| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Confronting Zanu PF's anti-imperialist rhetoric
By
Dr Alex T. Magaisa
OVER and
above the human rights issues and severe economic problems, one principal
aspect around which local and international opinion on the genesis and
character of the Zimbabwe crisis is sharply divided is the anti-imperialist
discourse as set, defined and championed by the ruling Zanu PF party.
Given the way in which this discourse has moulded regional and international reaction to the crisis, no matter how strongly disdainful some individuals feel about the matter, it cannot be easily brushed off. Rather, pragmatism requires that the task must be to critique the premises of this anti-imperialist discourse for purposes of enlightening those whose view of Zimbabwe is somewhat jaundiced by the incessant rhetoric. This is of practical importance, as Zimbabweans now look the African bloc to negotiate a way out of the crisis.
Even its worst critics are sometimes hard-pressed to not concede that, at least until now, Zanu PF has largely succeeded in re-defining the Zimbabwean problem in its own (anti-imperialist) terms and resultantly, to galvanise African backing and starve off pressure.
Faced with difficult internal socio-economic challenges threatening its reign in the late 1990s, Zanu PF played the key card of anti-imperialism, conveniently building this agenda around the sensitive and legitimate Land Question, which, in my opinion, had been mishandled at the Lancaster House Constitutional Conference in 1979, when short-sighted Constitutional arrangements were put in place, leaving room for its future manipulation, as events have demonstrated. Unsurprisingly, Africans in similar situations have found it hard to disconnect from the emotion that attaches the legitimate question of resource distribution.
As it happened, Zanu PF was able to turn what was essentially an internal challenge to its style of governance by concerned citizens in the late 1990s, into a broader struggle, defining itself as the driver of revolutionary change and a victim of a Western conspiracy for daring to do so. It did not help that in November 1997, the then new Labour government in the UK appeared to disown what it regarded as past obligations of previous UK governments in respect of the Land Question. That was an error of judgment, which could have been avoided.
As it is, the November 1997 letter from the British government to the Zimbabwe government, has been waved constantly, as an indicator of the UK’s breach of its obligations on the land issue and therefore, as the source of Zimbabwe’s problems, notwithstanding the fact that the record of the Zimbabwe government was already in a state that, in law could be referred to as, res ipsa loquitor – the economic deterioration was patently clear, it did not require further evidence to demonstrate the government’s failures.
In the process, Zanu PF has tried regularly, to characterise the MDC as no more than an agent of Western imperialists. The veracity of this persistent allegation is immaterial in the scheme of things, because its impact was to ensure an overriding perception, among Zanu PF loyalists and Africans on the continent, that the MDC was an imperial vehicle.
Some might say, with the benefit of hindsight, that the MDC itself could have done more from an early stage, to vigorously counter this perception in order to gain the confidence of the African countries that appeared to swallow wholesale the government rhetoric and therefore view the MDC with suspicion.
It does not help that sometimes MDC’s Western sympathisers unwittingly provide invaluable raw material for the Zanu PF propaganda machinery, such as when a couple of years back, British PM Tony Blair suggested in the House of Commons that the British government was working with the MDC to bring about change in Zimbabwe or more recently, when Minister of the Foreign Office, Ian McCartney, erroneously stated that President Mugabe’s daughter is studying at a London University. Zanu PF seizes upon these unfortunate incidents to hype its anti-imperialist rhetoric, that the MDC is a tool of the West which concocts falsehoods to demonise Zimbabwe and President Mugabe.
It is arguable that until now, the lack of serious African effort in resolving the crisis owes as much to African leaders’ affinity to their liberation era comrade, President Mugabe, as it does to the suspicions sown in their minds about the character of the MDC as a creature of the West. It matters very little that this characterisation is incorrect – the image alone, left unchecked, has been damaging.
The tragedy is that to most Africans, the bone of contention between Zanu PF and Zimbabwean opponents in respect of governance matters has therefore played second-fiddle to the anti-imperialist agenda propagated by Zanu PF. Consequently, whatever mistakes, wilfully, recklessly or negligently committed by Zanu PF since 1980, have invariably been considered by the African leaders to be immaterial or at best, incidental, to the broader picture of the purported goal of restoring resource redistribution. Little attention is paid to the fact that the modalities are as important as the goal itself and that the methods adopted in Zimbabwe have so far been counter-productive.
The net product of this complex mash of perception and reality, is two diametrically opposed standpoints that have emerged among Zimbabweans and observers: on the one hand, that the MDC represents Western interests and on the other hand, that Zanu PF represents crazy power-mongers hanging on through redundant anti-imperialist rhetoric. And therein lies the problem, because there is very little space for alternatives that fall outside of the two standpoints but wit the capacity to accommodate valid aspects of both.
For all the chaos characterising Zanu PF rule, it would be foolhardy for any serious observer to completely dismiss those aspects of its perspective that remain legitimate and valid, though they may somewhat be soiled by the attendant unnecessary vitriol. But Zanu PF itself must understand that Zimbabweans are not foolish and that they do appreciate the broader picture and dynamics of international politics.
There is a large body of Zimbabweans that does not necessarily agree with Zanu PF politics, but still has issues with the West and its handling of international affairs. Yet those people are often contemptuously dismissed as Western puppets simply because they have been critical of Zanu PF. Zanu PF must appreciate that it does not hold a patent on ideas or criticism of the West. The bottom line is that one can still oppose Zanu PF without necessarily becoming a stooge of the West. To say that every Zanu PF opponent is a Western puppet is to disrespect and underestimate the intelligence of Zimbabweans.
Similarly, notwithstanding Zanu PF propaganda, it would be unreasonable for any serious observer to simply dismiss the valid claims of the MDC. It is a significant political player in Zimbabwe, which commands considerable support and it would be contemptuous to suggest that a large section of the population is so ignorant that it willingly submits itself to be used by the West. Yet the MDC itself must also be awake to the fact that in the maze of Zanu PF failures, there are also some valid points raised that cannot be dismissed without due consideration. Those ideas may be currently unpopular not because they are irrational but because their source is no longer taken seriously.
The MDC and its loyalists ought to appreciate that not everyone who disagrees with Zanu PF necessarily agrees with MDC’s political agenda. Therefore, it is disrespectful to characterise every person who is critical of the MDC as a Zanu PF loyalist. They are critical not because they hate the MDC or support Zanu PF, but because they would like to see the country improve, regardless of who rules the country.
There is a large body of people that remembers that during the liberation struggle and after independence, it was almost taboo to question the party line and this lack of checks and balances between the leaders and the citizens has contributed to the poor quality of governance, which has landed us in this quagmire. Fundamentally, in order for it to gain the African ear, the MDC ought to cleanse itself of the unfortunate image of a Western puppet by encouraging its sympathisers to adopt an approach that does not antagonise the Africans that are now really vital in resolving this problem.
The anti-imperialist rhetoric has been crucial in defining the approach of the African countries to the Zimbabwe crisis. Zanu PF has played the card for too long now but signs are that the African leaders are beginning to see through the façade. There are, undoubtedly, some key points that are raised within the Zanu PF perspective but equally so, the MDC has staked its claim and it is becoming increasingly laughable to summarily dismiss it as a Western puppet.
Efforts must continue to enlighten the Africans about the nature of the domestic crisis outside of the anti-imperialist rhetoric. The MDC itself can do this by taking up those legitimate issues raised within the Zanu PF perspective and demonstrating to the African allies that they have the capacity and willingness to deal with them. This should allay their concerns. The best way to counter the negative image is to play the game and win it.
Dr Magaisa can
be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN
THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website