Reflections

As a young economist in Salisbury (Harare), I took a keen interest in those whom I saw as the possible future leaders of the country once the process of transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe was complete.In 1974, when the Nationalist leadership was released from detention in Rhodesia under the dtente initiative led by the then South African

government, a colleague of mine suggested that we interview the key players

to try and determine what their views were on the longer term future.

We selected 10 of the leaders to interview and did so in a series of

meetings over several days. I recall two sessions that really stand out from

that time. The first was the interview with Ndabaningi Sithole, the first

leader of Zanu. We found him intelligent and perceptive. I especially recall

his answer to the question of what was needed to bring about black

advancement – he said that only independence under majority rule would do

that.

We took a little known leader out to lunch during that period – he was

Robert Mugabe and a few days later he slipped over the border at Inyanga

assisted by Sister Mary Aquina from the Dominican Convent in Harare. Both my

associate and I felt that he had been the most radical of the leaders we

met – in fact we only really understood some of the views he held when in

1975, the Khmer Rouge launched their genocidal campaign in Cambodia and

murdered 3 million people before they were removed from power by the

Vietnamese.

Mr. Mugabe argued that a new “progressive” society could not be constructed

on the foundations of the past. His view was that they would have to destroy

most of what had been built up after 1900 before a new society, based on

subsistence and peasant values could be constructed. The cities were

citadels of capitalism and exploitation and a truly egalitarian society

could only be constructed if these were destroyed. For this reason he

favoured continued resistance by the white minority leading to the violent

overthrow of the society they had created. He favoured a scorched earth

policy with the liberation forces marching down the main streets of the

capital after a military victory.

In the final event Kissinger intervened and this led to Lancaster House and

a negotiated transfer of power to the nationalist forces. The subsequent

election brought the most radical of the new leaders, Mugabe, to power.

However, he came to power as a minority leader himself – he did not control

the armed forces and depended on the British for his personal security and

the final transfer of power from the Rhodesian administration. For this

reason his personal power and capacity to execute his vision of the future

was in fact curbed by his circumstances – certainly for the first decade and

once that was behind him he was less sure of his long held opinion of just

what an equitable society represented.

Rather than go the way of his Khmer precedents he slipped in the more common

mould of a typical African dictator – treating the country as a personal

fiefdom and the Reserve Bank as his personal bank. Corruption, patronage and

the ruthless execution of personal power became the norm. Poor governance

and bad policy undermined the economy and the gradual loss of international

support eventually created the conditions that in the end threatened his

hold on power.

When threatened, he retreated into the fort he had created and lashed out at

all who threatened his security. He saw the commercial farmers and their

workers as mortal enemies and like Stalin and the Kulaks, simply set out to

eliminate them. He viewed the cities as citadels of resistance to his

survival and as he had no interest in their prosperity and survival, simply

adopting policies that destroyed the modern economy – in the process

fulfilling his commitment to do so as outlined to me in 1974 at that lunch

in Harare.

Having secured power through the “barrel of a gun” Zanu had no real interest

in democracy or any of the niceties of a modern social democracy. Their goal

was simple and straightforward – hold onto power at all costs because it was

the monopoly of power that enabled them to maintain their privileges. The

fact that they had secured power through negotiations and then elections,

are lost in the translation of history.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about our present leadership is the

loss of any pretence that they believe in the once lofty ideals that they

espoused when they were struggling to defeat an entrenched, but isolated

white minority. Instead we see them manipulating the economic and political

circumstances of the very people they purport to represent. In so doing they

undermine the democracy that brought them to power 30 years ago. The poor

majority are denied security, ownership of the assets they use and live in

and all the basic freedoms that other States take for granted today.

We are in South Africa for the Christmas holidays and are visiting family

and friends. We have travelled over much of the country and I am struck by

two things that I have seen. The first is the new sprawling areas of low

cost “RDP” housing – colourful and neat tiny boxes of houses with tin roofs

that accompany all towns and cities. The second is the fact that very little

has changed in the former “homelands” that constituted the foundations of

the apartheid state.

2,8 million of these small houses have been built since 1994 and they

provide accommodation to some 14 million people. But they are clearly not

“homes”. They are rented and no self development is evident and the intent

is clearly to construct vast areas of low income housing that will make

those people dependent on the State and compliant when it comes to an

election. From our experience such communities are easily manipulated

politically, especially by a ruthless regime.

In the former homelands, the same situation prevails – the people there have

no security or independence and cannot control their own destinies. They are

very vulnerable to political pressures and violence. It was communities like

these that the Khmer strove to recreate as the foundation for a socialist

State. It is clear to me that these conditions lay the foundation of

mechanisms for political control. The fact that these same conditions

perpetuate poverty and marginalisation of the affected communities does not

matter. These are the instruments for retaining power and are not casual in

character.

2009 has been a very disappointing year in Zimbabwe. So much was promised by

the deal signed in September 2008 and implemented in February this year, so

little has been achieved. It is clear that even with the intervention of the

South Africans and the region as a whole, Zanu remains recalcitrant and is

refusing to allow the reforms that are required to put Zimbabwe back on

track. They are holding the whole region hostage to their fears of the

future. Prospects for 2010 depend totally on changing those factors that are

retarding progress. I do not believe that we can go back on this process,

the question is can we go forward?