M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — Zimbabwe's President
Robert Mugabe represents the other side of apartheid – the forced segregation
of races in a country where a single ethnic group dominates the rest. His macho
actions against the few remaining European-origin citizens living in Zimbabwe
may be psychologically satisfying to those who share his viewpoint. But the
fact remains that Zimbabwean whites have been as marginalized and dispossessed
as blacks were in South Africa till Nelson Mandela was finally released from
prison in 1990.
Mugabe's theatrics against the whites carry
little resonance among the populace – they have realized that reverse apartheid
has made their economic situation worse, not better. While most of the blame
for this rests on the commissar-style administration of the octogenarian head
of state, it has also been fuelled by the comprehensive economic boycott of
Zimbabwe by countries with European-origin majorities.
Having voluntarily handed over power to the
majority black population in 1980, Zimbabwe's whites had sufficient moral
justification to expect an honorable accommodation with the rest of the
population. Instead, they were soon rendered politically irrelevant, and their
properties sequestered by armed thugs loyal to the new master of the country.
It is fortunate for South Africa that
despite the example set by Mugabe, whites in that country went ahead with
democratization a decade later, with somewhat better consequences for
themselves than in Zimbabwe.
Instead of expropriation, had Mugabe sought
to buy back property held by the whites over a period long enough to permit a
trained black middle class to emerge, the country's economy would not be in its
current terminal condition. He ought to have heeded the example of India, where
most European-origin settlers returned to their home countries, selling their
assets to the local people rather than having them snatched away by
administrative fiat.
Of those who remained, such as sociologist
Verrier Elwin and Mother Teresa, many became Indian citizens and were treated
with acceptance and respect for the contribution they made to their adopted
country. Indeed, despite the 150 years endured under European, mostly British,
domination – a period during which the land slipped from among the world's
richest to its poorest – India has remained a country friendly to the ethos of
its former overlords, mindful of the shared heritage of the Indo-European
languages spoken in both.
Had he not adopted a policy as racist as
that of his white predecessors, Robert Mugabe could have made Zimbabwe an
African success story, instead of a country whose population is desperate for
change.
Given the precarious position of whites in
Zimbabwe, there is no longer any resonance within the black community to the
continuing taunts and persecution the community is subject to. Instead of the
circus of "Mugabism," what the population expects is the bread of
economic prosperity, and of this there is none, save for those belonging to the
inner core of the Mugabists, the thugs who comprise Robert Mugabe's
Presidential Suite.
Most Zimbabweans recognize that unless they
see the back of Mugabe, they will continue to be the beggars of the continent,
condemned to picking up scraps from the table of neighboring countries. Given a
free election, Morgan Tsvangirai would be elected in a landslide, which is
precisely why Mugabe has sought to continue in power through the use of muscle.
According to those active in the opposition
to Zimbabwe's present president, more than 800 people have been either killed
or severely injured, while thousands more have been displaced over the past
year. Despite ballot stuffing to the extent of 30 percent of the total vote
count, the Mugabists lost to the Movement for Democratic Change in the first
round, which is why they have taken no chances in the next. Given the scale of
intimidation and vote-rigging, it was understandable that Tsvangirai withdrew
from a contest that is about as democratic as those in North Korea or Iran.
Sadly, South Africa's Thabo Mbeki has
failed the people of Zimbabwe, and indeed his own continent, by becoming an
accomplice to the misdeeds of his friend across the frontier. Unless South
Africa, Kenya and Tanzania take the initiative in demanding a fair poll, one
that they will monitor, they risk their own countries being affected by
Zimbabwe’s collapse into civil war. For within months of his tawdry
"victory," Robert Mugabe may face a peoples’ revolt that could result
in a Ceaucescu-style fate for the aging dictator.
The people of Zimbabwe know that it is not
the whites in their country who are responsible for their dire situation, but
the policies of Robert Mugabe, an individual who has become a stain on the
moral canvas of Africa. It is not the United States nor the United Kingdom that
needs to intervene in Zimbabwe, but the leading countries of Africa, a
continent that contains the seeds for a resurgence on an Asian scale.
Thabo Mbeki needs to discover his
conscience – and his counterparts in Kenya and Tanzania their courage – so that
Robert Mugabe may be given a retirement home somewhere within the continent,
thus freeing his people from the hell that he has converted Zimbabwe into.
Will Africa fail the world, or will it act
now to protect the future of the people of Zimbabwe? This is Africa's
responsibility, this is Africa's moment.
-(Professor M.D. Nalapat is
vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and
professor of geopolitics at Manipal University. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)
No comments:
Post a Comment