KWENU! Our culture, our future

THE IMPARTIAL OBSERVER

Zimbabwe: Limits of Rationality

Hank Eso

hankeso@aol.com

Sunday 6 July 2008

Forcefully pushing out Mugabe to install Tsvangirai will elicit a

more divisive and entrenched tribal political crisis…

the West should avoid pulling the tripwire of a civil war in Zimbabwe,

with its dogmatic stance on Mugabe.

Power is might until it meets with an embattled, ageing, nationalist hero who is fatalistic. There also comes a time when delusion meets with reality. These tenets seem to be fully at play in Zimbabwe. Undoubtedly, Zimbabwe is a nation in crisis. Nonetheless, its present political crisis is essentially domestic, but some would like to internationalize it, for their own ends. The crisis has its genesis in cause and effect. Regrettably, safe for Robert Gabriel Mugabe, almost everyone involved seems to have lost their sense of the actualities of the crisis; how it began, festered and became intractable. Many continue to see Robert Mugabe as the problem. Yes, he certainly is, to some extent. However, other issues lie anchored at the roots of the present crisis. Read the phrase - land reform.

The Zimbabwean crisis is emblematic of the limits of rationality, when personalities, nations and groups arrive at that critical juncture that warrants that they put on their blinkers, and tune out every reality. Consequently, the engendered paradox becomes tenuous, since in such eyeball-to-eyeball situations; no one wants to risk being the first to blink. Therefore, every player holds on tenaciously to his or her warped sense of right. In the present case, regime-change minded Western nations think it is right and the time to oust Robert Mugabe. Morgan Tsvangirai believes it is his right to succeed Mugabe; and the wily old man, for his part, has proclaimed his right to continue leading Zimbabwe, as a divination.

Zimbabwe needs an urgent resolution to its political and economic imbroglio. However, what would be most damning is to seek to impose further sanctions - targeted or otherwise- on an already economically battered Zimbabwe, as if its present domestic perils pose any serious threat to global peace and security. Zimbabwe does not have a civil war. It is not at war with its neighbors; neither does it pose any threat to the sub region. Such recognition, recently led the African Union (AU) to appeal “to states and all parties concerned to refrain from any action that may impact negatively” on Zimbabwe. Yet, is the West listening?

The West is pushing a resolution agenda that seems likely to be counterproductive. The Europeans not only seek regime change, they have adopted Morgan Tsvangirai as their leader of choice for Zimbabwe. Some Western nations muddy the waters further with their self-righteous indignation. It speaks to the utmost limits of rationality, when French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, recently proclaimed that “The European Union will not accept a government other than one led by Mr. Tsvangirai” and declared any government in Zimbabwe, not lead by Tsvangirai as “illegitimate.” Guess what? Europeans are not Zimbabweans and it is not up to them to decide who should lead Zimbabwe, without risking a backlash. Their posturing is also a “kiss of death” for Mr. Tsvangirai. Mercifully, the United States differ with it European partners on this point. Western powers must leave space for Zimbabweans to dialogue.

Realistically, it ought to be understood that an unimaginative and blinkered international effort risks pushing Zimbabwe into a tailspin that might result in a civil war. Think Somalia. Think Iraq. It also places the West and most of Africa at odds on this issue.

Before continuing, let me state clearly here, it would be wrong to hold Mugabe blameless for what has happened to his country. However, in the circumstances he found himself, perhaps, he had very limited choice. Conveniently, the West has forgotten that the colonization of Africa ended some fifty years ago. Let me also note that the time has come for Mugabe to move on. Presidents Mandela, Rawlings Mkapa, Chissano, Masire and Obasanjo did. That is the new African trend. Surely, Mugabe has made his point. He can now go on his own terms, thus saving face and rescuing President Thabo Mbeki, who has mortgaged all his political capital at home and abroad to stand by him, as a matter of principles.

Discernibly, what happens hereafter will not matter much for Mugabe. History will record that he did not allow a gang of ex-colonialists to dictate their choosy sense of what constitutes the right brand of democracy for an ex-colony. This explains, perhaps, why the West does not grasp the reluctance of many African leaders to criticize Mugabe publicly and why Western oblique and sometimes overt calls for a military coup in Zimbabwe never materialized. It is most ironic that Western powers that have done business and tolerated the worst forms of illiberal governance in places where they have strategic interests would be frothing from the mouth with their doublespeak, as regards Zimbabwe.

It is deeply regrettable that the present crisis has entailed the loss of lives. Nevertheless, Zimbabweans can solve their internal problems, if left alone or if assisted in a meaningful way, rather than the complications caused by those who seek to insinuate themselves into the domestic politics of another sovereign nation. No question; Zimbabweans have paid the price of the tug of war between Mugabe and Western- backed Morgan Tsvangirai. Still, even if the West were to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe, one is hard put not to wonder, if a groveling, compliant and timid Tsvangirai is the type of leader Zimbabwe and an emergent Africa needs.

His presumed democratic bona fides notwithstanding, Mr. Tsvangirai has proven himself a man incapable of good judgment and making hardheaded decisions. A seemingly pathological vacillator, he handed Mugabe the presidency by pulling out of the 27 June presidential run-off elections, when he most needed to stay and cross the finish line, even if battered and bloodied. He wishes to rule a democratic Zimbabwe so much, but is unwilling to fight for its freedom from an alleged tyranny.

As commonsense and basic political wisdom informs, if one runs for an office, he might not win; but if he elects not to run, he is guaranteed not to win. Taking oneself out of a political equation may seem prudent, and sometimes is; but in this instance, Tsvangirai miscalculated in the extreme. Interestingly, his Western handlers were not looking out for him as much as they were looking out for an exacerbated crisis opportunity that would allow them to drive nails through Mugabe’s end stage political coffin. If they cared in the least about Tsvangirai, they would have urged him to stay the course.

Furthermore, it was the utmost in poor political judgment and limits of rationality for Tsvangirai to go and hide, in of all places, the Dutch Embassy. What happened to the Embassies of South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Kenya, Namibia, and even Egypt? What happened to the United Nations Offices in Harare? Tsvangirai’s message was clear: He did not trust his fellow Africans and felt more secure with the West. Ultimately, he has drunk from a “poisoned chalice” and smashed up whatever iota of political and leadership credibility he had left.

Unsurprisingly, Western powers continue to exhibit a high degree of crass discontent and limited imagination in handling Zimbabwe. Lessons from Somalia in the summer of 1993 and the disastrous results of the single-minded and high-handed pursuit of Mohammed Farah Aideed seem all forgotten. Ditto Iraq. Not long ago, the West ousted Haiti’s legitimate and democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide and forced him into exile in Africa. Yet, the Haitian crisis stands unresolved. Instances such as these, call for a strict for focus on policy rather than on an embattled individual.

Whether true or not, Mugabe claims that the crisis in his country has its roots in a bilateral dispute between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom, its erstwhile colonial master. Such claims, even if bogus, ought to have been factored into the broader Western policy considerations and approach. Hence, the UK should have recused itself totally from the Zimbabwe dossier. That simple technicality and gesture would have leveraged the ability of the other Western countries to deal boldly and more efficiently with Zimbabwe and diminish the perception of their supporting the UK. There is no other way to put it more bluntly; the UK cannot be a plaintiff and a jurist on Zimbabwe. Doing so amounts to a conflict of interest.

I will cut to the chase here. Whatever Mugabe's crimes – forced ejections and sham elections -- they hardly meet the threshold of criminality purported by the West. His alleged undemocratic acts do not compare to those by Pakistan’s President Musharraf, who came to power by military coup and despite rusticating the Supreme Court and deposing unsupportive judges continue to receive broad Western support. For the sake of fairness, we should ask some core questions. Where are the standards? What did the French do, when the 1993 presidential elections results in Nigeria were cancelled and victory stolen from Chief MKO Abiola the putative winner? What pronouncements did the French make about the botched 2000 US presidential elections in Florida? Indeed, what did the West do about the recent crisis in Tibet, beyond the expression of “very serious concerns” and “urging dialogue”?

It is most Ironic that Louis Michel, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid would publicly insist that since the “opposition MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of elections back in late March” he is entitled to the Zimbabwean presidency. Lest we forget, in 2000, Al Gore won 543,895 more nation-wide popular votes than did Bush, albeit, in 40% of the states, and that even though George Bush won the popular vote in 60% of the 50 states, he barely had enough electoral votes to win the elections. However, look at who became the US president. The point here is that democracy whether in the USA, Europe and Africa, should be by the books. Attempting to shift the standards and goal post in Zimbabwe as the Europeans seems to prefer, is looking for wahala, as we say in Nigeria. While the intention here is not defend Mugabe, clearly, Western double standards persist. Surely, Tsvangirai won the first round of the elections; but he also took himself out of the second round.

Unquestionably, Zimbabwe’s democracy stressed. However, we have been told that democracy; even in its most ill-adjusted forms is to be preferred to an outright tyranny. The point here is that, the present Zimbabwe crisis is being reduced conveniently to elections. Holding period and genuine elections is a core attribute and benchmark of a democracy, but it is neither the sole factor nor the hallmark of good governance. It should not be in Zimbabwe. An evaluation of democratic values comes in shades.

In Africa, Nigeria’s nascent democracy and its wobbly Kenyan counterpart are not exactly shining examples of Western democratic models, ala France, Germany and Italy. Nigeria and Kenya both have “rigged” democracies; just like Egypt and Pakistan. The present day Nigerian government subsists on a flawed and terribly rigged election. Similarly, Kenya has a unity government and Raila Odinga is Prime Minister, but not without political hiccups. No one asked President Mwai Kibaki to step down and no one clamored for regime change in Kenya. Democracy has never been a zero-some-game; but it seems that is what Western power would like to make of Zimbabwe’s democracy. Nigerians and Kenyans are sorting out their mess—we should also allow Zimbabweans to do likewise without all the meddling.

I have said it frequently; when Zimbabwe was the shining beacon and political bellwether of Africa, Robert Mugabe and most of his current advisers led it. So what went wrong? Well, no one talks of land reform anymore even though that is the core issue. Those who do not know, should go back and revisit the Lancaster House negotiations documents. If land reform is a problem for Zimbabwe, it is also a problem for Namibia and for South Africa; that is the unspoken truth about this inherited postcolonial dilemma. Ironically, those in the West delude themselves that if they were to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe, the land reform problem would vanish. Balderdash! Indeed, the policy line separating Mugabe and Tsvangirai on the land reform question is as thin as the skin of the teeth. Mr. Tsvangirai knows it.

For now, Zimbabwe has a divided government, in which the opposition MDC is in absolute control of the Legislative Branch. As such, they have democratic powers and advantage with which to deal with the Executive Branch. They should explore that option fully, as most democracies do. Alternatively, the MDC should use its legislative majority to leverage a consensual government or constitutionally oust Mugabe, if need be.

Furthermore, it should be understood that Zimbabwe is greater than both Mugabe and Tsvangirai and will surely outlive them. Zimbabwe needs to be saved. Nevertheless, it should not have to be saved by the Western powers on their terms. Assuredly, the presidential elections on Saturday 29^th March will always be watershed in Zimbabwe’s history. The 27^th June run-off elections will also remain a contentious footnote whenever the present Zimbabwe crisis is recalled. However, these facts should not be a pretext to foist the Western power’s long-desired regime change on Zimbabwe. The West certainly, does not love Zimbabwe more than Zimbabweans or other Africans. It is the limits of rationality for Western leaders and bureaucrats to seek to behave as if they do.

Finally, here is a critical caveat worth bearing in mind. Tribal strictures exist in Zimbabwe. Forcefully pushing out Mugabe to install Tsvangirai, will elicit a more divisive and entrenched tribal political crisis in Zimbabwe than anyone can presently imagine. Just like the Gikuyu and Luo tribes in Kenya, the political divide and power struggle between the Shona and Ndebele tribes of Zimbabwe have been simmering for ages and predates Zimbabwe’s independence. Hence, a civil war should not be ruled out.

To rid a bull from the China shop, we must make a choice to do so peacefully or violently. Robert Mugabe will go eventually or risk dying in office. If he must leave the State House on a stretcher or violently, then, let it be up to the Zimbabweans to do so. It will be sad, most troubling and indeed defeatist for anything tragic to happen to Mugabe that smacks of Western complicity or deftness. Surely, that would not be in Zimbabwe’s, Africa’s or Western interest, considered any which way. Hence, Western powers should avoid pulling the tripwire of a civil war in Zimbabwe, with its dogmatic stance on Robert Mugabe. Doing so will amount to the exhibition of the extreme limits of rationality.

With neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and observe closely.

-------

Hank Eso is a columnist for Kwenu.com. His commentaries on Nigerian politics and global issues have appeared in The New Times (Lagos), African Profile International (New York), The Nigerian And Africa Abroad, (New York), African Market News (New Jersey) and in Gamji.com and Nigeriavillagesquare.com