Is Zimbabwe a victim of western imperialism?

AS ZIMBABWE approaches its 27th birthday, I have no doubt that many Zimbabweans like President Mugabe are looking into themselves, looking at themselves, delving into the assumptions they had at the beginning of the liberation struggle and at independence, and in so doing reflect on the economic and political quagmire that the country finds itself today.
Judging by the disproportionate interest taken by the media and the Western countries on the developments in Zimbabwe, one cannot help but reflect on the kind of strategic issues that inform the interest and what implications the spotlight has on the broader issues regarding the deepening of democracy in Africa.
What began in limited measure as a drive to remove colonialism and naked racism in Africa in the post-Second World War era and replace it with an accountable and responsible democratic dispensation, has ended up in the replacement of a race-based exclusive governance architecture with an equally exclusive post-colonial governance system dominated by the founding fathers in the mould of Kwame Nkrumah.
I do not think that even the most enthusiastic anti-colonial and anti-imperialist advocates would agree in 2007 that the 1st revolution of Zimbabwe has produced a positive outcome that is in line with the expectations of all those Africans who have made the sacrifices to eradicate the artificial man made colonial distortions.
The issues that seem to occupy many regarding the crisis in Zimbabwe are no different from the kind of issues that occupied the pioneers of the decolonisation struggle as is to suggest that the passage of time under self rule was a non event during which no one should be accountable. In the case of Zimbabwe, the architects of the independence project still would want to argue that they were never in control of what President Mwanawasa described as a “sinking Titanic” and choosing to rightly or wrongly assign the blame on the machinations of relentless imperialist forces.
In advancing this persuasive argument, they benefit from the global atmosphere created by the conduct of Bush/Blair on global issues including Iraq. A unipolar world in which western values are projected as the only acceptable values to inform global opinion seems discredited to an extent that even the most unacceptable dictators find sanctuary in responding to criticisms about their own disastrous policies and programs by claiming to be victims of an imperialist conspiracy.
Having watched the reporting by CNN and other western media about the events in Zimbabwe during the last two weeks, it is important that a platform for a new conversation be created in order to clearly articulate a Zimbabwean agenda in any regime change discussion. It would appear at face value that the regime change agenda is owned by non-Zimbabweans and, for that matter, non-Africans given the reluctance of African governments to join what they perceive to be a Western-inspired conspiracy whose real motive is to reverse the gains of independence and, in particular, the land reform initiative. Under this construction, any critic of Mugabe is easily labeled as a puppet or surrogate of imperialist forces and in so doing disable such persons from contributing and participating in the any change process.
When the media is polluted with pictures of badly damaged faces and bodies of those who choose to fight for a new dispensation, the debate takes a new twist if such persons are then labeled as sell-outs and agents of imperialism. It is then argued that any serious African government should at best not respond to grievances of imperialists disguising themselves as opposition players when in truth and fact such persons are deemed to be devoid of any mind of their own but just instruments of other people’s agendas and at worst should inflict the maximum bodily harm on them so that their masters can come to the fore for a real engagement. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting China and met with a number of leading Chinese companies in the electronics and information technology industries. What was striking is that all of these actors whether they represented the state or non-state players, they all shared an optimism about the future of the country in as much as they were mindful of the threat of a unipolar world. I first visited China in 1982 as a student leader and I must confess that every time I visit the country I am encouraged by the progress and the positive attitude to life by the average Chinese.
The Chinese are the first to admit that they have benefited from the West in terms of technology and access to markets. They also acknowledge that the Cultural Revolution was a major set back. I was startled to learn from a Chinese company that supplied goods and services to Zimbabwe recently on the strength of an escrow account that was established in Hong Kong and Mauritius to route Zimbabwe’s pledged tobacco exports for debt service. The representatives of this company could not disguise their anger at the attitude of the RBZ when the escrow account was closed and the security evaporated since June 2004.
Although the company is owned by the government of China, it did not have pleasant words to say about Zimbabwe. After listening to the Chinese horror story, I was comforted that after all no one is allergic to good policies and even the Chinese are commercial in outlook. In fact, they reminded our delegation that China is different country from the China that was not informed by strategic and commercial interests. If China can come of age, why is it that African countries never seem to grow up and their leaders take responsibility for their actions?
As I watched the coverage on Zimbabwe by CNN, I could not help but reflect what would have happened to China had Chairman Mao been still alive and in power. Would he not have retreated to the easy corner of blaming third parties for the country’s problems? Can you imagine that even Singapore with a population of only 4 million was formerly a colony and it was only in 1965 that it gained independence with the same per capita income as that of Ghana under Nkrumah? However, Singapore was fortunate to have leaders who took responsibility for the country’s destiny and proceeded to put in place institutions and policies that were friendly to the growth of the country. Even the rulers of Dubai have managed to demonstrate that it is possible in one generation to change the possibilities of a nation through good policies.
The world has now many examples of former colonial states that have transformed themselves into developed states in a generation. What is striking about these nations is that their leaders took charge and did not dwell on what the colonial powers thought of them but what their citizens deserved. Could it then be that bad leaders need imperialism to sustain themselves in power? One can argue that even if Blair agreed to help finance Zimbabwe’s land reform program, the country would not be any better off than it is. It is important for historians to critically examine the condition of the Zimbabwean economy before the formation of the MDC and the implementation of the land reform program and after the alleged intrusion of an unpatriotic party into the sovereign affairs of the country for and on behalf of imperialist forces.
While in China, I received an email commenting on my article on Kwame Nkrumah that I thought I should share with you. The email read as follows:
“It is better to misgovern ourselves that to be governed well by others” Kwame Nkrumah once said. I found your article on Kwame very enlightening. I have several colleagues that hail from Ghana and they don’t think very highly of Kwame because they are directly/indirectly victims of his policies. They, however, think highly of Mugabe, they see him as a hero of the common African, while I obviously don’t agree with this view because I am a victim of his policies. Are we as Africans so ignorant that we accept anyone who criticizes the West as our saviour; it would be interesting if you write an article debunking this myth.
It is true that there are many Africans who share Nkrumah’s observation that it is better for Africans to misgovern themselves than be governed well by others (meaning white colonialists). The observation by Nkrumah is shared by a number of African leaders who genuinely take the view that Africa is for Africans in as much as Europe is for Europeans. Such people are encouraged when they see white faces defending the rights of black victims into believing that Africa is on the right path if it has leaders who can defend sovereignty more than satisfying the appetites of the governed. When Bush and Blair take their time to defend the rights of a person like Tsvangirai, this is seen as a demonstration that the purported injuries claimed are not genuine but a mere reflection of the wishes of the masters who lack the courage and moral strength to come out in the open.
In as much as Mugabe has critics, he has many admirers in an increasingly complex world characterised by a value system that lacks universal application. Many think rightly or wrongly that Mugabe is a custodian of the values that informed the independence struggle and that are at the epicenter of the unfinished economic revolution. As long as victims of Mugabe are whites, the verdict is predictable. What is problematic and rarely covered by the Western media is the victimisation of blacks who do not subscribe to their agendas. When the primary focus is regime change, then you are sure to get a combative Mugabe supported by well meaning individuals who have problems with Eurocentric values and the ideological framework within which the regime change is propagated. In this context, many take the attitudes that better the devil you know than a devil you fought against and are still in your midst through alleged proxies.
Unless the opposition parties that seek to dethrone a leader like Mugabe understand the context in which he is seemingly reluctant to relinquish power, they are unlikely to succeed in any regime change. In fact, it is ironic that even Mugabe’s worst adversaries are praying for the disintegration of Zanu PF as the only salvation for the country rather than change coming out of the popular will of the governed. In such an environment, it is incumbent upon not only the opposition forces to rethink about the agenda for action but to critically develop an ideology that captures the imagination of the governed.

Surely, the reincarnation of Ian Smith is not the desired outcome for Zimbabwe notwithstanding the economic condition of the country. A desired outcome should not appear to be dictated by the same forces that a leader like Mugabe takes pride in defeating. Whether we like it or not, Mugabe will always be remembered as the first post-colonial leader of Zimbabwe irrespective of whether through his policies Zimbabwe was turned into a Rhodesian ruins or not. Even in the best of times, a leader who believes that he is the saviour of a nation and a people that appear incapable of coherently expressing themselves will not voluntarily varnish. In fact, the appearance of Western intrusion into the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe, gives a leader like Mugabe another lifeline.
In the face of what appears to Mugabe as Western inspired regime change propaganda, the harmonisation project has been redefined now to mean Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 2008. Given the fate of Tsvangirai and his comrades, it is unthinkable that any rational Zanu PF leader would dare stand in the way of Mugabe now more than ever before. Such an idiot would face the same wrath as that which visited Tsvangirai and any prospect of dissent among the Zanu PF comrades as has been talked and written about is non-existent. Rather, what is expected is that Mugabe who is in any event the only candidate of the party until 2009, will stand for the Presidential elections even if he is well aware that winning such an election will not be in the national interest. When confronted by a spirited and determined opposition, you can count on Mugabe rising to the occasion no matter how many corpses he has to leave behind.
Some cynics would argue that Mugabe who might have entertained the prospect of retiring in 2010 has been given a new lifeline by the opposition that seems to be misguided by wrong analytical constructions by the likes of Prof Jonathan Moyo regarding the real climate within Zanu PF. The apparent investment by the opposition in transforming Zanu PF into a faction-ridden enterprise may backfire to the detriment of the country that is in urgent need of salvation.
In as much as Zimbabweans are yearning for change, the historical context of colonialism and the undying wounds it seems to have inflicted on the country’s leadership, the battle lines may have been inadvertently drawn by parties that help to confuse the conversation about change and criterion for selecting Mugabe’s successor. The open wounds of colonial injustice are evident in the psyche of many Africans to allow change in Zimbabwe to be influenced by neighboring African states. Even Chiluba and Kaunda may share the same sentiments with Mugabe about the role of Western powers in removing them from the gravy train and may find in Mugabe the courage they never mustered in defending their regimes.
Even those who expect much from South Africa are setting themselves for a big disappointment. The racial wounds have not even begun to heal to allow President Mbeki to become an accomplice for any regime change agenda inspired by forces that want to entrench white economic supremacy. While they call on President Mbeki to intervene in the seemingly ill-defined Zimbabwean crisis, no attempt is made to locate such intervention in the context of international law. Where would President Mbeki get the locus standi to intervene in as much as he may find some of the policies of the government of Zimbabwe objectionable? The South African government’s position on regime change is well known to give its critics a better perspective in terms of judging its actions on the Zimbabwean question.
While the opposition parties may hold the view that the current government of Zimbabwe is not legitimate, the South African government has a different opinion that has informed its response on calls for a new constitution and a transitional authority to supervise the next Zimbabwean election. If President Mbeki is being encouraged to do what would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of South Africa, then it becomes difficult for him to establish the legal and political basis within which he can intervene.
In conclusion, I think the question of whether Zimbabwe is a victim of colonialism and imperialism will and should continue to occupy the minds of Zimbabweans and Africans in general as they try to map out a strategy to lift the sinking titanic whose captain is still to be convinced of his culpability in helping kill the hope that ignited the struggle for emancipation.
Zimbabwe will continue to be on autopilot, in a stalemate, and in deep crisis unless its citizens find a better way of communicating with its leaders that the world has changed and if change in the manner in which the country is governed does not take place, then the blame must be placed squarely at citizens for allowing themselves to be used as a football by leaders whose interests may have little to do with their future.
Africa’s heritage must be owned by citizens and not monopolised by their agents who in many cases end up abusing their rights while conveniently blaming others for their obvious misguided policies and programs.