The state-owned Zimbabwean newspaper the Herald last week reported that Citigroup and SABMiller were among the international companies funding Simba Makoni’s bold bid for the presidency, and argued that this confirmed reports that ”his election bid was part of the Western regime-change agenda”.
Both companies have denied the reports, but the Herald‘s claim may nonetheless be damaging to Makoni’s campaign, especially in the rural areas of Zimbabwe and on the African continent. In a way it recalls the image that has again come back to haunt the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) — that of white farmers making out cheques to the newly formed party as foreign cameras flashed.
It was a tactless image; one that the MDC privately regrets and which the world-wise Zanu-PF seized as incontrovertible evidence that the MDC was a neo-conservative project of the United States and British governments.
Former information minister Jonathan Moyo’s propaganda machinery argued that the MDC’s entire raison d’être was to frustrate Zanu-PF’s revolutionary programme of transferring land from whites to landless blacks. In an oblique sense, Zanu-PF was right — white farmers’ support for the MDC was full of self-interest; they wanted to preserve their privileged status as rich landowners.
But what was conveniently forgotten in the developing world, where Robert Mugabe became an instant hero, was the fact that the MDC was a genuine grassroots-based party with popular appeal. The crisis in Zimbabwe had its genesis in poor governance, not in land imbalances. Although land issues remained prominent, most Zimbabweans felt that the Mugabe regime was misgoverning the country.
Another fact that was conveniently overlooked was that Zanu-PF and its top functionaries were not loath to receive money from the ”hated imperialists”. In the past, Zanu-PF and senior party members received support from the multinational Lonrho – the sanctions-busting company that propped up the Ian Smith regime — and from other white benefactors who mistreated farm workers.
Whether SABMiller and Citigroup support Makoni is the subject of another discussion. It has been reported that what actually happened is that an employee of SABMiller attended the function in a personal capacity. But the state information machinery won’t let such details stand in its way. It argued that ”the event confirms that the British are working tirelessly to affect regime change in Zimbabwe by funding opposition parties and groups”.
What the incident has done is to allow Mugabe to again stoke passionate anger over the question of land — an issue that has not been at the fore for quite some time. ”The country is ours and, as long as we are in leadership, we shall never allow the British to come here again; we have taken the land permanently,” Mugabe recently declared with his customary bravado.
Perhaps we should examine Makoni’s prospects. There is no way he can defeat Mugabe, the odds are very much against him. His importance is more symbolic and salutary. He is the symbol of the realisation that the Zanu-PF edifice may yet crumble. Reports carried in the state media confirm this.
The Herald reported this week that vice-president Joseph Msika admitted that ”he sometimes differs with President Mugabe, [but] their differences were on minor issues and not on principles”. That’s a telling admission. And Makoni is the public face of these differences. But he should be wary, lest his campaign be sullied the way the MDC’s credentials have been compromised.