The situation in Zimbabwe continues to unravel.
Aging dictator Robert Mugabe is facing increased opposition. After the violent breakup of a prayer meeting last week, opposition both inside and outside of the country has increased. Opposition leaders now have a face in opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, and Archbishop Ncube is urging churches to continue peaceful resistance even if the regieme responds violently against them.
Mugabe’s own party has some who oppose him. Many who had hoped to succeed him are now angered by his decision to run for another term.
However, Mugabe’s Marxist credentials and credentials as a liberator have gained him protection from ordinary people.
South Africa’s President Mbeki has a long history of supporting Mugabe, and many hoped that he would pressure Mugabe into negotiations toward resolving the increased risk of conflict. After all, South Africa has 2 to 3 million economic and political refugees from Zimbabwe that have flooded that country due to Mugabe’s policies. However, Mbeki is ignoring pressure from western governments to try to persuade Mugabe to talk to opposition leaders. He is also ignoring pressure from South African churches and trade unions.
The reason for Mbeki and others in Africa to refrain from even weak criticism of Mugabe is political: how dare ex colonial powers criticize a black freedom fighter.
As ex president Kaunda of Zambia, who had been removed from his own presidency for corruption, laments from exile that the West has no right to criticize Mugabe.
Yet in the face of increased, peaceful demonstrations, Mugabe gives no signs of compromising with the opposition. Indeed, he continues to encourage violence against his political enemies.
In the meanwhile, Angola, whose communist government had long been propped up by Cuban mercenaries, is sending 1000 elite police to assist in the crackdown, reinforcing Zimbabwean police who have been losing members due to poor pay. In addition, ZANU-PF’s trained youth militia AKA the “green bombers” continue to intimidate rural areas, and were involved in the beating of 14 activists on TuesdayLINK
Although this is in an African setting, the picture is all to familiar to those who study the sad history of communism and other dictatorships in the twentieth century.
What we see is what bluntly must be seen as communist true believers helping each other because their belief in Marxism outweighs other considerations. That is why Mugabe could bring in North Korea to train soldiers to destroy the “opposition” of the Ndebele tribe in the 1980’s with little outcry. This is also why Marxist leaders of Angola, Mozambique and South Africa hesitate to intervene in the present struggle. These presidents are still remembering the “us versus evil colonialist” struggle, ignoring the fact that their rise to power was helped by others, especially in South Africa.
Ironically, like the man who had one devil thrown out of him only to have seven devils return, this ideological blind spot ignores that the real alternative for their people is a free democratic state. Whether democracy can be grafted onto a tribal African culture is questionable, but given the large educated population of Zimbabwe, (many of whom have fled elsewhere for jobs) this argument may not be accurate.
—————————–Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines. Her webpage is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket and she blogs about Zimbabwe on MugabeMakaipaBlog
















3 users commented in " Zimbabwe continues to unravel "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYour comments on the politics of Angola are out of date. That terrible things are going on in certain African countries is not in doubt. But to insist on seeing the world from an anti-communist Cold War perspective helps no one.
I agree with the article and respectfully disagree with Julian here. Marxism may be mostly dead as economic theory, yet entire generations raised in a polarized world still hold and pass on the old prejudices.
Similar attitudes still cloud the Israel/Palestinian issue because it was for so long a struggle which, in proxy, symbolized the struggle between the capitalist and communist world. Again, we’re not talking about why the Palestinians and Israelis fight, we’re talking about the symbolic meaning that results in the rest of the world taking one side or the other.
Thank you, Nancy for a little deeper insight into the issue.
Chad
I agree that those old prejudices still determine some people’s attitudes, making them reluctant to criticise one side or the other because of their (perceived) role in the Cold War. However, to describe the Angolan government as ‘Marxist’ seems to be stretching things rather. Certainly, they once called themselves ‘Marxist-Leninist’; I am not sure how they position themselves ideologically these days, or if they do so at all, but despite a strong element of central ‘planning’ in the economy they appear to have embraced capitalism wholeheartedly. A lot of foreigners are making a lot of money in Angola, and it has always been so. Some of those Cuban ‘mercenaries’ Nancy mentions were in fact guarding US oil installations in the 1970s, even, and today Angola supplies a hefty proportion of the oil consumed by the US. All this despite the MPLA government having spent decades fighting the UNITA rebels, who were backed by the US. I can see that people do take sides on the basis of an apparently simple capitalist-communist split. I just don’t think it’s a very good idea.
Leave A Reply