Mugabe’s visit to Rome: shameless hypocrisy

But first and foremost, it smacks of hypocrisy, given his persecution of the Catholic Church in his backyard especially in the wake of the Bishops Pastoral Letter of Easter 2007. In April 2010, for a Catholic, he was publicly adorned with priestly robes of an indigenous Protestant Church, crock and all, of the Zion Christian Church (ZCC). It olden times, this in itself could have warranted his excommuniWorse still, he publicly denounced the Catholic Chuch in vetuperative terms: “Often Catholic bishops expose that they are not their own men; they are mere puppets of Western Countries . . . All Catholic bishops are liars, they demonise my party every day.”

Yet in shameless hypocrisy, hardly a week after that he remembered he was still a Catholic when he took off to Rome and the Vatican, the very citadel of Catholicism, for the beatification of Pope John Paul II on 1 May 2010, and what with an entourage of some 50 people, all at public expense. Then, as now, the whole idea is to circumvent the smart sanctions whereby since 2002 he has been banned from visiting the European Union but for which the Vatican is an exception. On the latter, this time round, it was at least the third time that Mugabe has taken advantage of the Vatican’s diplomatic largesse since the imposition of the EU ban in 2002

4 years older

This latest visit to the Vatican provides ironies of its own, and Mugabe and his advisers should really have reflected on the fact that his presence would draw negative attention to himself by comparison:

Firstly the event was occasioned by the fact that the 85-year Pope Benedict XVI had the sense and humility to recognise that he couldn’t continue in his office due to an advanced age: “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths due to an advanced age are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,” But at 89, Mugabe is four years older!

From his appointment and repeated in his homily at his inauguration Mass, Pope Francis has prioritised his Petrine Ministry towards the poor, and made a strong statement towards that end by his choice of the name Francis after St Francis of Assisi, the first Pope to take that name. By contrast Mugabe’s government has ridden roughshod over the poor, many of whom have had to rely on charity from the very West he denounces. The country arguably represents the widest gap between the haves and have-nots, contrariwise to Pope Francis’ mission. The flagship policies of his government of so called land distribution and indigenisation have little if anything to do with poor, but rather, to further enrich the rich and based on his party’s patronage.

Worst reaction

During his time as Jesuit Provincial at the height of the dirty war campaign from the military junta in 1976 – 77 when the army had come to power amid a breakdown of the political system following the death of General Peron, many of his priests came to him for protection against persecution even threats to their lives. But ironically there at his inauguration, the ‘incarnation’ of that junta during possibly the nadir of his priestly vocation was present in so far as the Mugabe government was a copycat of that junta by way of persecuting priests especially in the immediate aftermath of the Catholic Bishops pastoral Letter of Easter 2007: ‘God hears the Cry of the Oppressed’.

But by far the worst reaction against the Catholic Bishops over that Pastoral Letter in terms of utterances came from Mugabe’s Spokesman George Charamba …” It [Catholisism] entered the country with imperialism, “killing for the Eucharist”, the colonial sword “taught the cross how to pacify and then govern the native through a rough and ready hand” As such, that statement went as far as criticising and demeaning the very core of Catholicism But Charamba was not censored by the ‘Catholic’ President. A genuinely Catholic President like Julius Nyere would surely not have similarly turned the proverbial blind eye

While priests based in rural areas are generally considered to be at greater risk, it is perhaps just as risky to be based in posh low density suburbs like Borrowdale in which some highly placed ZANU PF politicians are Catholic parishioners. Stories of priests who had to escape for their lives abound simply because their sermons were construed, rightly or wrongly, to be critical of the government. While the route for any disavowed parishioners is via the Bishop, these highly place politicians just take matters into their hands by flexing their political muscle but with censure from the ‘Catholic’ President

Pomp & pageantry

Pope Francis has demonstrated that he eschews Ecclesiastical pomp, whereby as Cardinal Archbishop he travelled by buses and the metro, and as Pope, has foregone the Papal limousine in favour of minibuses. By contrast, Mugabe revels in pomp and pageantry with motorcades, sirens and all, even at mundane and least threatening occasions.

Pope Francis has also demonstrated he wants to be closer to his flock to the point of being a nightmare to the Vatican security staff by greeting people on unscripted walkabouts. By contrast, Mugabe seems paranoid with fear of his people, whereby in particular a public road passing near his presidential residence is closed to public use at certain times at night. The scenes in London whereby tourists and others are seen milling around the perimeter of Buckingham Palace, are unthinkable around Mugabe’s residence.

In 2001 when the then, Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. was appointed Cardinal by John Paul II and had to travel to Rome for his enthronement, he discouraged his flock from travelling to Rome for the occasion, asking them to donate whatever money they had budgeted for the travel to charity. By contrast, in his last visit to the Vatican in 2010, Mugabe took an entourage of 50 at government expense, drawn from a parlous economy at that. I am not aware of the size of his entourage on this occasion but it wouldn’t be surprising if it was as big as last time round.

Sad legacy

Pope Francis’ homily at his inauguration Mass brought other items too which would not sit too well with Mugabe: When Pope Francis said: ‘Tragically, in every period of history there are “Herods” who plot death, wreak havoc, and mar the countenance of men and women’ would not have sat comfortably with Mugabe and his supporters given the tragic death of opposition supporters at government hands in the build up to and aftermath of the 2008 elections, which is etched indelibly in the nation’s psyche.

Pope Francis also appealed to world leaders to make the protection of the environment a stronger priority by urging “all men and women of goodwill to be guardians of God’s plan inscribed in nature”. But one sad legacy of Mugabe’s regime, sadly hardly raised in political debate or press commentary, is the environmental havoc it has brought, with some erstwhile free flowing river like the Lundi reduced to sand dunes and disjointed pools of water through gold panning unrestricted by the government, with disastrous consequences to aquatic life; while the decimation of trees, not least by many many of the beneficiaries of land invasions has led to piteous changes to the physical landscape which has generally become barren and derelict.

After the Mass, Pope Francis received 132 representatives of different nations and international organisations, including Mugabe, albeit as a matter of routine and protocol, although for Mugabe that was not the image relayed back home to ZBC and the Herald, but, if not said in as many words, that it was Mugabe per se. It has to be emphasised that for heads of state who signal their attendance to such Vatican events, no value judgement is made because the Vatican does not operate like a political system but against the ethos of ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ The attendance of any such political does not imply approval of their governance.

The truth of the matter is that for the third time in succession since the EU ban from 2002, Mugabe’s visits to the Vatican were not motivated by religious reasons but for himself,in particular to exploit a loophole to travel to the West, to which, notwithstanding his rhetoric to the contrary and for all the ballyhoo on his avowed ‘look East’ policy, he deeply loves so much. On top of that it is also to enhance his international pedigree to the electorate back home with Presidential elections apparently on the horizon.