With election intrigue, economic crisis, and rumors of violence and smoky backroom deals, the March 29 elections in Zimbabwe have been attracting a good deal of attention recently in the Western press. For the first time, both houses of the legislature along with the presidency were up for grabs in a “harmonized” elections process.
|
The opposition—Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change, backed by the United States and Britain—claims that the ruling party is delaying the results to steal the election and consolidate its forces to unleash a wave of violence against opposition activists. However, the majority of international observers have declared the election to have been fair.
The MDC announced on April 11 that Tsvangirai will not participate in a runoff and reasserted its demand for an immediate release of the election results. Both sides seem to be mobilizing their forces, with pro-Mugabe elements taking over a number of white-owned farms. With the increasing tensions, violence could break out if the release of the election results is delayed past April 14th or if a run-off is deemed necessary.
Mugabe’s trajectory through power
Mugabe has led Zimbabwe for all except a few months since the country’s independence in 1980. At first, he governed more or less within the boundaries set by Western nations—first as dictated by the Lancaster House agreement that ended the liberation war, then according to IMF-inspired structural adjustment programs.
While substantially improving some social services such as education, Mugabe stayed away from issues such as large-scale nationalization of the economy. In particular, he circumvented the issue of land reform, although the masses of Zimbabweans living in rural areas longed for the return of land usurped by white settlers.
Predictably, by the end of the 1990s many Zimbabweans were fed up with economic policies that did not live up to the promises of the struggle for liberation. Economic disparity between the masses of poor Blacks on one end, and white farmers and businesspeople together with a few rich Black capitalist politicians on the other.
In 2000, when 11 million acres of the richest land were still controlled by 4,500 rich white farmers, rural Zimbabweans led by liberation war veterans began invading private farms and rightfully reclaiming their land. After a defeat in a major referendum that same year, Mugabe and the ZANU-PF government reversed course on land reform and supported the farm invasions.
During 2000, over 1,500 farms would be occupied, with the government continuing to take thousands of acres from other farmers and slating them for “fast track” land reform. Unfortunately, however, bureaucratic forces in the government, military and national bourgeois loyal to Mugabe used their considerable influence to ensure some of the best lands were reallocated to themselves and their associates.
While thousands were resettled on confiscated land, the process has remained uneven, with government corruption and mismanagement as well as imperialist-imposed sanctions depriving many farmers of much-needed equipment and fertilizers. Predictably, domestic food production dropped significantly, and some farmers left for the cities, leaving their lands untended.
Land reform was Zimbabwe’s touchstone issue. For white landowners and businesspeople, control over the commanding heights of the economy was rooted in control of the land. Immediately following the government’s decision to support land reform, the imperialist nations—primarily Britain and the United States—began imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Along with government mismanagement and deliberate economic manipulations by some anti-Mugabe elements in the business circles, the sanctions have driven the country into an economic crisis. The world’s highest rate of inflation (100,000 percent), unemployment as high as 80 percent in the cities and shortages of all varieties of goods have taken a severe toll on Zimbabweans.
Imperialist-backed opposition consolidates its forces
While the economic crisis unfolded, Mugabe was not uncontested in the political realm. The MDC, formed in 1999, has emerged as the main and most serious opposition force.
The MDC comprises a variety of disparate groups and is funded by rich whites and the U.S. and British governments. The MDC has contested elections and organized various attempts at strikes and work stoppages in order to challenge the Mugabe government. Its leaders have decried the economic direction of the country and declared their intent to return the country to the British Commonwealth. Should it seize power, the MDC is undoubtedly poised to roll back land reform significantly.
Some believe the MDC wants to set up a system similar to South Africa’s, which would result in continued impoverishment of the African masses. While the number of wealthy Blacks citizens might increase slightly, the white population would keep its grip on the “commanding heights” of the economy.
Nonetheless, the MDC is well-funded and has been bolstered by a deteriorating economic situation. The MDC has been able to gain majority support in many cities and in some rural areas. However, until the most recent elections, they have not been able to strike any strong blows to ZANU-PF’s leadership of the country.
The scale of the “harmonized” elections and the decision of Mugabe to stand again for the presidency opened a countrywide debate on the direction the country should take.
The late entry of former ZANU-PF finance minister Simba Makoni into the race further electrified the contest. His decision to stand in the elections was seen as a fissure inside of ZANU-PF, which for most of the past year has been rumored to be riven with factional infighting over the when, how and who of a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe.
Makoni’s projected 8 percent showing could possibly have tipped the scales against Mugabe, leading some to call his move an opposition ploy. The truth of this allegation is not yet clear.
On March 29, the MDC capitalized on popular discontent in the parliamentary elections. They captured 99 seats, with a splinter faction led by Arthur Mutumbara (supporting Makoni in the presidential elections) winning 10 seats, while ZANU-PF won 97 seats. In the Senate, ZANU-PF maintained control by winning half of the 60 seats outright with more on the way as President Mugabe is allowed by the Constitution to appoint tribal chiefs to the body.
MDC a lever for imperialist intervention
The electoral results show millions of people support ZANU-PF; however, the conflict is often presented by imperialist media as Mugabe and a few of his “henchmen” and “thugs” against the just struggles of the people. It is nothing of the sort. What is unfolding in Zimbabwe is a conflict over the direction the country should take to develop itself. On one side is the MDC bloc, funded by the U.S. and British governments, and on the other are those who support ZANU-PF.
The MDC has been able to gain support at the ballot box by capitalizing on the legitimate grievances of the people who yearn for change. This does not mean the MDC will deliver such change. There is no indication that it will implement an economic policy directed towards development independent of Western dictates, which have sunk the whole of Africa into a quagmire of poverty.
Some say Mugabe himself is the source of all problems, and once he is removed, the road to recovery can be started on. Such individuals are deaf to—or choose not to hear—the stated policies of the MDC, which would mimic imperialist designs encouraged elsewhere in Africa that are hardly benefiting the broad masses of African people.
Mugabe certainly has used violence to suppress opposition, including the infamous “slum clearings” during 2005. However, the MDC’s policies will not improve the lives of slum dwellers, but rather perpetuate the conditions in which they live.
ZANU-PF contains a number of factions, including numerous opportunist government ministers seeking personal enrichment. However, the party also represents the aspirations of millions of people to continue the liberation war and to develop their country along non-imperialist lines—starting with land reform. Although those individuals may not seem to be a coherent tendency, they exist and are largely led by war veterans.
Imperialist-instigated attempts to overturn the government—even if through the “legal” means of the ballot—threaten to set back the liberation struggle in Africa. Whatever its problems and contradictions, Zimbabwe has attempted to reverse settler control of its land and build its economy free from the grips of imperialism. In response, the Western nations have launched a political and economic offensive to topple the government coupled with a demonization campaign to win public opinion.
This demonization of Mugabe has been used to justify sanctions against Zimbabwe. Meanwhile, the U.S. government says nothing about its ally Meles Zenawi, prime minister of Ethiopia, who has killed thousands of opponents and occupies Somalia on behalf of Washington, and whose economy is also in distress. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt and loyal friend to U.S. imperialism, is also known for brutally suppressing opposition forces.
Those who are opposed to Mugabe in the Western press and in government offices in Washington and London do not care about “humanitarian” issues. They will support any government that will accommodate their interests and oppose any that seeks to chart its own course. As long as Mugabe and ZANU-PF remain in power and disregard the directives of imperialist nations, they will set an example for those fighting neo-colonialism in their country—an example Washington is none too excited about.
Mistakes, some very serious, have been made by ZANU-PF. They are not a socialist or working-class party but rather a rallying site for variegated forces supportive of the general direction of Mugabe’s policies. The immediate alternatives, however, are the representatives of the United States and the former colonial power, who are guaranteed to return the country to a neo-colonial existence.
ZANU-PF is waging a just struggle against imperialist intervention in their country. Progressives should oppose all intervention into Zimbabwe by the Western powers and their attempts to direct the development process of Zimbabwe firmly in line with imperialist dictates. Hands off Zimbabwe!
