There is some debate as to why Botswana has prospered relative to its neighbors. Botswana has far fewer natural resources than any of its neighbors. In fact, a large portion of the country is uninhabitable desert. Conservatives in the U.S. would like to attribute Botswana's success to its implementation of the free market, while surrounding nations, such as Zimbabwe, have had large government interference. But does this line of reasoning hold up?
For starters, how free is Botswana's market? The Botswana government actually owns 50% of Debswana, the main diamond mining company. Diamonds of course are the backbone of the nation's economy.
Some have argued that the southern African state has profited from its low tax rates, which is attracting businesses and creating more jobs. Zimbabwe has gone in the other direction regarding tax rates. But numerous other factors have individually played a larger part than tax rates in the differing conditions of both nations.
Botswana was only classified as a protectorate under British authority and saw an influx of far fewer whites than the British colony of Rhodesia. This resulted in the natural progression of Botswana being allowed to continue without the violent cultural uprooting that Zimbabwe faced. One example comes in the form of Botswana's political system. Before independence, chiefs would hold a kgotla, a meeting where tribesmen would freely debate points of tribal policy, but where chiefs would still have the ultimate authority. The current political system is similar, featuring a strong presidency, but a cultural obligation for the president to account for a wide variety of opinions.
A few more important distinguishing factors include Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence, the long and devastating war of liberation in Zimbabwe, the 5th brigade's genocidal campaign into Zimbabwe's Matabeleland, Britain's inaction towards settling the land rights issue with whites, and the dictatorial disposition of Robert Mugabe.
Botswana's path to independence was peaceful. It is a far more homogeneous country than Zimbabwe. Again, Botswana's rather small white population helped it to avoid the land rights crisis that has come to a head in Zimbabawe. And finally, far from being a war commander, which Mugabe was, Seretse Khama came from the world of the relatively democratic kgotla.
Those factors, and not the difference in tax rates, played a defining role in determining the future for both countries.
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Mugabe, the Generals, and Negotiations
The New York Times is reporting that top generals are urging Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe to withdraw from a power-sharing deal with opposition president Morgan Tsvangirai to save themselves from facing prosecution for their roles in the pre-election violence perpetrated against Tsvangirai's MDC supporters earlier this spring. However, the Times does not mention that Mugabe has protected his generals from prosecution for many years, just as the generals have helped keep Mugabe in power.
Mugabe has orchestrated military forays into Congo and Mozambique among other places. The result, while complex, for our purposes has resulted in plunder, leading to wealth for some Zimbabwean generals at the expense of the nation's people. Since coming to power, Mugabe challenged and exceeded Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda's role as the major player, other than South Africa, in the region. Mugabe was able to convince much of the world that he was a force for stabilization in the region. That is until his controversial plan to seize land from Zimbabwe's white population created an uproar in the West.
Fear of prosecution is nothing new for Zimbabwe's generals. Neither is pre-election violence on behalf of Mugabe. But this year saw pre-election violence reach an extreme. Even this level of violence has precedent in Zimbabwe as government brigades massacred its own civilians in the Matabelelands in the 1980s. That forced ZAPU leader, Joshua Nkomo, to enter into an agreement with Mugabe, where Nkomo lost all discernable power.
Tsvangirai has been cautious in entering negotiations with Mugabe and firm in his demands. But Tsvangirai has been unclear as to his stance on prosecuting the generals. In the past, he has called for a Truth and Justice commission, going one step further than South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission, by requiring justice to be served. At another juncture, Tsvangirai wanted to leave previous indiscretions in the past. This year, he has offered differing views on whether or not the generals should be prosecuted, which have been based on the ebbs and flows of violence against his supporters. Regardless of the generals' fate, the citizens of Zimbabwe have suffered.
Mugabe's rule can now only be legitimized by Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai can only earn some of the responsibility that he rightfully deserves with the help of Mugabe. But there is a major player lurking behind the scenes. Emmerson Mnangagwa ran Mugabe's campaign of terror and was considered as a possible successor to Mugabe when it was thought Mugabe could not hold onto power over the summer. Mnangagwa not only represents the violent autocracy of the history of rule in Zimbabwe, but could pose a threat to Mugabe. Mugabe would be wise to rest his political legacy on the shoulders of his arch-enemy, Tsvangirai, and not his ally, Mnangagwa, if he wants to keep any semblance of power and be thought of as anything more than a demagogue.
Mugabe has orchestrated military forays into Congo and Mozambique among other places. The result, while complex, for our purposes has resulted in plunder, leading to wealth for some Zimbabwean generals at the expense of the nation's people. Since coming to power, Mugabe challenged and exceeded Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda's role as the major player, other than South Africa, in the region. Mugabe was able to convince much of the world that he was a force for stabilization in the region. That is until his controversial plan to seize land from Zimbabwe's white population created an uproar in the West.
Fear of prosecution is nothing new for Zimbabwe's generals. Neither is pre-election violence on behalf of Mugabe. But this year saw pre-election violence reach an extreme. Even this level of violence has precedent in Zimbabwe as government brigades massacred its own civilians in the Matabelelands in the 1980s. That forced ZAPU leader, Joshua Nkomo, to enter into an agreement with Mugabe, where Nkomo lost all discernable power.
Tsvangirai has been cautious in entering negotiations with Mugabe and firm in his demands. But Tsvangirai has been unclear as to his stance on prosecuting the generals. In the past, he has called for a Truth and Justice commission, going one step further than South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission, by requiring justice to be served. At another juncture, Tsvangirai wanted to leave previous indiscretions in the past. This year, he has offered differing views on whether or not the generals should be prosecuted, which have been based on the ebbs and flows of violence against his supporters. Regardless of the generals' fate, the citizens of Zimbabwe have suffered.
Mugabe's rule can now only be legitimized by Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai can only earn some of the responsibility that he rightfully deserves with the help of Mugabe. But there is a major player lurking behind the scenes. Emmerson Mnangagwa ran Mugabe's campaign of terror and was considered as a possible successor to Mugabe when it was thought Mugabe could not hold onto power over the summer. Mnangagwa not only represents the violent autocracy of the history of rule in Zimbabwe, but could pose a threat to Mugabe. Mugabe would be wise to rest his political legacy on the shoulders of his arch-enemy, Tsvangirai, and not his ally, Mnangagwa, if he wants to keep any semblance of power and be thought of as anything more than a demagogue.
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Trap of Unity
Later today, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai will sign an agreement to create a government of unity in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has ruled the country since independence 28 years ago. Tsvangirai defeated him in the presidential election in March. While Tsvangirai won a majority, Mugabe's government rigged the vote so that Tsvangirai received less than the required 50%, although he still out gained Mugabe. After a wave of violence perpetrated by Mugabe's followers, ZANU-PF, against Tsvangirai's MDC, the latter was forced to drop out of the runoff campaign. Mugabe stole the sham vote to retain control of the country.
Robert Mugabe has been down this road before. The war of liberation was fought primarily by two different factions. Mugabe's ZANU (whose military wing was ZANLA) and ZAPU (ZIPRA was the name of its military wing), led by Joshua Nkomo, fluctuated between being allies and rivals, despite always having the same broader goal of independence.
After independence was won, Mugabe and his party dominated the elections of 1980, a bitter defeat for Nkomo and ZAPU. Shortly after the birth of Zimbabwe, the government-led Fifth Brigade stormed into the Matabelelands, the home area of Nkomo, to allegedly put down a rebellion. In reality, the government massacred thousands of people, mostly civilians. This massacre forced Nkomo and ZAPU to enter into an agreement with Mugabe to form a government of unity in 1987. The agreement effectively ended any political clout Nkomo could have hoped for and marginalized ZAPU.
While the particulars of this latest agreement are unknown at this time, Tsvangirai has to be careful not to fall into the same trap. He has some advantages. Nkomo led a party largely confined to the Matabelelands and one whose followers were predominantly members of the Ndebele tribe. Tsvangirai's MDC is home to people of different races, tribes, classes, occupations, and political outlooks. It is a true coalition.
Regardless of the intricacies of the agreement, there are powerful military leaders who do not want to see Mugabe stripped of power because of their illegal actions during the war in Congo in the late 1990s. Mugabe could sign away power and then grab it right back.
The other fear this agreement presents is its impact on the role of democracy in Zimbabwe. Even though Tsvangirai won enough votes to legitimately claim the presidency, what message does it send to the Zimbabwean people if he gains power through an agreement with Mugabe, rather than by the ballot? To actually maneuver his way to power, Tsvangirai may have to border on the autocratic in order to forcibly remove Mugabe, a man who will not relinquish his position easily. In this scenario, it is almost irrelevant who is the leader because democracy will be denied its rightful place in Zimbabwean politics.
The situation has put Tsvangirai in a terrible position. He must be concerned with the welfare of his people and the safety of his party members. But he must also not sign away the most powerful opposition Mugabe has ever faced. He needs to promote democracy above all else, but he knows that Mugabe will not willingly walk away from presidential power. It is a tenuous place to be for Tsvangirai, but his actions will influence the direction of his people for years to come.
Robert Mugabe has been down this road before. The war of liberation was fought primarily by two different factions. Mugabe's ZANU (whose military wing was ZANLA) and ZAPU (ZIPRA was the name of its military wing), led by Joshua Nkomo, fluctuated between being allies and rivals, despite always having the same broader goal of independence.
After independence was won, Mugabe and his party dominated the elections of 1980, a bitter defeat for Nkomo and ZAPU. Shortly after the birth of Zimbabwe, the government-led Fifth Brigade stormed into the Matabelelands, the home area of Nkomo, to allegedly put down a rebellion. In reality, the government massacred thousands of people, mostly civilians. This massacre forced Nkomo and ZAPU to enter into an agreement with Mugabe to form a government of unity in 1987. The agreement effectively ended any political clout Nkomo could have hoped for and marginalized ZAPU.
While the particulars of this latest agreement are unknown at this time, Tsvangirai has to be careful not to fall into the same trap. He has some advantages. Nkomo led a party largely confined to the Matabelelands and one whose followers were predominantly members of the Ndebele tribe. Tsvangirai's MDC is home to people of different races, tribes, classes, occupations, and political outlooks. It is a true coalition.
Regardless of the intricacies of the agreement, there are powerful military leaders who do not want to see Mugabe stripped of power because of their illegal actions during the war in Congo in the late 1990s. Mugabe could sign away power and then grab it right back.
The other fear this agreement presents is its impact on the role of democracy in Zimbabwe. Even though Tsvangirai won enough votes to legitimately claim the presidency, what message does it send to the Zimbabwean people if he gains power through an agreement with Mugabe, rather than by the ballot? To actually maneuver his way to power, Tsvangirai may have to border on the autocratic in order to forcibly remove Mugabe, a man who will not relinquish his position easily. In this scenario, it is almost irrelevant who is the leader because democracy will be denied its rightful place in Zimbabwean politics.
The situation has put Tsvangirai in a terrible position. He must be concerned with the welfare of his people and the safety of his party members. But he must also not sign away the most powerful opposition Mugabe has ever faced. He needs to promote democracy above all else, but he knows that Mugabe will not willingly walk away from presidential power. It is a tenuous place to be for Tsvangirai, but his actions will influence the direction of his people for years to come.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Zimbabwe's Animal Farm
Colonialism's most gaudy aspect is its violent racism. But its most lasting features are the system of control it leaves and the intellectual and emotional degradation it casts on its victims.
Robert Mugabe defeated the imperial rule of the white man only to turn around and adopt his method of governance. Mugabe didn't set the mold; he only practiced against what George Orwell's Animal Farm preached. Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith might look different, but they act the same.
Regarding the violence in Zimbabwe prior to the runoff election and the African condemnation of it, the New York Times reports Mugabe saying, “Some African countries have done worse things. I would like some African leaders who are making these statements to point at me and we would see if those fingers would be cleaner than mine.” His statement brings up two important points.
Firstly, Mugabe doesn't deny that his regime has engaged in state-sponsored violence to crush the opposition. He argues that other African countries have done worse, which leads to the second meaning. In this remark, Mugabe is arguing against the moral clout of African leaders. Mugabe implies that state-sponsored violence is acceptable in Africa, because its leaders to do not have the moral authority to criticize the murders and beatings in other countries. Mugabe's sentiment is that Africa is heretofore incapable of righting its own wrongs. To Mugabe, Africa is weak.
During the war of liberation, Robert Mugabe was the victim of the Rhodesian Front's criticism of the morality of Mugabe's guerilla tactics. Nowadays, he is spouting the same tired rhetoric as the colonists did back when the current dictator was a liberation hero. Much as was the case with Ian Smith in the dying days of Rhodesia, Mugabe’s remarks demonizing African leaders are in an attempt to cling to power. His comments contradict his status as a hero against colonialism.
Ian Smith has recently left this earth and Mugabe is not far to follow. In the words of David Harold-Barry, "The curtain is about to come down on the era of old men and their worn out dreams."
Robert Mugabe defeated the imperial rule of the white man only to turn around and adopt his method of governance. Mugabe didn't set the mold; he only practiced against what George Orwell's Animal Farm preached. Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith might look different, but they act the same.
Regarding the violence in Zimbabwe prior to the runoff election and the African condemnation of it, the New York Times reports Mugabe saying, “Some African countries have done worse things. I would like some African leaders who are making these statements to point at me and we would see if those fingers would be cleaner than mine.” His statement brings up two important points.
Firstly, Mugabe doesn't deny that his regime has engaged in state-sponsored violence to crush the opposition. He argues that other African countries have done worse, which leads to the second meaning. In this remark, Mugabe is arguing against the moral clout of African leaders. Mugabe implies that state-sponsored violence is acceptable in Africa, because its leaders to do not have the moral authority to criticize the murders and beatings in other countries. Mugabe's sentiment is that Africa is heretofore incapable of righting its own wrongs. To Mugabe, Africa is weak.
During the war of liberation, Robert Mugabe was the victim of the Rhodesian Front's criticism of the morality of Mugabe's guerilla tactics. Nowadays, he is spouting the same tired rhetoric as the colonists did back when the current dictator was a liberation hero. Much as was the case with Ian Smith in the dying days of Rhodesia, Mugabe’s remarks demonizing African leaders are in an attempt to cling to power. His comments contradict his status as a hero against colonialism.
Ian Smith has recently left this earth and Mugabe is not far to follow. In the words of David Harold-Barry, "The curtain is about to come down on the era of old men and their worn out dreams."
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Tsvangirai Pulls Out
Shock and disappointment gave way to understanding and admiration after pondering MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangirai's decision to pull out of the Zimbabwean presidential runoff. Tsvangirai won the first round of elections, but the government continues to claim that he didn't gain enough votes to win an outright majority.
Tsvangirai concluded that remaining in the race through the Friday runoff would have created a disastrously violent situation in the already beleaguered country. The military threatened to kill anyone who voted for the MDC. Tsvangirai felt that he couldn't ask his supporters to risk their lives to vote. In addition, because of the violence, he didn't think he could win and didn't want to give credibility to a fraudulent election that would have kept an authoritarian leader in power.
Tsvangirai states that the point of his run in the rerun was to expose President Robert Mugabe as a violent dictator. He has done that. Even Mugabe's closest regional allies have condemned his campaign tactics. The dozens of fallen MDC supporters have not died in vain. In the face of strong emotions, Tsvangirai chose to halt his own presidential dreams for the time being in order to save his numerous remaining followers. It is a measured and courageous decision.
There must be extreme frustration boiling within MDC supporters who have withstood beatings to campaign for their cause. But their lives would have been lost had they proceeded. Nevertheless, the decision to abandon the election leaves me with sadness. Often, an opposition boycott leads to a lot of shame and regret. However, I'm also optimistic. The legitimacy that Mugabe lost has fallen into Tsvangirai's back pocket.
So what's next? It is likely that Mugabe's rule will end soon regardless. Many of his allies within his party detest his presence. The fear is that Mugabe will be overthrown and replaced with a younger version of the old mustached man. Tsvangirai asserts that the military already rules Zimbabwe and Mugabe has been marginalized. We can only hope for a people's revolution after the fixed vote on Friday. The MDC has support within the rank and file of the military, but those supporters didn't rebel against their commanding officers for fear of treason. Perhaps there will be a mass uprising within the military to aid a non-violent people's revolution finally installing Zimbabwe's legitimate leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.
Tsvangirai concluded that remaining in the race through the Friday runoff would have created a disastrously violent situation in the already beleaguered country. The military threatened to kill anyone who voted for the MDC. Tsvangirai felt that he couldn't ask his supporters to risk their lives to vote. In addition, because of the violence, he didn't think he could win and didn't want to give credibility to a fraudulent election that would have kept an authoritarian leader in power.
Tsvangirai states that the point of his run in the rerun was to expose President Robert Mugabe as a violent dictator. He has done that. Even Mugabe's closest regional allies have condemned his campaign tactics. The dozens of fallen MDC supporters have not died in vain. In the face of strong emotions, Tsvangirai chose to halt his own presidential dreams for the time being in order to save his numerous remaining followers. It is a measured and courageous decision.
There must be extreme frustration boiling within MDC supporters who have withstood beatings to campaign for their cause. But their lives would have been lost had they proceeded. Nevertheless, the decision to abandon the election leaves me with sadness. Often, an opposition boycott leads to a lot of shame and regret. However, I'm also optimistic. The legitimacy that Mugabe lost has fallen into Tsvangirai's back pocket.
So what's next? It is likely that Mugabe's rule will end soon regardless. Many of his allies within his party detest his presence. The fear is that Mugabe will be overthrown and replaced with a younger version of the old mustached man. Tsvangirai asserts that the military already rules Zimbabwe and Mugabe has been marginalized. We can only hope for a people's revolution after the fixed vote on Friday. The MDC has support within the rank and file of the military, but those supporters didn't rebel against their commanding officers for fear of treason. Perhaps there will be a mass uprising within the military to aid a non-violent people's revolution finally installing Zimbabwe's legitimate leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
What You Do Comes Back To You
As the presidential runoff in Zimbabwe nears, one is surprised by how little the race resembles an election. ZANU-PF's campaign looks more like a low-intensity war than a bid to secure the larger coalition of voters.
ZANU-PF's tactics are war-like because, many experts argue, they have never finished fighting the war of liberation that granted Zimbabwe its independence in 1980. Two organizations, ZANU and ZAPU were responsible for delivering the country from white rule. Robert Mugabe and his party won the 1980 election, handily defeating ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo. Over the next 7 years, Mugabe treated ZAPU and its allies as enemies of the state. The result was genocide. The state-sponsored Fifth Brigade swept through the Matabelelands. Shona massacred Ndebele. Nkomo was threatened and humiliated.
ZAPU was finally forced to merge with Mugabe's party in 1987. No serious opposition surfaced until the MDC in 2000, although some small parties prevented ZANU-PF from turning Zimbabwe into a one-party state. Regardless of the lack of threat these small opposition parties presented, Mugabe always ordered pre-election violence to destroy his challengers.
This puts into context some of Mugabe's seemingly absurd charges: 1) The MDC wants to re-colonize Zimbabwe, 2) The MDC are enemies of Zimbabwe, 3) The MDC are the ones committing the violence. All are lies. Mugabe vows the MDC will never rule Zimbabwe. The war still goes on in his mind.
It is essential for the MDC to quest for power through legitimate means. Easier said than done. The way a group comes to power will dictate how they rule the country. In Kyrgyzstan, people revolted against a corrupt parliamentary election in 2005. An unintended consequence of their Tulip Revolution was the overthrow of President Askar Akayev. The two most popular politicians formed a coalition and became the President (Kurmanbek Bakiyev) and Prime Minister (Felix Kulov) but their rise to power was technically illegal. They held a presidential election 4 months later, but the results of the parliamentary election, the true impetus for the revolution, weren't thrown out. Only a few contested seats were rerun. As a result, Kyrgyzstan has had a difficult time throwing off the corrupt legacy of Akayev. One illegal action, no matter how noble, begets another and another.
ZANU-PF's tactics are war-like because, many experts argue, they have never finished fighting the war of liberation that granted Zimbabwe its independence in 1980. Two organizations, ZANU and ZAPU were responsible for delivering the country from white rule. Robert Mugabe and his party won the 1980 election, handily defeating ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo. Over the next 7 years, Mugabe treated ZAPU and its allies as enemies of the state. The result was genocide. The state-sponsored Fifth Brigade swept through the Matabelelands. Shona massacred Ndebele. Nkomo was threatened and humiliated.
ZAPU was finally forced to merge with Mugabe's party in 1987. No serious opposition surfaced until the MDC in 2000, although some small parties prevented ZANU-PF from turning Zimbabwe into a one-party state. Regardless of the lack of threat these small opposition parties presented, Mugabe always ordered pre-election violence to destroy his challengers.
This puts into context some of Mugabe's seemingly absurd charges: 1) The MDC wants to re-colonize Zimbabwe, 2) The MDC are enemies of Zimbabwe, 3) The MDC are the ones committing the violence. All are lies. Mugabe vows the MDC will never rule Zimbabwe. The war still goes on in his mind.
It is essential for the MDC to quest for power through legitimate means. Easier said than done. The way a group comes to power will dictate how they rule the country. In Kyrgyzstan, people revolted against a corrupt parliamentary election in 2005. An unintended consequence of their Tulip Revolution was the overthrow of President Askar Akayev. The two most popular politicians formed a coalition and became the President (Kurmanbek Bakiyev) and Prime Minister (Felix Kulov) but their rise to power was technically illegal. They held a presidential election 4 months later, but the results of the parliamentary election, the true impetus for the revolution, weren't thrown out. Only a few contested seats were rerun. As a result, Kyrgyzstan has had a difficult time throwing off the corrupt legacy of Akayev. One illegal action, no matter how noble, begets another and another.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Colonialism in Zimbabwe?
Robert Mugabe consistently calls the MDC and Morgan Tsvangirai "colonial stooges." He says that the MDC will restore colonialism in Zimbabwe. The Western media feeds Mugabe's spurious accusations by painting him as a madman instead of thoughtfully discussing his mistakes. Of course, Mugabe's charge is ridiculous, as it conveniently ignores the MDC's origins in the ZCTU and the NCA.
In fact Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has essentially just taken over the role of Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front. It would be crude to say that Mugabe is his generation's Ian Smith, but the way his party has attempted to become synonymous with the state harbors back to colonial days. There was no drastic change in how the government related to the people following independence. The only difference was the racial composition of the members. But the colonial system is still in place. There is still no majority rule. Similar to Smith, Mugabe takes repressive actions against all dissent, particularly when he feels that his party is threatened. That is so because, like Smith, Mugabe feels that his party is the state, so ZANU-PF must be saved for the sake of Zimbabwe.
In fact Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has essentially just taken over the role of Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front. It would be crude to say that Mugabe is his generation's Ian Smith, but the way his party has attempted to become synonymous with the state harbors back to colonial days. There was no drastic change in how the government related to the people following independence. The only difference was the racial composition of the members. But the colonial system is still in place. There is still no majority rule. Similar to Smith, Mugabe takes repressive actions against all dissent, particularly when he feels that his party is threatened. That is so because, like Smith, Mugabe feels that his party is the state, so ZANU-PF must be saved for the sake of Zimbabwe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)