The Congress of South African Trade Unions’s (Cosatu) eviction from Zimbabwe on Wednesday could be seen as a lighter moment in the dark drama that is the unravelling of democracy in our northern neighbour. The big manne of South Africa’s union movement are Harare-bound in the morning. By mid-afternoon, they’re back, unceremoniously dumped on the next South African Airways flight to Johannesburg. In the boardrooms of high capital they are treated with far more respect.
The delegation represented the combined strength of 1,7-million workers. But that was neither here nor there for Bob and his goons, who have now reached the point where their desire to cling to power knows no diplomatic or other embarrassment. They have forgotten how to blush.
Many would say “goed so” (you had it coming) to Cosatu. We don’t agree — the federation acted out of international solidarity, a concept and method that was key to winning the anti-apartheid struggle. It is good that some amongst us remember this, because our government and citizens have floundered in their duty of solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe, imposed by our past and present. The African Union and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development are based four-square on the notions of ubuntu and mutual support.
The government’s dogged adherence to “quiet diplomacy” has given President Robert Mugabe political space to pack the judiciary, muzzle a free media and repress political formations, whether opposition parties, civil society or trade unions. The wrong-headed strategy continued this week with a statement by Minister of Labour Membathisi Mdladlana opposing Cosatu’s mission — which gave Mugabe the moral support he needed to turf out the unionists. Zimbabwe’s playing field is now so uneven that the March 31 election cannot be anything but farce.
In South Africa many good democrats have become mealy-mouthed on Zimbabwe — whenever one says something vaguely critical, and it is published, a retraction or correction is sure to follow. Why? There is no need to apologise for highlighting a travesty of democracy! This is why Cosatu’s actions deserve the support of all democrats. As a heavyweight grouping Cosatu is creating the political space in South Africa for solidarity to take hold. The churches, civil society, the opposition parties and the South African Communist Party are now extending the hand of support to Zimbabwe’s people.
The federation may be driving the African National Congress to take a more rights-based approach. The party’s demand for freedom of assembly in the run-up to the Zimbabwean election, and its far more measured response to Cosatu’s second aborted mission, suggest this.
Of course, there is more to solidarity than jumping on a plane to Harare. It takes hard work to get the message to the grass roots, to mount an effective campaign that ensures the backing of ordinary union members. And in Zimbabwe, as in South Africa, international solidarity is one aspect of a freedom struggle. The key to freedom lies with Zimbabweans saying, “Enough”, loudly and insistently enough for Mugabe to call it a day.
Vietnam, Mark II
The spectacle of millions of Iraqi voters flooding to polling stations at the weekend drives home two political axioms: human beings want to choose their own leaders, and they want leaders cut from the same ethnic, cultural and religious cloth as themselves. There was never any doubt that electoral politics in Iraq was preferable to Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. The question from the beginning has been whether it was right to impose change at bayonet point, and under false pretences
As the United States and British governments indulge in an orgy of relieved self-congratulation over the poll, it is worth recalling a few basic facts. The Iraqi invasion was projected as part of the war against terrorism, and as a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks on US targets. In other words, the invasion was the creature of lies. More importantly, it was a unilateral military adventure, illegal under international law; unsanctioned by the only authority approximating global government, the United Nations; unsolicited by Iraqis; and opposed by most of the world’s people. It was the equivalent, at the level of the nation-state, of rule by powerful warlords, rather than the rule of law.
At the time of the invasion, President Thabo Mbeki asked whether democracy was to be forced down people’s throats. It is a crucial point. Democratic change is likely to come at far less cost, and strike much deeper roots if it is won by the people themselves. No one in their right mind would advocate the toppling of Zimbabwe’s party dictatorship by a foreign military force; it is, in the end, the job of Zimbabweans to secure their own freedom. This does not imply support for “quiet diplomacy”. There are many other ways sympathetic outsiders can apply non-violent pressure for democratic change, and it is never right to placate despotic regimes by remaining silent about their human rights crimes.
The Iraqi poll heightens the chances of further US military adventures, specifically against Iran. But externally imposed regime change is unlikely to survive wherever it is attempted. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has provoked a religious and anti-imperialist backlash that guarantees continued insurgency against a government seen by militants as a Western puppet. When the Americans go home, it is almost certain to go the way of the ill-starred government of South Vietnam.