Robert Mugabe may soon feel he has sufficiently muddled the issues and struck enough terror into voters and his opponents to win the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe quite comfortably. If so, this may lead him to less violent and irrational political behaviour than he has shown since he lost the referendum on a new Constitution in February. People will continue to die in the pre-election period – though this will not concern him – but he may now hold back from inducing the kind of destruction some of us had begun to fear he was willing on his country.
But then perhaps he will not moderate his behaviour. He has shown a taste for terror that gives us no cause for confidence. Moreover, the terror he has unleashed will elicit responses other than mute obedience from his opponents. At least some of them, it is quite probable, will strike back – and hard.
What we can safely say is that South African policy on Zimbabwe over the past three months has not significantly contributed to the results it sought – except to the extent that Zimbabwe has not completely collapsed or exploded. Our entire region’s reputation as a destination for investment has been severely damaged – and not only by Mugabe’s actions. The failure by South Africa and by our partners in the Southern African Development Community to state firmly and unequivocally for the rest of the world to hear that we are committed to property rights and the rule of law across the entire region also did us considerable harm.
Plan A – talking softly in public and frankly in private, and basing policy on the assumption that the ruling Zanu-PF alone is capable of delivering a stable Zimbabwe – has been a dubious success. Mugabe has, frankly, just strung us along.
The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group’s initiative to restore calm and respect for the law and – against what appear to be hopeless odds – help to deliver free and fair elections in Zimbabwe may provide South Africa with some cover under which to muster a more robust approach to the problem Mugabe represents.
A start may be to remind Mugabe that – historical hagiographies on his party’s armed struggle notwithstanding – Ian Smith’s white supremacist regime in then- Rhodesia was brought to its knees by, ironically, two South African white supremacists, John Vorster and Pik Botha. In exchange for promises of a degree of United States protection of South Africa, they briefly cut Smith’s fuel and other supply routes across South African territory. The act served to concentrate Smith’s mind wonderfully. Mbeki might wish to bring similar focus to Mugabe.
It’s time for Plan B, Thabo.
Motlanthe’s muddle
It is difficult to imagine an act of more crass political stupidity than the statement this week by the ruling African National Congress’s secretary general, Kgalema Motlanthe, to a Workers’ Day rally. He told the assembly: “You must intensively hate capitalism and engage in a struggle against it as there will always be exploitation in a capitalist system.” And he went on to deliver what we understand was an announcement not authorised by his party’s policy-making councils that the ANC had decided to support a one-day general strike on May 10 against job losses. He also applauded workers for taking their struggle into the streets.
Motlanthe was speaking as Zimbabwe’s failure to protect property rights against ruling-party thugs wrought grave damage on our region’s ability to attract the (yes, capitalist) investment we desperately need if we are to secure a better life for all. He was speaking as the president of his party and of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, was trying to defuse the Zimbabwean crisis and to contain the damage from it. He was speaking as the world looked to South Africa, as the leading economy and power in the region, to reassert protection for property rights. He was speaking in a context in which two-thirds of the South African economy is in private hands.
Motlanthe’s attempts to wriggle out of the implications of his words in a subsequent radio interview were pathetic. He is either big enough to stand by his words, or he is big enough to say he messed up – or the rest of us, like his party comrades, must ask whether he has the judgment to hold a post, albeit a party one, in which his behaviour might affect the national interest.
His comments do not square with the economic policy his party is pursuing in government. That policy reflects current (capitalist) orthodoxies and is indulgent of the concerns of (capitalist) investors. Nor do his comments square with condemnations of the proposed general strike from Mbeki, his party’s Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, and his party’s Minister of Labour, Membathisi Mdladlana.
His comments again demonstrate the ANC’s schizophrenia over economic policy – and how prone it is to relapse. This split, which goes well beyond the kind of differences that can be contained within a working consensus, does nothing for confidence in government economic policy – particularly in view of Mugabe’s abrogation of his earlier respect for property rights and the tendency of investors abroad to view Zimbabwe as a foretaste of what may happen in South Africa. The ANC needs to address this difficulty.
Until then Motlanthe, or somebody else, might wish to reconsider his position.