Kola Ibrahim
 Published
August 3rd, 2008
Events postdating the political stalemate that precipitated
the unilateral elections in Zimbabwe where Pa Robert Mugabe
was the sole contestant could hardly be described as respite
for the working but poor masses of Zimbabwe. News had it
that Mugabe and the opposition Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai have concluded agreement for
negotiation with possibility of forming a unity government
(as witnessed in Kenya and as advocated by Nigeria's Umar
Yar'Adua). This is coming at a time when inflation in the
country has skyrocketed to over 2 million percent – a sign
of unprecedented plummeting of living standard while over 80
percent are officially poor. The increase in living wage is
linear while the inflation (which was 200, 000 percent about
three months ago) is increasing geometrically. The situation
is so terrible that government had to give free food to the
masses. It is under this condition that the opposition that
should serve as the beckon of hope and platform of struggle
for better living is forging an alliance with the rotten,
anti-poor and dictatorial Mugabe government. This clearly
reveals the real quagmire to which the poor masses of
Zimbabwe are – a rotten government with practically no
platform of hope and change.
During the presidential run off, Tsvangirai had predicated
his withdrawal from election based on widespread violence
against the opposition members which he rightly claimed
could snowball into serious crisis if the contest should
continue. In as much as one cannot deny the reality of
Mugabe's brazen violence, the retreat of Tsvangirai and his
party in the election is a reflection of the political
frustration that has beset the working poor. How else could
one describe a situation where the masses who voted out the
Mugabe dictatorship, (despite unprecedented campaign of
violence) would back off from defending their choice at the
run off, even if it includes taking harms against the
regime? The main reason is that Tsvangirai and his MDC party
do not represent any beckon of hope for the masses. No
clear-cut economic programme to take the country's economy
out of the woods neither was there any programme to
challenge imperialism. A glance through MDC's website
clearly reveals its pro-rich, pro-imperialism neo-liberal
economic orientation that will further economically
disenfranchise the working but poor Zimbabweans. In its
normal messianic nature, the opposition did not reveal how
it intends to resolve the land problem (which in the real
sense affects the poor Zimbabwean farmers than the
much-touted white farmers). Maybe he is taking after
Nigerian crooked politicians who conceal their ignorance cum
hypocrisy with the argument that they do not want the other
party to steal (or maybe loot) their programme when they are
really the same birds flocking in different camps. This
coupled with the fact that Tsvangirai himself was formerly
part of the Mugabe's dictatorship – his former official
physician – while many of the MDC stalwarts are former
staunch members of Mugabe's ZANU-PF.
The fact that Tsvangirai and the opposition do not pose any
genuine alternative to the masses is clearly manifested in
the manner in which Tsvangirai reacted to the violence
initiated by the Mugabe's shock troopers. Rather than appeal
to the working masses and youth to organize and resist the
fascist troops (who are in actuality in minority), he is
found of calling on "international" community (note his
definition of international community means the imperialist
nations of US and Europe) to use military actions and
sanctions against Mugabe. The implication of this is that he
has contempt for the masses which he claimed to be
'fighting' for. Any international action by any imperialist
country will not be in the interest of the working poor of
Zimbabwe but will either boost Mugabe's status as an
anti-imperialism – which he never was – or help imperialism
establish military and economic base in the country (and
turn the country to another Iraq – where "liberation" war by
US/Europe has turned to war to oil war and occupation). This
has further made the poor masses of Zimbabwe to develop a
skeptical attitude towards him which unfortunately has given
the Mugabe regime another lease of life.
The possible calculation of Tsvangirai is that reliance on
the working masses could inspire a mass movement that could
push the masses to the centre stage and maybe push him to
the left. This will definitely undermine his capitalist
neo-liberal economic programmes. This will definitely
diminish his status to govern on behalf of big business,
which is sponsoring him. Having realized that imperialism
had more in its hands than the problems facing Zimbabwe, and
fearful of the consequence of mass movement to dislodge
Mugabe on his political interest, Tsvangirai resorted to
negotiation with a regime it has decried as dictatorial. He
was even reported to have renounced all his critical
statements on Mugabe's dictatorship. This treachery of
Tsvangirai is not unexpected because – as I had earlier
stated in my previous treatises on Zimbabwe and Kenya
(published in many newspapers and websites) – as a
pro-capitalist politician, he is bound to limit his struggle
for power within the precinct of capitalism and not raise
the masses to their feet. The era of progressive capitalism
is long gone, as the current neo-liberal capitalism is not
favourable to mass movement, even the one that tend to give
it a "human face".
It is vital to posit that the treachery and the
pro-imperialism, anti-masses character of Tsvangirai (and
his MDC) confers no credibility on Mugabe's autocratic
regime. As against the claim of many commentators that
Mugabe is anti-imperialism, anti-apartheid hero, he actually
emerged from imperialism, even during the apartheid
struggle. Of course, like every other nationalist petty
bourgeois and in the spirit of the mass anger against
imperialism then, he was against apartheid, but he was also
used by British imperialism to maintain its presence in
Zimbabwe. It is noteworthy to state that the same Mugabe
that claims to be fighting white rule did not take white big
farms during the anti-apartheid victory, when the movement
was raging, but rather negotiated with British imperialism
then. But, having lost control of the economy through
subjugation of the nation to the poisonous neo-liberal pills
of commercialization of social services, privatization of
public corporations and trade liberalization (which led to
over 25, 000 job loss in 1996 alone and slashing of wages by
25 percent in 1995 among other terrible results) and looking
for a shortcut, resorted to anti-imperialism slogans.
Ridiculously, the land distribution could only benefit just
a thousand of rich black farmers (out of millions of poor
and landless farmers) most of whom have stakes in his ruling
ZANU-PF party. Therefore, it is a miscarriage of logic to
present Mugabe as fighting imperialism. The economic woes
witnessed in Zimbabwe are a product of the anti-poor
neo-liberal policies of imperialism implemented by Mugabe in
the 1990's and not a resort of economic sabotage of western
imperialism as some people claim. While of course the role
of western imperialism, which in actual fact benefited from
the neo-liberal policies implemented by Mugabe (and
subsequently left the economy in ruins), could not be
underemphasized, this should not be done to bestow
credibility on the Mugabe regime.
This also brings to focus the role and hypocrisy of
imperialism in the crisis facing
Zimbabwe. Aside the fact that imperialism contributed to the
country's economic woes, the western imperialism's reactions
again reflect the imperialist hypocrisy. It will be recalled
that while these nations (especially US and Britain) were
condemning the Mugabe regime, they did not mention their
roles in the economic crisis. No relief package was given to
the poor people of Zimbabwe who are groaning under economic
woes that had provided unprecedented wealth to capitalist
corporations. Rather, imperialist nations in the UN Security
Council prefer to place sanctions – including economic and
military – which will further the sufferings of the
Zimbabwean poor, who are up to 80 percents of the
population. Though the sanction was vetoed by China and
Russia, but this does not portray any section of imperialism
in any good light. The fact is that it is sheer selfish
capitalist interests that drive foreign policy and
international politics.
The Russia's and China's vetoes are not a product of
sympathy for the Zimbabwean poor, but an attempt to boost
their capitalist economic agenda. For instance, Russia has
been boosting markets in the third world countries for its
economy especially gas industry. Also, Russia has been
trying to stand on its feet in the comity of imperialist
nations after the collapse of Stalinism (a grotesque
caricature of genuine socialism), which is reflected in the
recent nationalism campaign started by Putin – a policy
meant to mask the glaring failure of capitalism in Russia.
The only way to stand therefore, is by posing to be an
alternative to US/British imperialism (but in actual fact
pursuing the same capitalist imperialist policies – Chechnya
as example) in the eyes of third world countries with the
central aim of boosting its outreach economic status. Also,
it is a known fact that China's recent economic boom coupled
with its importance to the world economy (especially US's)
has boosted its international status which has further
reinforced its struggle for resources and market to sustain
its economic boom – which failure will spell political doom
for the fragile ruling caste of China – and subsequently,
international economy. This informs its international
politics and indeed the veto. As against the thinking that
the veto is meant to protect Africa's interest or liberate
third world, it is worth recalling, the terrible role of
China in sustaining the Sudan's terror and its direct
repression in Tibet.
On the other hand, the US/Britain's vote for sanction does
not show any concern for human rights. The historic record
of US/Britain in sustaining tyrannical governments – as in
Chile, Panama, Morocco, etc; arming of its strategic
supporters – Israel, India, etc against other countries; and
in supporting armed forces against popular governments –
Cuba (since 1960's), Nicaragua (in the 1970's), Venezuela
(since 2002), etc. Even the role of US and other section of
imperialism in recent events in Africa have confirmed the
treacherous policy of imperialism. For instance, despite the
brazen manner of election rigging in Nigeria and Kenya, US
(and later Britain) was the first country to congratulate
the beneficiary of the rigging, even when people rejected
the election. Therefore, the crisis in Zimbabwe is also a
clear failure of international capitalist politics which
tailored its political agenda along the profit interests of
the big capitalist class of each country – especially the
imperialist ones. the latest report indicate that the
European Union has endorsed the negotiation between Mugabe
abd Tsvangirai. In fact, it commended the South Africa's
government - the new face of imperialism in Africa.
Definitely, this recognition of the negotiation will give a
new lease of life to Mugabe, yet the same EU had earlier
strongly condemned Mugabe's sit-tight rule!
More horrible is the reaction of most African countries to
what amount to political barbarism in Zimbabwe. Aside most
African leaders that maintained criminal silence, those that
claim to have spoken out – like Angola's Dos Santos and
Nigeria's Umar Yar'Adua – are little different from Mugabe
in their manner of emergence, repressive activities and
economic policies therefore their comments have been evasive
– mostly to boost their image but not to confront Mugabe. In
fact, to show the level of Africa's political doom, Mugabe
even threatened to expose any African leader who criticizes
his government. However, Thabo Mbeki went a mile further by
not only giving surreptitious support to Mugabe but also
organizing a power deal between Mugabe and the opposition
MDC to stabilize Mugabe's government and give him
international recognition. Aside the moral burden of most
African rulers, the fear of a mass revolt in Zimbabwe, which
can set the masses of other lands in motion, is a dangerous
sore that made many African leaders to maintain the
notorious deafening silence. It is this same silence that
was maintained during Kenya election standoff. Most African
leaders are lapdogs of capitalist imperialism, who fear
losing their status as apron string of imperialism through
mass movement. Gone and never to return is the old era of
petty bourgeois nationalism of many African leaders. The
crisis in Zimbabwe has manifested the "primal faecal"
(apology to Prof. Soyinka) nature of capitalism and
imperialism, and the terrible stench is suffocating the
working poor of Africa and the world at large.
What are the future of Zimbabwe, and the implications of the
present situation to the poor people of Africa? As has been
said earlier, the major reason the poor masses had not come
to the centre stage of struggle to chase away Mugabe is the
fact that they see no alternative to the rotten Mugabe
regime, as represented by Tsvangirai and MDC. However, the
political alliance being forged between Mugabe and
Tsvangirai will further deem the future of the working poor
of Zimbabwe. As against the position of some commentators
that the deal will restore sanity to Zimbabwe, the reality
is that the deal will further deem any hope of respite for
the masses who have been suffocated by the economic
strangulation. It should be noted that the simple majority
gained by Tsvangirai in the first round is a sign that the
masses are in need of change but do not have trust in the
capitalist economic policy of MDC and Tsvangirai. This
coupled with the political bankruptcy of MDC further
alienated the Zimbabweans who prefer to stand aloof rather
than shed blood on behalf of one capitalist politician, who
stand for nothing clear. Therefore, the political alliance
between Mugabe and Tsvangirai will further frustrate the
masses – some of whom still nurse some illusion in
Tsvangirai – who will now feel totally insecure. Expected
economic failure that will result from this rotten
collaboration will further estrange the masses, who may, in
the absence of clear cut working class leadership, resort to
self-help through sectarian means as witnessed in the Kenya
election crisis – which is only the first phase of the
simmering discontent.
Unless the labour movement in Zimbabwe is resurrected to
take a lead the oncoming political and economic struggle of
the working masses for change, the future is doomed. The
labour movement and working class activists in Zimbabwe must
start to build a political alternative that will genuinely
defend the interest of the poor Zimbabweans. Such movement
must incorporate the working class with other oppressed
strata including the peasants and youth (most of whom are
unemployed and thus pose a serious challenge to the social
stability of the country) by linking their demands together.
With the clear manifestation of the political bankruptcy of
the opposition MDC and Tsvangirai, the stage is set for a
social revolution by the working and poor people of Zimbabwe
to bring back the economy in the interest of the working
poor of the country, and to restore sanity to the polity.
This is the central task of the labour movement and the
working class movement in not only Zimbabwe but the whole
African continent. It is unfortunate that the ZTUC has
played an insignificant role in the whole political
development to provide a serious political hope for the
Zimbabwean poor. Genuine pro-working class organizations in
both Zimbabwe and the whole African continent must start the
process of building a working masses movement in Zimbabwe as
a stepping stone towards forming a pan-African working class
movement that will bring back the fighting spirit of the
African poor for genuine socialism where the vast but
mismanaged and plundered resources of the continent (human,
material, natural and monetary) will be nationalized and
democratically run by the working and poor people
themselves. This will mean that the huge agricultural
resources of Zimbabwe (and other African countries), rather
than being struggled over by the both imperialism and local
moneybags, will be used to develop a vast, environmentally
friendly agro-based economy that will employ the majority of
the country while providing the resources to develop the
country – provide basic social infrastructures – free,
qualitative education, healthcare, cheap, efficient and
environment-friendly transport, agriculture and
communication system; and a developed industrialized economy
– all of which cannot be achieved within the framework of
neo-colonial, neo-liberal capitalism. This transformation
cannot be achieved without the working class solidarity; and
elimination of the decadent capitalism in Africa.
It is unfortunate that most labour leaders in Africa did not
take a practical action in support of the working poor of
Zimbabwe, with most of them either supporting one section of
the bourgeoisie or the other. This clearly shows the
pro-capitalist orientation of most of the central labour
leaders in Africa, since the collapse of the Stalinist
Soviet Union (a monstrous caricature of genuine ideas of
socialism). One would have expected the labour movements in
Africa to declare solidarity mass actions in support of the
Zimbabwean poor but for the pro-business character of the
labour leadership. This is not to mean that the working poor
are not ready for change. On the contrary, the mass movement
that greeted the recent capitalism induced food crisis is a
sign that the masses are ready for social change, but for
the character of the pro-capitalist labour leadership. The
solidarity spirit of African poor is clearly manifested in
the heroic action of South African dockworkers, who refused
to ship arms meant for Mugabe to undertake full fledge
fascism. The lesson to be learnt from the present Zimbabwean
issue is the need for a political platform of the working
poor in each and every African country to lay the basis for
social revolution to enthrone a socialist society in the
continent to prevent total descent to barbarism. This is the
challenge before the labour movement and pro-working class
activists in Africa to build a change-seeking, fighting
mass-based, democratic working class organization and
movement as a basis for a mass socialist political
alternative.
 Kola Ibrahim, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Nigeria
|
