched fist’. Well Professor Scoones knows all about anecdotal evidence as shown by his book on the alleged success of land reform. Not that his mention of ‘white capital seeking a reassertion of power’ is anecdotal of course.
The Guardian went further in the print edition with a full page on Zimbabwe by David Smith reporting from Harare. Here are the headlines: ‘Mugabe: at first a hero, then a villain – and finally the redeemed father of his nation?’; ‘West may see this year’s election as credible’; ‘Shift in attitudes following years of demonisation’. Smith’s talk of Mugabe as possibly ‘the redeemed father of his nation’ seems to the Vigil to sanitise a man who boasted of having degrees in violence.
Murambatsvina, Gukurahundi, murder, rape, torture? No Mugabe is just misunderstood. For The Guardian it seems to be ‘one equal light’. Mugabe might be not as nice as he should be but Tsvangirai on the other hand is a flop. How’s that for balance? Smith doesn’t ignore Mugabe’s crimes: the Vigil’s objection is that they don’t seem to matter.
‘The following scenario, once unthinkable, is now just conceivable’, he writes: ‘The Zimbabwean president will retain power in this year’s elections through fair means or foul; the poll will be relatively peaceful and deemed “credible” by the west; then sanctions will be lifted against Mugabe and his inner circle, ushering him back in from the cold.’ Absolutely right. But where we disagree is when Smith says ‘the fact that land reform’s consequences (are being) debated is a step towards making Mugabe’s legacy less unpalatable’.
He goes on to quote the Zimbabwean writer Petina Gappah as saying “This idea of Mugabe as Hitler? He’s extremely charming and intelligent’. Gappah obviously knows nothing of Hitler. Perhaps Gappah has been reading the Herald: ‘When a nation is faced with food shortages owing to drought, the burden of providing food to the people falls on the broad shoulders of Government and it is for this reason that we commend President Mugabe for showing true leadership . . .’
The message from The Guardian is that the coming election must be accepted, however flawed. The Vigil begs to disagree. We don’t think Mugabe is a jolly good fellow and believe that SADC should stand by the Global Political Agreement it foisted on the MDC. And if it doesn’t the MDC should refuse to take part in the promised charade.
FOR THE RECORD: 44 signed the register.
Post published in: News