The ensuing power struggle between the two men reminds me of the words of my favourite Zimbabwean musician, the late System Tazvida, who once sang: “Ndiwe wakazvikanyira wega”.
This simply means that some of the problems we confront in life are a result of our own making.
If Tsvangirai can listen to this song, he would probably understand the enormous problems he created when he appended his signature to the power-sharing deal with Mugabe. The now desperate Tsvangirai frequently utters incongruous political statements trying to defend, in vain, his unholy matrimony with Mugabe.
No wonder one of the leading political scientists, Jean-Francois Bayart, talked of ‘the politics of the belly’ in post-colonial Africa. A renowned African scholar, George Ayittey, in his must-read book, Africa Betrayed, also blames African leadership for Africa’s ‘tragedy’.
I argued elsewhere that: “[T]he signing of a deal is not the end of the crisis in Zimbabwe. It might be the beginning of a more protracted but less volatile stalemate. We might also witness the death of the MDC, and the reversal of the democratic change or path in that country. Sugar-coated as it is, the deal leaves many questions unanswered!” (Sunday Standard, 21 September 2008).
Herein, these unanswered questions are re-visited. I also concluded that it was wrong that “a power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe [was] being negotiated on the basis that Mugabe won the… elections” (Sunday Standard, 27 August 2008). It was clearly a wrong start which has come to haunt and complicate this deal. This is the same situation in Kenya. Ask Raila Odinga.
The ever-defiant Mugabe, when signing the power-sharing deal, said that: “Democracy in Africa is a difficult proposition. Because always the opposition will want much more than what it deserves. The opposition will want to be the ruling party…” As usual, Tsvangirai unintelligently explained: “I believe [the deal] represents the best opportunity for us to build a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Zimbabwe.” Not with Mugabe as a partner. Tsvangirai, with all the hallmarks of a political buffoon, thought he was better than the political smart Joshua Nkomo. This is Mugabe.
However, the core issues which are hardly contextualized relate to how the power struggle between the two men has polarized Zimbabwe since the Government of National Unity (GNU) was formed in February 2009. Contexts help to situate issues into their historical and wider perspective.
Tsvangirai now behaves like a political buffoon. And Mugabe remains defiantly stubborn. The crux of this article is thus to examine the power struggle between the two men and its ramifications.
It discusses the (i) impending elections in Zimbabwe (ii) the impact of the quagmire on ordinary Zimbabweans and (iii) the role of regional and International Community in the tension.
I also examine why Tsvangirai deserves more blame than Mugabe. These issues are discussed within the context of post-colonial Zimbabwe in particular, and Africa in general. Africa is full of banana republics.
Africa is notorious for producing embarrassing leaders, whose vision on leadership, and understanding of socio-economic and development issues, is even cautioned by toddlers. When these largely semi-literate individuals assume political power, they centralize and personalize the presidency; delegate some core national responsibilities to their wives and concubines, pompous but empty-headed sons, ‘uncivilized’ village relatives, and a bunch of dangerous fools; security agents. These leaders trample upon human rights with impunity.
In the 21st century Africa, we have lot of leaders of Jacob Zuma and Mswati’s character, but very few with foresight like Paul Kagame. Kagame is my hero in Africa. His Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) movement stopped genocide when the International Community had forsaken the Rwandan people in 1994.
Mugabe shamefully masterminded genocide against his own people, the Ndebele, in the 1980s. Just like Al Bashir of Sudan did in Darfur. Laurent Desire Kabila too did the same when he encouraged the killings of the Tutsi in 1998.
In September 2009, a young leader, Captain Moussa Camara, ordered his rogue soldiers to massacre peaceful demonstrators in Conakry, Guinea.
In Nigeria, the president can disappear for over three months, and still refuse to hand over power despite being too ill to govern.
In Kenya, Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki are, like in Zimbabwe, in a tug of war over the power-sharing deal.
In Ivory Coast too, a replica of Kenya’s and Zimbabwe’s unity deals is full of political raptures. Recently, in Niger, the president has been seized by mutinous soldiers. Good. He wanted to, like most of his rogue peers, unofficially extend his term in office.
Libya, with its ever-erratic leader, has declared a Jihad against Switzerland.
In Uganda, Yuweri Museveni is busy debating a proposed private bill on how to punish homosexuals.
Very soon, we will also have more of semi-literate Disc Jockeys (DJs) such as Andry Rajoelina of Madagascar as presidents. Rajoelina is a high school dropout. He is not alone. Look around. Africa, ‘the Dark Continent’, will never cease to amaze!
Of recent, a myriad of newspaper articles and academic works have been written about the paroxysmal politics of Zimbabwe. And several ‘provocative’ books, in particular, have been published about Robert Mugabe’s so-called draconian rule.
Personally, I have had the opportunity to read some of Mugabe’s biographies. Indeed, there is an appreciable corpus of them. In all of the books I read, he has been scathingly portrayed as a rogue, murderer, arrogant and anti West despot. Most of these books, if not all, were written by the whites, who vilify Mugabe as a ruthless tyrant, almost equivalent to Hitler and Mussolini. No wonder Mugabe had this to say about the whites: “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.”
Arguably, Mugabe is a very powerful and skillful man. He is simply unmatched in contemporary Africa. He is politically brave and defiant, rules with an iron fist, extremely-learned, a public orator, and has an admirable command of the Queens’ language, which he skillfully uses at International Conferences to deride Western leaders, his perceived enemies. And, above all, he puts his views into practice, whether good or bad. All these combinations are rare among contemporary African leaders.
Undeniably, the world politics has been significantly redefined since the end of the Cold War. But Mugabe is still in denial. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 led to profound global realignment. Consequently, revolutionary and progressive movements have entered a period of decline, and some have been decimated. Thus, today, the world is controlled by rigid neo-liberalists and uncompromising capitalists. And the Mugabe-type of revolutionary leaders has been rendered obsolete; a tragic reality that Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) must accept for the sake of Zimbabweans.
One man alone cannot single-handedly fight neo-liberalism and globalization, and expects to win. Mugabe has waged his own unwinnable Jihad against neo-liberalism and globalization, just like Al Qaeda’s Jihad against Western ideals.
Josiah Tongogara, the man who would have been inaugurated as Zimbabwe’s first president had he not been mysteriously murdered, had a promising vision about the new Zimbabwe. He is probably saddened by the sorry state of affairs in the land he had fought to liberate. He longed for a multi-racial, peaceful, prosperous and tolerant Zimbabwe. Tongogara, the Che Guevara of Zimbabwe, was a Karanga. And the Karanga were well represented in the liberation struggle.
*MANATSHA is a PhD Candidate (Asian Studies) Hiroshima University, Japan
