allAfrica.com: Zimbabwe: The African Mark Of Cain (Page 1 of 3)

THE farcical run-off took place in Zimbabwe, predictably so, in the face of a world opinion dismissing the sham elections and the irrelevant result rightly so already in advance.

Mugabe's legitimacy is one of a dictator, whose power is dependent upon a military junta's good will.

If not for the securocrats and their silent coup after the first round of elections, Zimbabwe would now be governed by political officebearers, who would have the legitimacy of a majority of the votes cast from the electorate.

Even with the state organised terror machinery intimidating the people and forcing them to vote for an unwanted aging despot, his "victory" is nothing but a fallacy and mockery.

Shame on the southern African community of states, who were willing to witness such a defiance of the people's will.

Intimidation, repression, physical harm, torture, rape and murder were all part of a so-called election campaign.

At the end, the contestant - who unlike six years ago in 2002 - could no longer be denied the claim to legitimate political power, withdrew for admirably sound ethical and moral reasons.

After all, the regime had disclosed its will for the systematic execution of brute force in such a ruthless way, that any further sacrifices among the ordinary people would have been unnecessary testimony to a situation already fully obvious.

To add further misery, mutilation and death to the long register of human rights violations bordering on crimes against humanity would have been an irresponsible symbolic political act.

Anyone who therefore blamed Tsvangirai for his withdrawal would not only be carelessly naïve, but either Machiavellian or hypocritical in the extreme.

When the rule of law is no more than the law of the rulers, reference to formal procedures is in support of a totalitarian system, which cares not an iota about true legality as legitimacy.

It dictates the rules of the game, and they follow only one goal: to stay in power, whatever the cost.

'typical African'? The headlines produced since the turn of the century from within the former "jewel in the crown of Africa" (so said Nyerere to Mugabe at Zimbabwean Independence, when he asked him to handle it with care) contributed to the Eurocentric perception that Africa is all about hunger, civil war, HIV-AIDS and despots, who treat human rights with contempt and with impunity.

That Mugabe's pseudo-anti-imperialist populism made him for many a true patriot (mostly outside of his direct sphere of influence, since it is once thing to endorse his rhetoric and another to bear the consequences in your daily living) was part of an unfolding tragedy with ironical undertones.

His finger-wagging posture to Blair, Brown, Bush and Co - who as Western leaders did indeed apply the usual double standards when criticising Zimbabwe and turning a blind eye to other blatant violations of human rights (including some of their own practices since the "war against terror" was unleashed) - was misleadingly suggesting defiance of Western imperialism.

It was a mere smokescreen to cover up that he was just one of them, if not of the worse kind.

After all, he oppressed his very own people, who were the basis for a successful chimurenga (liberation struggle) ending with sovereignty in 1980.

Mugabe was then the figurehead of an anti-colonial liberation project based on popular support and the sacrifices of the povo (people).

They had reasons to expect a better life afterwards and were bitterly disappointed by a new post-colonial elite, which had as its liberation project only their own privileges on the agenda.

Mugabe and his cronies betrayed the people's struggle.

It is one thing if the British are blamed for not honouring their commitments under the Lancaster House agreement.

One could argue that there were no reasons to expect more.

But it is another matter when the new rulers betray their own people.

This is what finally resulted after 20 years in a meaningful opposition, which had its roots in the workers and urban marginalised, who felt the brunt of the misery.

A misery created not by the external forces and their imperialist agents but by the new clique, whose self-enrichment schemes and obsession for power, privilege and luxury treated ordinary people and their needs with utmost disrespect.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories