Just what is the meaning of independence?

AS ZIMBABWE turns 27 this week, I could not think of a better topic for a conversation than to unpack the meaning of independence and whether the country has lived up to the expectations of its citizens.
The term independence is often used in contrast to subjugation which refers to the subjection of a territory to the political and military control of an external government.
Independence, therefore, means the self government of a nation, country or state by its citizens. Independence Day marks the given date when a country achieved sovereignty.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the day is April 18 and like many countries that gained independence from former colonial powers, the day represented the beginning of a new nation born from the womb of oppression and race-based politics of exclusion.
Essentially independence is a negative definition i.e. the state of not being controlled by another power through dictatorship, colonialism, expansionism or imperialism.
Therefore, independence may be obtained through decolonisation or by separation or dismemberment. Even the Rhodesia Front was a front set up to emancipate Rhodesia from the dominating power of the British Empire and they did so by issuing a declaration of independence.
In human history, the earliest surviving example is Scotland’s Declaration of Independence of Arbroath and the most famous of which remains the U.S. Declaration of Independence issued in 1776. It is not surprising that the Rhodesia Front was led by a Zimbabwean of Scottish heritage, Ian Douglas Smith.
Causes for a country wishing to seek independence are many but in the case of Zimbabwe, I would like to think that the core objective was to create a new society founded on the Rule of Law and respect for human and property rights with universal access to the right to vote. The struggle for independence was, therefore, a struggle to remove the illegitimate government of the Rhodesia Front with a democratic government informed the wishes of the citizens in their totality rather than by a minority.
Twenty seven years later the question is whether the citizens of Zimbabwe have progressed on the independence value chain. Are they freer today than they were under the Rhodesia Front? What is the difference, if any, between the approach to governance of Zanu PF and the Rhodesia Front?
Zimbabwe finds itself on the radar screen of the world in 2007 in as much as it found itself on the same spotlight in 1979 at the Lancaster House Conference. In 1979, the quest was independence and yet in 2007, citizens are also asking for the same rights that the past 27 years should have conferred on them. Has anything changed in Zimbabwe over the last twenty years or like life which really a nuisance of time, the last twenty years of uhuru was a sleeping time?
Those who were leaders in 1979 are still leaders in 2007. They promised independence and yet are accused of condemning the country into an economic and political mess. In 2007, the intervention of a third party in Zimbabwe’s political discourse in now accepted as a sine qua non for the resolution of the crisis in as much as the intervention by Lord Carrington.
Today, Zimbabwe’s Lord Carrington has taken the form of President Mbeki. With this background, what can we say about the lessons of Zimbabwe’s independence? Can we say that Zimbabweans have matured to the level that they cannot resolve their own problems? President Mugabe in 1979 needed the intervention of Lord Carrington to talk to other Zimbabweans and in 2007 he still needs a third party to talk to his own subjects. As the father of the nation, what does this say about the President’s qualities as a leader?
It is common cause that Zanu PF has confirmed that President Mugabe will be the candidate for the party in next year’s election. In the 1980 elections, Zimbabweans did not even trust each other to have an internally supervised election. In as much all the parties trusted the British to supervise the 1980 elections notwithstanding the fact that the liberation struggle was essentially constructed on the basis that the real struggle was against the British Empire and not against the Rhodesia Front.
In 2007, Zimbabwe cannot look at the British to provide a credible umbrella for conducting next year’s elections. In 1979, President Mugabe welcomed Lord Soames to provide a transitional bridge to independence and in 2007, the opposition in Zimbabwe is asking for a new Lord Soames because they cannot trust their own government to conduct credible elections. Has anything, therefore, changed in Zimbabwe? What does this tell us about the maturity of Zimbabweans? If President Mugabe accepted the intervention of a third party in 1979 why would he object to the interventions of a transitional authority in 2008 if it is accepted that Zimbabwe is mired in the same crisis that it found itself in 1979?
One South African journalist called me last week seeking my assistance in crafting some questions that he wished to include in an interview with President Mugabe. He wanted to know what kind of questions he should ask and was quick to point out that President Mugabe was so eloquent and smart that he presented a challenge to any interviewer. Before I responded, I told him that I was the least qualified to ask questions rather it was important for him to try to establish from the people on the ground what they would like to hear from their leader. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with many Zimbabweans that they feel alienated from their government. They feel that the last 27 years has not brought the citizens closer to their government anymore than Ian Smith was closer to his subjects.
With respect to the questions to President Mugabe, I feel that it is only fair that Zimbabweans reflect this week on what kind of questions they should frame for their President. There appears to be a real disconnection between the governed and the governors to compel the President to listen now more than ever. If President Mugabe has accepted the intervention of a third party like President Mbeki, then it is a step forward in the quest to create a national consciousness that Zimbabwe is in a crisis. The issues to be resolved may be hazy not because the people charged with resolving the crisis are negligent but because citizens appear to be talking at each other rather than talking to each other.
In this conversation, even members of Zanu PF are entitled to ask why President Mugabe would want another term if it is the case that under his watch the promissory note given at independence has not been honoured by the bank because of insolvency. If the bank is insolvent, surely the question is whether control of an insolvent bank should remain with the directors appointed by the shareholders or it should be transferred to a judicial manager in line with universally accepted norms of managing bankrupt situation.
All the macro-economic variables show that Zimbabwe’s economy is in a terminal ward and has moved from intensive care where despite the condition a patient can still expect help from doctors. In the case of Zimbabwe in 2007, it is not even clear where the doctor is and the people charged with leading are now behaving like patients. President Mugabe has placed his faith in central bank governor Gideon Gono who by all accounts is behaving more like an opposition leader, albeit underpinned by state power, and every day he on the road blaming everybody for the government’s shortcomings. However, he has not dared direct his confused and confusing statements to his principal, the President. Rather, he conveniently targets Ministers appointed by the same President that appointed him.
If no-one is taking responsibility, then is there any cause to celebrate Zimbabwe’s birthday. Should citizens and well wishers say “Many Happy Returns” or should they craft another message. What would the appropriate message. Given the state of the economy, is it in the national interest for President Mugabe to offer his continued services to the nation? Is it the case that he is the only one who can deal with the colonial question? Is it not the time that Zimbabweans start a conversation with their own President about what, if any, interest would be served by him continuing to serve? What kind of communication would be appropriate to a person like President Mugabe to help him separate the interests of his party and national interest as well as his own personal interest and national interest?
It would be unreasonable to expect that Zanu PF members will be expected to have an honest conversation with President Mugabe. Equally, it is obvious that the opposition still needs to construct its case for change in a manner that even members of Zanu PF will appreciate that change is in their own self interest. It appears that the manner in which the change agenda is framed has not resonated with the interests of those who sustain the status quo. Under this construction, it is important that a reflection be made by all concerned role players on the Zimbabwean question about what kind of change Zimbabwe needs and deserves.
President Mugabe and his crew have already drawn the battle lines for 2008. The election will not be fought on his record but on the regime change agenda of the imperialists. Zimbabwe will be cast as country under siege and, therefore, unorthodox measures will be the order of the day even for the election. The inter play between race and sovereignty will be overplayed. According to President Mugabe, Zimbabwe is on the spotlight because he dared challenge the economic hegemony of the remnants of white settlers and not because of bad policies and governance.
Some will forget that it was President Mugabe’s government that implemented economic structural adjustment programs well before the formation of the MDC and yet today some would like to say that the economic problems of Zimbabwe were caused by the MDC and the sanctions imposed by imperialists. Even if Prime Minister Blair had agreed to fund the land reform program, it is correct to observe that Zimbabwe will not be in any better shape today than it is. On what role bad economic policies play in the overall scheme of things, there appears to be no appetite to engage in such conversations and yet Zimbabweans are serious about their heritage.
Anyone who is honest about Zimbabwe’s true story since independence will have to acknowledge the bankruptcy in the construction and execution of economic policies. The current fate of Zimbabwe was as predictable as the continued suffering of Zimbabweans is if President Mugabe is given another term. Just imaging what Zimbabwe will be like after the extended term of President Mugabe is sufficient to make many people sick. In the face of a Tsugabe (the cousin of Tsunami), Zimbabweans cannot remain indifferent when their future is continuing to be mortgaged to a future with hyperinflation, corruption, dysfunctional state, poverty and exclusion.