Claude Kabemba
CROSSFIRE
In his book, Africa works: Disorder as Political Instrument, Patrick Chabal gives an account of African leaders who orchestrate violence for political gain. This book gives a clear account of what is going on in Zimbabwe.
While President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu- PF’s approach to land can be justified, it is also true that the fear of losing power to an increasingly popular opposition party triggered the land invasion and the violence that goes with it.
Mugabe blames the land crisis in his country, quite correctly, on Britain’s reluctance to honour accords (signed with the Zimbawean government) to provide money needed for land reforms. Britain is not the only party to blame.
White farmers have their share of responsibility. Since independence, they have been comfortable with their land possession and have refused to show remorse towards their fellow black Zimbabweans. They have never seriously contemplated the release of some of their land to the majority of Zimbabweans.
It must have been naive for them to have thought that they would never be challenged and that things would remain the same for perpetuity.
Even if Mugabe is using the land issue for his own political survival the fact remains, everybody agrees, that there is an urgent need to resolve the impasse.
However, the violence and war-talk that accompany war veterans supported by Mugabe does not really add value to their claims.
War may achieve the redistribution of resources, but will not create wealth. Perhaps, from the perspective of a nation, tribe or political power this makes sense, but from the perspective of mankind, war or any violence has never paid.
The difficult socio-economic situation that Zimbabwe is currently experiencing was a major factor that influenced the change in people’s attitudes towards Mugabe and his Zanu-PF. The people are now convinced that the current government has run out of strategies to resolve the current socio-economic problems.
Since the state’s primary function is to maintain order, the continuation of violence during the land occupation can itself be seen as a sign of state weakness.
It is the violence that Zimbabwe is experiencing and the failure by the government to act that reveals Mugabe’s desperate attempts to maintain power. It is the threat of being removed from office that Mugabe cannot come to terms with.
Zanu-PF has never been challenged before. Opposition forces were largely splintered. This explains why the Zanu-PF held all but one seat in Parliament. Peace was assured as long as Zanu-PF political dominance remained unchallenged.
This has changed dramatically since the emergence of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) organised around trade unions. Now that a strong opposition with great potential to access power has emerged, peace has been threatened.
This is not specific to Zimbabwe. Political parties on the continent that manage to remain in power for a long period without a strong opposition always find it difficult to come to terms with the emergence of a strong opposition, capable of winning elections.
These democracies are known as “dominant party” systems; as a result of electoral choices, a particular party comes to dominate government.
While the country remains a democracy, the dominant party should also be prepared to accept electoral defeat when the people decide to support another party.
Would the African National Congress in South Africa, Swapo in Namibia, Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) in Zambia, Frelimo in Mozambique, down the line, accept losing power to an opposition party without resorting to the kind of manipulation we are seeing at the moment in Zimbabwe?
In Cte d’Ivoire, the manipulation by the ruling party was only halted by a coup d’tat.
While Botswana’s democracy seems deeply entrenched, it has yet to survive the test of a governing party defeat at the poll.
In fact, a closer look at the Southern African Development Community (SADC) suggests that the new democratic order has yet to seep into society sufficiently to ensure that democracy in form is realised in substance.
Despite the SADC’s formal status as the bastion of multi-party democracy, the dominant political culture contradicts that.
The African people should be able to identify good leaders. There are still many leaders on the continent who are fighting for their own childish egotism.
This, in fact, is the biggest challenge for the Zimbabweans. What assures them that the MDC leadership has the ability and capability needed to deal with the economic crisis the country is going through?
Is it because they are anxious for change that they are prepared to accept any viable alternative political party?
This state of anxiety has been present in many other countries, Zambia is one of them.
In Zambia, the MMD government of President Frederick Chiluba has not been able to change the socio-economic situation for the majority of Zambians. In Zambia, despite the privatisation policy, the situation has worsened.
Would the MDC succeed in Zimbabwe? It would be a mistake for Zimbabweans to believe that the apparently better relations that the MDC enjoys with Britain will translate into aid to deal with the economic crisis, when Mugabe is gone.
This has not happened in many countries where oppositions enjoyed the same treatment with Western countries, just to be left alone as soon as they assumed power.
It is therefore the duty of all Africans to prevent incompetents from getting into positions of power in the first place.
We should recognise that political leaders must be selected on a basis other than emotion, political manipulation or historical accident.
If this is done, we might well be able to screen out the Mobutu Sese Sekos, the Idi Amins, the PW Bothas of the moment and prevent them from gaining access to power.
More importantly, it is in the minds of those who are most influential in decisions for or against violence or war, that the defence of peace -in the different countries and in Zimbabwe for that matter- must be constructed.
But for Africa to move faster towards peace and development, the training and selection of those who run our governments have to be well established.
There is a direct relationship between conflict and leadership on the continent.
In many countries, even when democratic procedures are followed, those mentally unfit to run governments have been brought to positions of such power that they continue to plunge the greater part of Africa into poverty, violence and horrible wars.
Claude Kabemba is foreign policy analyst at the Centre for Policy Studies