| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith: two of a kind
By Mutumwa
D. Mawere
ZIMBABWE
is now 27 years old and yet the context and content of President Mugabe’s
independence message suggests otherwise.
Someone who attended the independence celebration in 1980 will no doubt be entitled to ask who has been in charge for the last twenty seven years in Zimbabwe if imperialism and puppetry remain the most important variables explaining the country’s economic and political circumstances.
Many twenty seven-year-olds are naturally expected to take responsibility for their actions or inaction but imperialism and colonialism continue to be used as currency by those who see political power as an end that justifies any means.
As we continue to interrogate the meaning of independence for Zimbabweans, it is important to appreciate the similarities, if any, between the political philosophies of Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe.
I have chosen these individuals not only because of their dominant influence on Zimbabwe’s politics over the last 60 years but because their philosophies on politics and economics have enriched or undermined our understanding of the meaning of independence and what to expect from it.
IAN SMITH
In human history, the earliest surviving example of UDI is Scotland’ Declaration of Independence of Arbroath. In Africa, Ian Smith also made history as a leader of a small minority settler community to declare unilaterally independence for Rhodesia. Ian Smith was born on April 8, 1919, and his father was a Scottish butcher who arrived in Rhodesia in 1898 where he became a cattle rancher.
He was the Premier of the Southern Rhodesia from April 13, 1964, to November 11, 1965. During this period, he was a democrat under the colonial construction of governance and only showed his true colours as an autocrat on 11 November when he and his group manufactured a mechanism of perpetuating their regime through non-democratic means under the guise of fighting against communism and anarchy.
Ian Smith became the Prime Minister of Rhodesia from November 11, 1965, to June 1, 1979, when Rhodesia was ruled by a small minority. Needless to say that Rhodesia failed to gain international recognition and sanctions were applied. Ian Smith’s party, like Zanu PF, won all the general elections until the end of white minority rule.
After fourteen years, Ian Smith succumbed to international pressure, liberation war, and economic sanctions by negotiating an internal settlement which resulted in Bishop Muzorewa’s UANC being given a role in government and which also resulted in Bishop Muzorewa becoming the first black Prime Minister of the country.
Majority rule was achieved in 1980 after the Lancaster House Agreement and the election of Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. Ian Smith remained a member of the Zimbabwe Parliament until 1987. The political system of Rhodesia made its whites one of the wealthiest communities in the world and blacks were systematically alienated from wealth. A race-based capitalist system characterised colonial and Rhodesia Front rule.
Whites dominated the economy of the country notwithstanding their numbers and used this domination to their own advantage. Although accounting for less than 5% of the total population, 50% of the land was reserved for white ownership (through the Land Apportionment Act) and most senior positions were reserved for whites. A modern and efficient public sector was created to serve principally the interests of the minority in as much as the public services were targeted at meeting the needs of this population. Education was provided along racially segregated lines and as much as eleven times more was spent per head on white pupils than was spent on blacks. Ian Smith, therefore, was a leader of a group that saw its mission as maintaining and defending the injustice and inequity.
Ian Smith became active in politics in 1948 when he was elected to the Legislative Assembly as a liberal for Selukwe district. Like Mugabe, he was initially a reluctant politician. In 1953, he joined the Federal Party set up by Prime Minister Godfrey Huggins and in the federal general election; he was elected as a member of the federal legislature.
From 1958, Smith served as Chief Whip for the party in the Federal Assembly. In 1962, he resigned from the party and formed the Rhodesia Reform Party and after a few months, this was merged with the Dominion Party to form the Rhodesia Front. Smith was elected to Parliament as RF in 1962 and formed a government with a slim majority. He was appointed Minister of the Treasury under Prime Minister Field. Field’s failure to secure independence from Britain when the federation was dissolved led to Smith deposing him as a leader.
Smith was opposed to majority rule and is on record stating that there would be no plans to bring Rhodesia under black majority rule in his lifetime or his children’s. The rest is history and in 1980 UDI ended and elections were held under international supervision. Smith initially demanded that the election be declared null void because of alleged intimidation of voters and candidates during the election campaign.
ROBERT MUGABE & IAN SMITH
Robert Mugabe was born on February 21, 1924. Mugabe’s personal and professional history is well known to many but what is significant is that there is a similarity in Ian Smith’s journey to power and how he subsequently monopolised the political space to the exclusion of the majority. Zanu PF is structured as a patriotic front in as much as the Rhodesia Front was formed as a patriotic front.
Mugabe started as a Prime Minister accountable to parliament and in 1987; he became an Executive President accountable to no-one. History of Rhodesia will confirm that Ian Smith was accountable to no-one. The residential address of sovereignty in Rhodesia was Ian Smith and in Zimbabwe there is no doubt that Mugabe is the address. The use of state of emergency powers under Ian Smith is no different from Mugabe’s regime.
Any critique of Ian Smith was easily labelled as a subversive and terrorist and the consequences were as predictable as they have been in Zimbabwe since 1980. The RF was an exclusive party that was immune from sanctions while the majority of the population was condemned to poverty or exile. Zimbabwe at 27 finds itself isolated from the international community in as much as Ian Smith’s Rhodesia was isolated. The response to Ian Smith’s tyranny was the liberation struggle and the response to Zanu PF has largely been confused resistance. The injury caused by Ian Smith may not be any different from the injury of the last twenty seven years and yet the response has not been equal to the task.
The Rhodesian economy was framed as a race-based capitalist system under which blacks could not participate in the mainstream at all. The struggle for independence had an ideological angle to it. It is not surprising that Mugabe has positioned himself as a champion of the causes of the poor notwithstanding the damage that the policies of his government have caused on the poor. Zimbabwe has travelled at great speed towards poverty during the last few years
Ian Smith did deliver to his minority constituency and Mugabe has failed to deliver to his constituency. Smith was not removed by his cronies rather it was pressure from outside. Smith’s reign did not generate any factions within the RF in as much as the Zanu PF factions are illusory. Some have expected change from Zanu PF and many names have been mentioned as successors. Smith did not generate any successor and many with ambition understood the consequences in as much as Mugabe has invested in intimidating any would be successor into looking elsewhere.
Smith was the undisputed leader of the white settlers and most of them still remain grateful to him for delivery. However, Mugabe’s comrades remain confused about the meaning of independence and I am sure that in the wildest dreams they never thought that Zimbabwe will be in the state that it finds itself in at 27.
The RF used UDI to assume absolute control of the country in as much as Zanu PF used the unity accord in 1987 to position Mugabe as an undisputed heavy weight political champion. Like Smith, Mugabe is a democrat who just has made it a habit to win all elections.
It has been said that the worst thing you do to a President is to tell him what he wants to hear. Over the last twenty seven years, many so-called politicians in Zanu PF have perfected the skill of telling Mugabe what he wants to hear. I am not sure whether after 27 years, ironically the same time Nelson Mandela spent in prison, and Mugabe even knows the reality of the Zimbabwean condition. Like Smith who said "not in a thousand years" for black majority rule, Mugabe may never know what next year may bring. What is clear is that no change can be expected from Zanu PF as long as Mugabe is the leader in as much as no change was expected from the RF. Smith is still alive and to my recollection, he had no credible white successor.
If the country is looking for a successor in Zanu PF, then the waiting period is long. If the potential successors of Mugabe in Zanu PF are also guilty of telling him what he wants to hear, how can the country expect change from such actors? Zanu PF is as united as the RF was under Smith.
Mugabe believes that he is a victim of the machinations of imperialist forces. If Mugabe believes this to be true then one can safely assume that even his successors and fellow African heads of states believe the same to be true. No one has come up with a convincing and compelling case to convince Zanu PF as a party that it has been duped or misled by Mugabe. It falls to reason that if there is silence in Zanu PF about the cause of the Zimbabwean crisis, then it would be foolhardy to expect miracles from a club of blind people.
The RF positioned itself as a party of the privileged minority. By all accounts, the party did meet its mandate to the extent that even after twenty seven years, Mugabe is still confused about the true extend of the economic hegemony of a dwindling population. If one were to use a scorecard to measure the effectiveness of Mugabe and Smith to their respective constituencies, I have no doubt that Smith will come out the winner. The real question is aside from the blame game, what has Mugabe done for his constituency.
It would be naïve and wrong to argue that independence did not yield any benefits. Yes, Zimbabweans can take pride in the fact that education was one of the fruits of independence. Zimbabwe has produced a proud and confident nation and yet has not been able to define the quality of leadership to take it to the next level. Mugabe was a successor to Smith and in as much as they may not have liked each other history is fair and will accurately record that Ian Smith did pass on the baton. When time was up, Smith took the right choice and protected his gang at Lancaster and today they remain freer than the people they subjugated.
Zanu PF has already taken the position that the successor to Mugabe will not be someone outside the party. If Smith had taken the same attitude that his successor had to be someone he approved, I am not sure that Mugabe would be in power. Smith knew in 1979 that hard decisions had to be made and national interest was paramount. While many may disagree with Smith, history will judge him as a person who responded to the writing on the wall to allow even those he despised to assume the highest office in the land.
We have heard President Mugabe reduce himself to a level that is unbecoming of a father of the nation. Surely, it is wrong to call any opponent a stooge, puppet, surrogate etc as if it is wrong for Zimbabweans to invest in regime change particularly when the President has generated a culture where his trusted colleagues tell him what he wants to hear.
Can you imagine the kind of conversations that take place between the President and his cabinet and between him and his trusted Governor of the Reserve Bank? I have no doubt that President Mugabe’s world view and perspectives on the causes of the Zimbabwean crisis are informed by the gossip and manufactured reality that is injected into him on a daily basis by his real enemies. For anyone who tells you what you want to hear is no less guilty than anyone who wishes you the worst in life.
Next year’s elections mark a watershed for Zimbabwe. Since 2000, Zimbabwe has been frozen in a state of never ending uncertainty and the real objective of the constitutional debate has unfortunately never been exposed. From Mugabe’s perspective, the real agenda behind the constitutional debate is regime change and the target is him. Surely, it would be unreasonable to expect Mugabe to embrace such a construction in as much as the opposition will accept to be removed by non-constitutional methods when they assume power.
Zimbabweans have less than 11 months to construct a compelling case to transform Mugabe into an Ian Smith who can participate in the demise of his own political front to give birth to a new Zimbabwean reality. The position of the international community and Zimbabweans who are voting daily with their feet is clear that as long as Mugabe continues to be in power, legitimacy is an issue. Zanu PF’s position is that the world will have to accept that legitimacy starts from Zimbabweans and to date they have demonstrated in three elections since the formation of the MDC that they have confidence in the great leader. Who then has legitimacy to decide who should lead Zimbabweans is a question that should be addressed with the urgency it deserves.
Zanu PF’s election manifesto for 2008 is already evident. With Blair on his way out and Bush distracted by domestic and foreign challenges, Mugabe and Zanu PF maintain that they have been vindicated and a biblical sense the departure of Blair was ordained by GOD. In fact, the prevailing logic is that Zimbabwe has been failed by Blair/Bush and not that the policies of the government have contributed in a significant manner to the current quagmire.
Mutumwa Mawere's
weekly column appears on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can contact
him at: mmawere@ahccouncil.com
JOIN
THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website