Zimbabwe and myth of the 'international community'

Zimbabwe and myth of the 'international community'

• Donors, diaspora and Zimbabwe democracy

• A nation in dire straits: law, politics and crisis in Zimbabwe

• No shame in reclaiming liberation legacy

• People get the leadership they deserve

• Zim constitution not primary problem

• MDC must address immediate and long term issues

• Conflict Management: views on handling MDC crisis

• Mutambara brings new, welcome impetus

• The supremacy of the individual over tribe

• Reviving commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe

• Tackling beneficial ownership and control

• Chamisa, The Independent and the Struggle

• Mandarin Chinese, to learn or not to learn?

• A movement that lost its way?

• Are you another Farai?

• Will they ever come back?

• The real cost of Gono's battles with executives

• The poverty of isolation

• Political capital needed for economic revival

• Sanctions, the economy and democratic process

• Zim's civil society needs to reform

• Khanyisela Moyo: Zimbabwe's civil society vital to democracy

• Zim's civil society, and diminishing political space

• The pitfalls of opposition politics in Zimbabwe

• Constitutional amendment spells doom for economy

By Dr Alex Magaisa

RECENT events in the Middle East have been horrendous. With global attention currently focused on the Middle East one would hope that the major political actors in countries such as Zimbabwe would take time to pause and consider their own place in the hierarchy of priorities of the so-called “international community”.

Throughout the on-going crisis in Zimbabwe, political actors, particularly in the opposition, have often referred to the “international community”, without actually ever defining the nature and character of this community.

That the so-called international community has failed so far to take any specific decisive action in resolving the Zimbabwe question must point some harsh truths to the main political actors and possibly force them to appreciate that ultimately, only Zimbabweans have the responsibility and indeed the capacity to resolve their differences and get on with business.

There is never a perfect solution, but one that allows the political, social and economic wheels to start moving again with only the minimum unavoidable resistance.

What is the International Community”?

What exactly do they mean when they speak of the “international community”? In truth what is often referred to as the international community is an amorphous body of nations, often divided and operating without a single specific voice at all times. Within the Zimbabwean political context, as in most others, the international community means different things to different people depending on the platform of each individual or political actor. Taking a rather more simplistic categorization often used in Zimbabwe, the world is still seen through a pair of lens, one lens identifying the West and the other focusing on the East.

Going by the alliances and the image that has been built over the years, it would appear that with slight variations between factions, to the MDC and other opposition movements in civil society the “international community” consists predominantly of the West. On the other hand, feeling ostracized by the West, Zanu PF has deliberately constructed its world-view through the lens of the East. When the MDC says the “international community” castigates what is going on in Zimbabwe, Zanu PF finds solace in the silent and occasionally influential support of its Eastern friends such as China. Archaic as it might seem that distinction between East and West in the post-Cold War global environment, it remains fundamental, at least to the extent that in Zimbabwean expectations of the international community are concerned. Zanu PF can always rely on the likes of China to block attempts to bring the Zimbabwe issue within the context of the UN Security Council.

Primacy of Self-Interest in the International Community

The sad fact is that Zimbabwean political actors do not seem to realize that they are mere pawns in a game of the big boys. If there is one thing that unites the divided community of nations, it is that each nation’s attitude, position and action in relation to any issue is motivated by self-interest. It is not necessarily the interest of the people affected by any specific situation that determines other nations’ behaviour. The Chinas of this world have a voracious appetite for resources as do the West. It happens that they do not have all the resources. Sometimes they are found in other countries. Some benefit from the stability of those countries whilst others reap benefits from the chaos. What is it then that we Zimbabweans do not see, that makes almost all of us have so much faith in the goodwill and support of this undefined body that we call the international community?

There are at least two possible of factors that influence Zimbabweans’ attitude to what we call the “international community”: either we have a very high opinion of ourselves (superiority complex) or a serious inferiority complex. Either way we have a serious problem that causes us, on all sectors of the political divide, to be so gullible and expect to be treated by others in some special way.

Superiority Complex – “We are different”

First, the superiority complex; for many years after independence Zimbabwe appeared to hold a lofty position at least among the largely deteriorating nations of Africa. It is the same position that South Africa holds today, with great pride but events in Zimbabwe should be educative. Zimbabweans felt special almost to the point of looking down upon neighbours that appeared to have got it wrong politically and economically such Zambia and Mozambique. Zimbabweans felt and thought they were different, and worryingly echoes of which I hear from some sections in South Africa. They even wondered how other countries in Africa could let one man rule the country for more that two decades. It was almost unimaginable.

This superiority complex may have remained with Zimbabweans, so that when problems began to show, they turned largely to the international community to assist in resolving the crisis. Zimbabwe attracted a large amount of attention from other countries, especially in the West feeding into the belief that Zimbabwe was special and different from other African countries whose troubles may have been grave but received less coverage and attention. The media focus on Zimbabwe post 2000 was almost unprecedented, more superb than during the 1980s when the wanton and brutal massacre of people in the provinces of Matabeleland and the Midlands had warranted such coverage. Indeed, post 2000- even those Zimbabweans who had been largely silent during those massacres became overnight converts to the cause of human rights. The differential treatment of the two episodes (the massacres of the 1980s and the crisis of post-2000) by the so-called international community tells its own story in relation to the primacy of interests in determining its bahaviour and reaction to issues.

Inferiority Complex - “Why are victims and powerless”

In the case of the possible inferiority complex, there is a school of thought, which states that a person who habours an inferiority complex is more likely to rest on his laurels and expect others to take the lead. Such a person feels powerless and refuses to take responsibility for his own fate. Instead, he leaves it to others whom he expects to feel sorry for him. The inferiority complex actually gives him comfort because he doesn’t have to take any responsibility and therefore takes no crucial decisions. Applying this theory on a wider scale, one suspects that Zimbabweans have developed a collective inferiority complex – that we are victims, powerless and expect others to feel sorry for us and therefore to take decisions and action on our behalf. In terms of seeking attention and feeling special it makes little difference, if any, whether a person has an inferiority or superiority complex. Either way, there is a case of feeling special and important – of refusing to take responsibility and appealing for attention.

Traveling a familiar African path

Central to these dynamics of superiority/inferiority complex is an inward-looking approach to the crisis affecting Zimbabwe which makes it appear as if what is happening in Zimbabwe is unique and deserving of special attention from every other nation that cares to listen. There appears to be a gap in knowledge and awareness that what Zimbabwe is going through is to many people outside Zimbabwe nothing out of the ordinary within the African context. There are some harsh truths that Zimbabweans will have to acknowledge, that for example we are a small African nation in a continent generally expected to be mired in problems.

Indeed, it seems that to many people across the world, the behaviour of the Zimbabwe government is nothing out of the ordinary considering the history of poor governance, oppression and abuse of power in Africa. The mention of Africa conjures images of fly-infested, naked children surrounded by poverty and gun-totting youths used by corrupt officials. Zimbabwe is simply traveling a well-trodden path. Not much attention was paid to the decline in those other countries and not much was done to halt it. In each of those cases the people probably appealed to the amorphous international community, with minimal results in the few cases where perhaps there was full-blown war and interests of the “international community” needed safeguarding. Why then do Zimbabweans seem to feel that ours is a special case?

It is the same with Zimbabweans who are now in the Diaspora. The image of Zimbabwe that they have and want to preserve is the Zimbabwe they left years ago, one that is long gone and distant. Even when they dream of one day returning home, they never pause to consider that they are just another instalment of Africans who have left the continent for good – a similar instalment to those that have been leaving for decades from other African countries. They too haboured lofty dreams of returning home but they are now great-grandparents in the Diaspora. They too expected something to be done for them by someone to enable them to return home one day. Likewise the Diaspora asks the familiar question, “Why can’t THEY do something for us?” taking themselves out of the equation and without accepting that it is in fact their own responsibility.

There is no doubt that there are human rights concerns in Zimbabwe. This has been the central rallying point for international sympathy and condemnation. But sadly, even those working in this field seem oblivious to the fact that the violation of human rights alone (without affecting the interests of whoever is considered the “international community”) is not sufficient to push them to take any decisive action on their behalf. The UN for example acknowledged the tragedy of Operation Murambatsvina in 2005, but besides the occasional noises and condemnation, nothing of substance has been done to address the problems. Again awareness of events elsewhere and how nations react would help to focus attention on the immediate and more sustainable strategies in Zimbabwe. For almost half a century Cubans have been under the rule of Fidel Castro. Almost 50 years! And the island of Cuba stands right next to the US. There, it is said human rights violations are rampant and if ever there was a long-standing candidate for international assistance to achieve democratic reform, then Cuba is one.

“Slashing the zeros” off the strategy of intervention

Zimbabwean politicians also need to acknowledge that the agenda and strategy of international intervention in the domestic affairs of nations is no longer an attractive one in the wake of the continuing problems faced in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Events also demonstrate that such interventions have produced less than satisfactory results. As time drags on, fewer countries will want to commit resources even to advance the cause of democracy, not least to intervene in any visible way. In Zimbabwe speak, the “zeros” have been slashed from this strategy and Zimbabwean political actors who still think it may be a viable option are failing to read the contemporary picture of international politics.

Another harsh truth is that Zimbabwe is so low on the hierarchy of priorities at present either because of problems faced in recent international interventions or because of the domestic challenges faced by most of the governments that have had a say in Zimbabwean politics – potential economic recession and the looming Presidential election in a couple of years in the US, the leadership succession issue and service delivery in the UK, industrial and economic development in China, peace in the Middle East, etc. At the end of the day each nation has its own challenges which require attention.

Between the poles of major nations which have had something to say about the Zimbabwe we must not forget that there is a large silent majority and each of these countries have their own problems which they have to face everyday. They just get on and deal with them, even if it means getting rid of some 'zeros'. Some form loose coalition governments, others change governments every other year, while in others when there is a looming impasse, there are internal mechanisms for smooth transition. For example, the US Supreme Court was called upon to make a decision over the US presidential election in 2000, a decision which paved the way for transition. There may have been disgruntlement, but they moved on. Zimbabwe’s problems can only be resolved by Zimbabweans according to their own ways, whatever the views of anybody else.

In conclusion, just in case someone forms the opinion that this is taking umbrage at the so-called international community, it is not. It is simply an acknowledgement that in relation to Zimbabwe the so-called international community has been and continues to behave as normal. If there is any problem, it is that Zimbabweans continue to wallow in their own naivety believing erroneously that we are a special case and the international community will somehow wave a magic wand and bring an end to our problems. Whether our attitude is caused by an inferiority or superiority complex does not matter – either way, it has built us into some kind of victims who continually seek sympathy while refusing to take responsibility for our own fate.

Taking responsibility seriously

It is important to realize that there is in this world what may be called a “market of suffering”. Look around and you will see that it is a very large market and we are but a small part of it. In that market we are slowly but surely getting towards the sell-by date. Zimbabwean political actors need to talk, create a governance framework in which social and economic activity can take place. The goal is not to seek perfection – we are at a stage where there can be no single winner. A winner-takes-all approach is not the answer at this stage. There must be away in which different interests can be accommodated, for the sake of progress. A perfect government, if ever one exists anywhere, might emerge one day but for now, the main political actors must take collective responsibility and find an internal solution.

Dr Magaisa is a lawyer and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com