3 February 2002
interview
Washington, DC — Zimbabwe's election campaign is finally underway. President Robert Mugabe and his ruling party, Zanu-PF, face a challenge on March 9-10 from Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change.
The past two years have seen a bitter political battle involving a rising tide of violence and a disastrous economic collapse. While Zanu-PF presents the battle in terms of an argument over whether agricultural land should be taken from white farmers and given to black Zimbabweans, the MDC and other critics say the land issue is being used by President Mugabe to whip up support for his re-election and justify dubbing his opponents a mouthpiece for the former colonial power, Britain.
Attempts by the international community, particularly South Africa, Nigeria, the United States, the EU and the Commonwealth, to persuade Harare to reduce the tension and play by fair rules, have met with little success. Violent intimidation has continued and, most recently, a number of new laws have been passed, apparently designed to give Mr Mugabe's party the advantage.
Mark Chavunduka, editor of one of Harare's independent newspapers, the Zimbabwe Standard and Eliphas Mukonoweshuro Professor of Politicial Science at the University of Zimbabwe, both strong critics of President Mugabe, are in the United States to press for increased international pressure on the government. Chavunduka was tortured in 1999, with his reporter, Ray Choto, and charged with treason for reporting a coup plot in the army.
The two men visited allAfrica.com on February 1 and, in a wide-ranging interview, talked about what they believe are President Mugabe's strategies for winning the forthcoming election - in particular, a 'militarisation' of the election campaign machine, the reluctance of the international community to act against him and their fears for the future. Excerpts:
Would you say that, despite the passage of the latest laws, there is still a chance for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe?
Mark Chavunduka: There can't be. Because if you look at the new legislation, one of its more laughable provisions is that it makes it a crime to speak against President Mugabe, to criticize him or members of his senior cabinet. What I'm doing right now, by criticising him, I'm committing a crime. There can't be a fair election where one of the candidates is immune from criticism - how else can any other candidate present his credentials without attacking what he perceives to be the shortcomings of the incumbent?
You have to remember that all the previous legislation has not been removed from the statute books, so they're actually adding to all the legislation inherited from the colonial era. So we are now operating under a more repressive situation than under the colonial regime.
President Mugabe's apparent attitude is often seen by foreign press coverage as astonishing, and it sometimes seems as though he almost wants to be provocative. How does one explain that?
Mark Chavunduka:Well I don't think there's any other way of explaining it. Firstly, he's become totally impervious to any form of criticism or advice. And secondly his only preoccupation at the moment is how to stay in power; he's not too fussy about whether he uses legal or extra-legal means of doing it. So that is his mind set and he's not going to be worried too much by how the international community perceives his actions.
How do you deal with the accusation that the MDC has played into the hands of the former colonial masters and is a neo-colonial mouthpiece?
Eliphas Mukonoweshuro: It is cheap. We know Zanu-PF propaganda, I grew up in Zanu-PF and abandoned it at the first indications of dictatorship, so I know their strategies. Some of the things they are doing, what has that got to do with neo-colonialism? You arrive in a village you rape every child there, every woman there - what has that got to do with British neo-colonialism? We are dealing with a gang of rogues, thugs and criminals who will use any strategy to cast aspersions on a loyal, democratic and opposition party.
Why have the southern African nations in SADC been so ineffective in this crisis?
Eliphas Mukonoweshuro: The whole approach of the African Union and of the SADC and indeed, of the black diaspora, with very few exceptions, has been one of mind-boggling solidarity, regardless of the particular credentials of the regime that they seek fellowship with. But also you must understand that dictators are very much frightened of precedents. If you support the removal of a dictator in one country you are setting a precedent and giving an example to democratic forces in your own country to mobilize and gain more space for democratic freedoms.
Why, given the damage that the Zimbabwe situation has done to the South African economy and to the hopes that the region might become an economic powerhouse led by South Africa, has Mr Mbeki failed to get a grip on this situation?
Eliphas Mukonoweshuro: South Africa has been a major disappointment. There is a fear of a 'demonstration effect'. If you look at the constituents of the ANC, there is Cosatu [Confederation of South African Trade Unions], the SACP [South African Communist Party], and the main ANC. For Cosatu, read ZCTU [the Zimbabwe Confederation of Trade Unions]: there is a real possibility of a parting of ways between the ANC and Cosatu and the Communist Party. Mbeki is afraid of the demonstration effect.
If a labour-based political party could mobilize opposition forces in Zimbabwe, what would stop the same thing happening in South Africa? And in South Africa it would be more effective because you have credible politicians who are lurking in the wings - Winnie Mandela who has been alienated from the main ANC politics, and the dark horse, Cyril Ramaphosa, with his very solid labour credentials: so I think it is in Mbeki's interest that the alternative in the offing in Zimbabwe is not viable - [the message being] "therefore, Cyril Ramaphosa, Cosatu, Winnie Mandela - think again."
Can we go back to Mugabe's motives? There is a view that he wants to stay in power and therefore this entire problem has been generated by his own personal ambition. But is there more to it than that? Are there other stake-holders in the army and elsewhere who stand to benefit from his victory and are determined to keep him in power?
Mark Chavunduka: There's no doubt that the top ranks in the army have benefited immensely from Mugabe's patronage, not least because of their operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). You have a situation where, as soon as they get into the DRC on military operations, the top brass of the army make a beeline to go and concentrate on their private business interests, so they are the people who are really benefiting from Mugabe's patronage system. But having said that, we understand that the army has been involved in political manoeuvres to seek assurances from the opposition that if Mugabe leaves, his safety is guaranteed and there are no retributions against him, so the army could continue to benefit, even under any other government. But to say that they are forcing Mugabe to stay in power, I don't think so; they are trying to secure sanctuary for him and having done that they are quite happy to see him go because they too realize that he's become a liability not only to the party, Zanu-PF, but to Zimbabwe as a whole.
So how can we explain his being so strong, if powerful blocs in the society don't want to see him continue in office?
Eliphas Mukonoweshuro: Well one thing we have to realize in the Mugabe power scenario is that, for a long time now, the difference between ordinary activities and crime has been very blurred and here we are not talking only about economic crime, but ordinary crimes like murder, torture and other things. So there are ministers in government who are really frightened about their fortunes in a new political dispensation. A new government coming to power in Zimbabwe might not necessarily pursue these people but that doesn't stop civilians from seeking justice in the courts.
There are also issues of economic plunder and pillage. Some of the ministers are extremely rich and it cannot be explained in terms of legitimate means. They have so much money overseas that it doesn't tally with their business activities at home and with their salary. So these are the fears that they have. Mark has mentioned one minister who is afraid of tomorrow because he has nowhere to run to; he cannot run in the region because they are waiting for him; he cannot run here to the US because of what is being put in place in terms of smart sanctions.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
