| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Mugabe: a brazen despot or just misunderstood?
By Desmond
Kumbuka
ZIMBABWEAN President Robert Mugabe’s increasingly strident anti-Western
posturing is without precedent on the African continent.
Other ignoble African despots before him, notable among them Emperor Gene Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Idi Amin in Uganda and Mobutu Sese Seko of the former Zaire, now Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), to name a few, may have done despicable things to their own people, but avoided open confrontation with their former colonisers; for quite obvious reasons.
It has hitherto been a common phenomenon for unpopular dictators in Africa to always be careful to create a safe haven for themselves and immediate family and friends in some chosen Western capitals to which they could escape when things became rough in their own countries.
Invariably, many of them stashed away billions of their countries’ wealth in Swiss and other off-shore accounts for just such an eventuality, but Mugabe, so far appears to defy this common trend.
Although Britain, the European Union members and the United State, which imposed targeted sanctions against Mugabe and his inner circle, threatened to seize or freeze accounts belonging to all the listed individuals, to date, no conclusive evidence has been found linking Mugabe to any wealth outside Zimbabwe.
The 81 year-old veteran nationalist has himself challenged his ditractors to produce such evidence but no one has called his bluff.
This raises the question of whether this suggests that Mugabe is indeed confident in his self-imposed role as Africa’s only truest nationalist undaunted by the West’s might, in his quest for the ultimate African emancipation. His admirers, among them left-wing elements in the some African governments, dubious civil rights groups in the US and elsewhere, e.g, the obsecure 12 December Movement, and those who feign solidarity with him for fear of appearing to be lackeys of the West, say the fact that Mugabe appears disinterested in feathering a safe nest to which he can escape means he genuinely believes he will never need to run away from his country.
And so, the question that must be asked is: if Mugabe has no need to flee, does that mean he really has nothing to hide and would acquit himself if brought before any court of law for alleged human rights abuses and general malfeasance against the Zimbabwean people. More to the point: does Mugabe have anything to fear if he gets out of power?
Those who believe he has nothing to fear say Mugabe is a victim of the confi dence and trust he has invested in some of his liautenants who have misinformed him about routine matters of the State. They say the President has been particularly misled over economic issues and this explains why he accepted economic prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, such as the disastrous Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), only to discover later that these were not in the best interest of Zimbabwe.
Others even say
Mugabe has shown zero tolerance for corruption in his
administration and this is borne out by the number of top ranking government
and party officials that have been hauled before the courts to answer
corruption charges. Examples of former Finance Minister, Chris Kuruneri,
former Zanu PF member of central committee of provincial chairman, James
Makamba, are given as ready examples to support this view point.
The fact that Mugabe has never himself been directly linked to any corruption scandal is also touted as an example of Mugabe’s untainted and adroit leadership.
But Mugabe’s critics insist he is himself the problem in that he has created an opaque culture of patronage among his colleagues in the party and government to the extent that only those who tell the President what he wants to hear stay in his good books. They say the President is an idealist to a point of being naive and yet can be unforgiving to anyone who dares question his own perception of things.
Mugabe himself has publicly boasted that he has only time for “madoda sibilli ‘(real men) who view the country’s problems as challenges to be met head-on. He has no time for weaklings who run away when the going gets tough, he says. He made this specific point in reference to Nkosana Moyo who absconded from government and fled the country soon after being appointed Minister of Industry and International Trade.
It is also for this reason that the President is reportedly fond of the Reserve Bank Governor,the debonair Gideon Gono whose bragging pronouncements like “failure is not an option” in his hitherto futile efforts to turn around the country’s moribund economy, are in accord with the President’s own public posturing when addressing unquestioning members of his Zanu PF and pliant government officials.
The President has also distinguished himself for rewarding handsomely his consistent loyalists. The revival of the Senate, the upper house of Parliament abandoned through the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 9) Act of 1989 which combined The House of Assembly and Senate, is seen by most as a way of keeping on the payroll Zanu PF stalwarts who have failed to hold their own in elections.
A glaring example is that of Sithembiso Nyoni, who after being rejected by the electorate in the March 2005 Parliamentary elections, was nevertheless appointed Minister of Small Enterprises Development , a position she held illegally in terms of the Constitutions of Zimbabwe which stipulates that cabinet appointments must be confined to sitting members of Parliament. When this was pointed out to the President in the Press Mugabe simply changed her position to consultant to the government and kept her on the government payroll.
To circumvent the pesky nuisance of her rejection by voters, Mugabe has now appointed her to the Senate and reappointed her to her ministerial position. So much for Zimbabwe’s much touted parliamentary democrracy!
However, an issue
that is discussed in murmurs below the surface is the
influence of the President’s young wife, Grace Mugabe who, in
her early forties, is less that half the President’s age. Some
traditionalists steeped in the patriarchal dogma of the Shona culture,
who would not dare come in the open for fear of reprisals, say the greatest
curse to befall Zimbabwe was for the President to take on a young wife.
They believe that if the President’s first wife, Ghanian Sally
Mugabe, who died of kidney complications in 1992, had lived, Mugabe
would be an entirely different man today.
They reason that
Mugabe fears to leave office because without the power of the Presidency,
it is likely he could lose control over his nubile young wife. Those
of this school of thought speculate that Grace Mugabe, beautiful , vivacious
and in the prime of her life, is still enthralled by the accoutrements
of office and may not remain loyal to Mugabe if he no longer wields
the immense authority of the
Presidency.
Rumours are whispered
darkly of serious consequences for younger men
suspected of improper association with the First Lady. One particularly
strong rumour that has never been officially refuted is that the late
business tycoon, youthful Peter Pamire, may have met his demise after
suspicion that he was having an affair with the First Lady. More recently,
two of Mugabe’s personal body guards for many years were fired
for allegedly showing “disrespect” for the First Lady.
Aman that age, many say, obviously has his limitations as a lover, and must be acutely aware of this. The natural inclination is to constantly look over one’s shoulder to be sure that there is no younger more virile man coverting his bride. This state of conjugal insecurity can trigger acute paranoia particularly in a grouchy geriatric in whom the onset of senility is starkly a factor.
There is still another dimension to the issue of the Frst Lady. The fact that the Mugabe had two children with Grace before his wife died, and outside wedlock was itsself the height of moral impropriety on the part of the President, some argue. By this act alone, Mugabe lost his moral high ground, and could therefore not enforce moral standards among his surbordinates which he himself had failed to uphold.
Therein lies the source of Zimbabwe’s tragic circumstances: Mugabe’s complete lack of moral compunction. He has nothing to lose – except a cloak of fearsome invincibility to shield an incongruous marriage and keep in check critics among his followers who want to read too much into his failings.
Mugabe has cultivated a reputation of being ruthless and unforgiving to those who dare cross his path. Such a reputation works well for him because his enemies keep their distance while the psychopants literally fall-over each other to keep in his good books by ratting on their colleagues. In the end. It is only those that tell the President what he wants to hear that can get close to him and fully enjoy the “fruits of independence” while those that may want to impress him with the truth are invariably banished to he periphery of the political spectrum.
Where Mugabe emerges as an astute political strategist has to do with the way he has ably insulated himself against criticism within his party through a combination of raw fear and a buffer ot intellectual stooges who warship him for nothing more than their material benefits.
Parcelling out prime farm-land seized from white farmers to army, police and government officials who would otherwise never dream of acquiring such assets through their own business acumen, has guaranteed Mugabe absolute loyalty where it matters the most.
Mugabe also knows that by railing against his percieved enemies in the West, an attitude that portrays him as fearless even against stronger nations like Britain and the US, he impresses his more gullible followers in the country and abroad. His call for “land to the people” characterized in Zimbabwe by violent land seizures in which thousands of white farmers lost their farms, and in some cases their lives, has a romantic appeal to the extremist fringe element who subscribe to the perverse notion that the only answer to past colonialism is reverse racism.
What puzzles many fair-minded Zimbabweans is that Mugabe does not appear to see any urgency in finding a conclusive solution to the Zimbabwean political crisis. He even denied recently that the country was facing a political crisis insisting that all he has is an economic crisis. His obstinate refusal to meet MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai, on the grounds that the opposition leader has no liberation war credentials smacks of dangerous hypocrisy.
Mugabe must surely
realise that a time will come soon when the present
generation of liberation war heroes must give way to a new breed of
hero – one with the moral rectitude and courage to rid the country
of the culture of corruption that his leadershp has allowed to fester
in our midst.
The present generation of leaders, many of whom are not only in the twilight of their political careers but of their lives, must realise that sooner rather than later, they must let go so that a new crop of leaders guided by principles of justice and fair-play, and not just political patronage, are allowed to take over. It is not for Mugabe to declare who will “never , never, never ever” rule Zimbabwe for that prerogative belongs to the future generations and not those who have institutionalised contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the majority.
Mugabe may wish
that only those who participated in the struggle for
independence should aspire for high office in Zimbabwe, but again he
must realise that that prerogative can not belong to him forever.
It is really sad,
is it not, that mankind's history continues to produce obnoxuous characters
like Mugabe – one would have thought the lessons from the likes
of Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceaucescu, Bokassa, Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko
and their ilk would have made us more circumspect about nurturing dictators.
But I guess all it shows is that human beings are basically the same;
given the slightest leeway, the beast within soon emerges. This is why
it is absolutely necessary that any constitutional amendments that a
new Zimbabwe emerging from the current ruins makes in the future, we
must be certain we do not ever again allow the creation of another Robert
Mugabe.
Desmond Kumbuka is the chief-sub editor of The Standard newspaper
in Harare
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