---

---

Zimbabwe: 'Democracy is Not a Privilege'

26 May 2008

---

analysis

Washington, DC — "Africa waged a century-long struggle against colonialism and apartheid precisely to establish the principle that governments should derive legitimacy through the consent of the governed.

Democratic institutions are therefore not privileges that may be extended or withheld at the discretion of those who wield power." - Pallo Jordan

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from this May 18 commentary by ANC National Executive Committee member Pallo Jordan, as well as from commentaries from other long-time supporters of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle who reject the charge that progressive opposition to the current regime should be identified with the views or objectives of the British and American governments. In addition to Pallo Jordan, these include Bill Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor of The Black Commentator; and Grace Kwinjeh, an NEC member of the MDC and the Chairperson of the Global Zimbabwe Forum. For the full text of these commentaries see the sources cited below or the web version of this Bulletin at http://www.africafocus.org/docs08/zim0805b.php

For another important related commentary, made prior to the election in Zimbabwe and reflecting on democracy in the region, see "Perspectives on Liberation and Development in Southern Africa," Lecture at the Dag Hammarskj"ld Foundation in honour of Sven Hamrell by Sten Rylander, Ambassador of Sweden to Zimbabwe, at http://www.dhf.uu.se/rylander.html. Rylander also previously served as Sweden's Ambassador to Angola, Namibia, and Tanzania.

Note that this web version is longer than a normal AfricaFocus Bulletin, including the full text of each commentary. The version sent out by e-mail contains excerpts only, for reason of length.

Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today contains a summary report from the election observer mission by TransAfrica Forum and Africa Action, as well as links to previous AfricaFocus Bulletins and Africa Policy E-Journals on Zimbabwe.

For ongoing coverage of and commentary on current developments, AfricaFocus particularly recommends Zimbabwean sites http://www.kubatana.net and http://www.sokwanele.com, and international sites http://www.pambazuka.org and http://allafrica.com/zimbabwe

Democracy is Not a Privilege

African National Congress (Johannesburg)

18 May 2008

By Z Pallo Jordan

Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200805180001.html

Z. Pallo Jordan is a member of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of South Africa's ruling African National Congress. This article is written in his personal capacity.

Speaking in parliament during the budget debate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2003, amongst other things I said:

"Like peace and stability, democracy and good governance are developmental issues. Africa waged a century-long struggle against colonialism and apartheid precisely to establish the principle that governments should derive legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Democratic institutions are therefore not privileges that may be extended or withheld at the discretion of those who wield power. They are an entitlement; a right that the people of this continent waged struggle to attain and won at great cost!"

"In the ANC's continuing interaction with the political parties in Zimbabwe, we have warned against the subversion the rule of law as we have about the heightening of tension."

"We have also warned against the temptations of recklessness that could easily precipitate armed conflict. We have consistently appealed to the values and norms that the national liberation movement in Zimbabwe waged struggle to attain - the values of democracy; accountable government; the rule of law; an independent judiciary; non-racialism; political tolerance and freedom of the media. Not a single one of these values was observed under British colonial rule, let alone under the UDI regime of Ian Smith and his cronies. We consider it a scandal that they are now being undermined by the movement that struggled to achieve them."

Consequently I was deeply shocked, if not alarmed, by an article on Zimbabwe from the pens of Eddie Maloka and Ben Magubane carried in City Press on Sunday 4 May 2008.

I was shocked by the suggestion of the two authors that the criteria we normally employ in judging the behaviour of governments are extremely flexible and are so malleable that what we judge as criminal in one instance we should find quite acceptable, even defensible, in another.

I thought it was common cause, within the ranks the ANC that the legitimacy of a government derives from the mandate it receives from the people. That mandate is usually expressed through free and fair general elections. The record will show that the ANC has consistently adhered to these principles since its inauguration and re-affirmed them in "The African Claims" of 1943; the Freedom Charter of 1955, the Strategy and Tactics document adopted at Morogoro and in every subsequent document setting out its aims and principles, including the 1987 "Constitutional Guidelines for a Democratic South Africa". What is more, we have also insisted that these are principles applicable to all countries, including Zimbabwe.

Anyone familiar with the history of European colonialism in Africa and Asia knows that at the core of the colonialist project was seizure and control over the natural resources of the colony.

In the white settler colonies of Africa, like Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia, seizure of the land was invariably the means of acquiring such control. The reproduction of the long quotations from The Guardian in the City Press article thus serves no other purpose but to remind the forgetful of that reality. But, the information they contain adds neither light nor weight to the principal thrust of the two authors' line of argument.

Opposition as counter-revolution

Underlying the line of argument which the two authors advance is the suggestion that since the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) came into existence after independence, that political formation is necessarily suspect. They try to buttress this by suggesting that given that, like Britain, the revanchist "Rhodesian" whites, the USA and the European Union, the MDC is not happy with the ZANU (PF) government, there is an indissoluble link amongst them and they all must be pursuing the same agenda.

Proceeding from these highly flawed premises, they go on to argue that it is therefore incumbent on anti- imperialists to support ZANU (PF).

There are disturbing parallels between these two writers' line of argument and the all too familiar ones emanating from former US Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and, in our day, George W. Bush. Step back a little, invert the names, and the line of reasoning can be seen for what it is. Justifying unqualified US support for right wing dictators in Latin America, Teddy Roosevelt declared: "Somoza (the former banana-republic dictator of Nicaragua) is a bastard, but he is our bastard!" The authors also deploy the same guilt by association, so loved by anti-Communists and other rightists when they repress dissent.

Virtually echoing the sentiments of Senator Joe McCarthy: "If someone sounds like a duck, associates with ducks, and walks like a duck, can it be unfair to infer that he is a duck!"

But perhaps the most alarming suggestion of all is that opposition to ZANU (PF), irrespective of its merits, is ipso facto illegitimate and necessarily counter- revolutionary, and therefore pro-imperialist.

This curious line of reasoning dominated in the Communist parties of the Soviet Union and other east European countries. When workers complained about the conditions of work (as they did in Poland) that was characterised as counter- revolution. If intellectuals complained about rigid censorship and the repression of the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge, that was counter-revolution. Even youth, yearning to enjoy rock and other forms of popular music produced in the rest of the world, that was counter-revolution.

Is it any wonder that those countries are now governed either by right-wing coalitions or by anti-Communist liberals who want to hitch their countries firmly to the EU or to US-led alliances like NATO?

Be the first to Write a Comment!

---