I haven't been following the situation in Zimbabwe super closely, but the fact that Desmond Tutu is weighing in and calling on Mugabe to step down seems noteworthy. Mugabe's regime has clearly been getting a big boost over the years from loyalty that ANCers feel thanks to the help he gave them back when Mugabe's western critics were mostly on the side of the apartheid government, so it means a lot as we see more and more of the key anti-apartheid leaders breaking with their old ally.
« Is Oil Bad for Women? | Main | Nobody Wants to Live There, It's Too Expensive »
Tutu vs. Mugabe
11 Jun 2008 11:18 am
Comments (20)
The ANC Youth League, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), all Key constituencies within the ANC, have always advocated for a tougher stance on Zimbabwe. And those are the ones who elected Zuma.
However it seems like Zuma's stance went from critical to Zimbabwe to closer to Mbeki's after he got elected as head of ANC.
But don't overestimate the Mugabé support within ANC.
The problem with your theory is that many ANC-style revolutionary South Africans and Zimbabweans don't see Tutu as a full-on, zealous, committed revolutionary like they would see Zuma or the like. Tutu was the fundraiser and voice for the ANC in Europe and the U.S., so we Americans tend to associate him with the core of the movement that Mugabe also belongs to, but it's just not how he's viewed down there. In fact, many thought the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that he spear headed was scorn-worthy.
The ANC Youth League, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), all Key constituencies within the ANC, have always advocated for a tougher stance on Zimbabwe. And those are the ones who elected Zuma.
However it seems like Zuma's stance went from critical to Zimbabwe to closer to Mbeki's after he got elected as head of ANC.
But don't overestimate the Mugabé support within ANC.
The other problem with his theory Matt is that Tutu has been saying this for quite some time now.
But can't expect MY to know that. It's 'a google' too far.
Desmond Tutu is a modern saint.
He'd hate it, but the world would be a lot bette off if it paid as much attention to his words as to the Pope and Dalai Lama.
As a true humanist, he's a truly great man of God.
Random African made some crucial points.
He did, but no one seems to be bothered about Zimbabwe in US, and not on this blog either.
The Abba McCain thread will probably get more comments.
Sorry Matt but, unfortunately, Desmond Tutu is not representative of the ANC here in SA - he's been too critical of them on too many issues to be listened to by the powers that be any more. They can't criticise him too pointedly, the man is after all a living legend, but they (the government - which after Zuma's nomination is not the same thing as the ANC leadership) don't pay him too much heed... Anyway most within the ANC (alliance as opposed to government) do deplore the situation in Zimbabwe, but until Mr Mbeki does - which he will never do - it's a moot point anyway as he, and apparently only he, is responsible for this insane non-policy of quiet diplomacy. Now if Mr Mandela spoke up...
There also is the issue of farm repatriation, the core issue of dispute between Mugabe and the West.
On that issue, most South Africans, agreeing with Mbeki, are closer to Mugabe's side than Blair's.
Beyond the obvious moral authority, do you think Mandela speaking out would actually make a difference? Mugabe wouldn't listen, and I'm not sure who would act differently.
I hope I'm wrong though and he does.
Yes, Tutu has been criticising the ANC for years over their support for Mugabe.
Tutu's qualities are widely recognised: he won the Nobel prize. It is just that he doesn't have any position of formal authority. Still his vocal opposition to the ANC policy must make them feel uncomfortable and may help them to do the right thing in the end.
most South Africans, agreeing with Mbeki, are closer to Mugabe's side than Blair's
That's exactly the problem. Making it all seems like one has to agree with Blair or Mugabe is why the issue is not resolved.
Surely the Left Wing of ANC isn't criticizing Mugabe out of concern for the welfare of Zimbabwe's former colonial landlords. And MDC isn't exactly the party of neo-colonial interests.
What people hoped Mbeki would do is to draw a line between the Blair-style critiques (land reform is bad) and the further devellopments (hyperinflation, election rigging, political repression, cronyism, mismanaged land reform, blatant corruption). He didn't do it and it has nothing to do with his or the South African's sympathy for redistribution.
Zimbabwe is a model for South Africa, just with a 14 year headstart. The kind of murder of white farmers that set off the Zimbabwe disaster in 2000 have been going on at an endemic level in South Africa for years. Eventually, however, a South African politician will decide, like Mugabe did in 2000, that to win an election he needs to dispossess white farmers en masse and give their land to his supporters. Thus, it's hardly surprising that South African politicians have been aiding the Zimbabwe regime with cheap electricity and other supports. Why would they want to condemn somebody who has merely done what they might do in the future? That would set an inconvenient precedent.
MDC isn't exactly the party of neo-colonial interests
Except that it kind of is, as much as I wish it was not.
A halfway spine-having MDC/Tsvangirai would announce that it will go ahead with the land distribution, or put it to a referendum.
But if Tsvangirai would do that, he and MDC wouldn't have the Western support that he has, the West wouldn't be stooping to what some South Africans see as outrageous depths to pressure Mugabe to abdicate in his favor, and Mbeki and many South Africans wouldn't be supporting Mugabe because of their outrage at the depths to which it perceives the West as stooping over this land reform issue.
When you say MDC isn't exactly a party of neo-colonial interests, are you saying it is technically possible for it to be worse?
Zimbabwe is another great example of the dilemma of independent third world countries/movements.
On the one hand, competitive governing systems are just more effective than monarchies or dictatorships-for-life. If there is a competition for political power, not only does the Michael Jordan of a country's politicians actually assume political power, like Turkey's Erdogan, Russia's Putin, China's Deng and the US' Bill Clinton, but all levels of power are more effective because of a pervasive culture of competing talent and competing ideas.
On the other hand, competitive governing systems are subject to outside influence in most cases. Outsiders can support factions and even go further to create chaotic atmospheres from which Shahs can assume puppet dictatorships.
It is a balance that is hard to reach under pressure. Then leaders also have their own egos to attend to, as well as ensuring that they don't hang from lampposts as well as ensuring that their families aren't forced into disgraced exile.
How can Zimbabwe have a competitive political system but one where Rice, Bush, Blair and Brown do not have decisive votes that can override the domestic population?
It is not an easy question, but the MDC is definitely not the answer.
Ideological political movements seem to do it best, movements that have long-brewing theories behind them such as the Republicanism of the US revolutionaries, the Communism of China and Russia and the Islamism of Iran. Even then a competitive political system does not take hold usually until after the death of the first leader, but then, in some cases but not most, the remaining party actually apply the theories of their motivating ideology to produce a competitive political system that also can take effective measures to limit foreign influence.
But if there was a country with 1000 times the US GDP that had an agenda that encouraged domestically unpopular interference in US affairs, the type of government the US has today would not work. Ron Paul would have trillions of dollars of campaign funds, take power and do whatever the foreigners tell him to do. If he doesn't he dies. If he had any backbone, he wouldn't be the one the foreigners supported in the first place. A US-style political system would not work in Zimbabwe.
A competitive political system that is relatively immune to foreign pressure is a hard thing to do that should be appreciated where it is seen.
A halfway spine-having MDC/Tsvangirai would announce that it will go ahead with the land distribution, or put it to a referendum.
From: http://www.mdc.co.zw/landandagriculture.asp
"MDC supports a systematic land reform that benefits the black people of Zimbabwe not the ruling elite and their cronies and one that is sensitive to the economic and societal needs providing food and jobs."
also Mutambara (the leader of the other MDC) criticized government ministers for abusing Zimbabwe's land reform program, engaging in: "monopolistic politics of domination, corruption, and petty bourgeois accumulation." and said:
""We believe that our views on land reform in Zimbabwe are different from those of Western governments. Our approach is not driven by the interests of white farmers, but by those of all Zimbabweans, white and black. While we put the failure of the land reform program squarely on the Zanu(PF) government, we also acknowledge the complicity of some Western governments which reneged on agreements, and the inertia of white farmers in seeking pre-emptive solutions."
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/727016.stm
Tsvangirai says:
"No one has disputed the fact that there is the need for land reform in Zimbabwe. In Fact, there is a national convention on the need for land reform. But we are all agreed that Mugabe has had 20 years to implement fundamental land reform and he has failed to do so.
How can we entrust the land reform to people who have acquired the land, which was intended for the landless, to themselves? We are proposing that land will be number two in terms of our priorities. Which means that we recognise the need for sound land reform with three objectives.
One is equity, two is empowerment and three is the continued economic viability of Zimbabwe. We are going to set up a land commission with defined terms of reference that are going to look where the land is going to come from, who is going to be settled, what infrastructure is necessary, and where the necessary resources are going to come from.
So we actually have viable land reform ourselves. We are also going to fundamentally say that we should move away from communal land ownership in Zimbabwe."
or here http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mdc209.18278.html
"· The pre-2000 land distribution program was colonial, unjust and untenable and will never again represent the distribution of land in Zimbabwe.
· Land is not only a productive asset that should be distributed on the basis of need and ability to farm, but it is also a finite asset to be allocated and used wisely for the benefit of all Zimbabweans for generations to come.
· Land ownership is also a constitutional matter. A Land Commission that undertakes the detailed audit of the present as well as pre-2000 land ownership structure should be created to make recommendations on how to resolve the land question in an economically sensible way without negating equity and justice."
or http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=392387
"We cannot go back to the pre-2000 situation in which Mr Joe Bloke who has now run away, is in Australia, we say come and get back your land. We cannot go back to that," said MDC president Morgan Tsvangirai, in an interview.
or in 1996:
"What we are talking about with land reform in that regard is that the sizes of the farms must be reduced. The underutilized land must be taken by others, and we don't only mean [transfers from] white to black; we are saying the size of all underutilized land must be reduced. The large farms are not at all economically utilized. So we have to look at those areas.
At the same time, we have to develop the necessary skills among the black subsistence farmers to be professionally productive on the land, and to use the best methods that are available to make the maximum use of the land.
It has nothing to do with taking from the whites. Unfortunately, the whites are very emotional about this issue. It is a very short-sighted approach."
_______
The thing is the MDC's position since the beginning is complicated. The party itself was born out an odd alliance between Trade Unions and Business against what I'd call the "unproductive" class. And sure the business guys have been good at drumming up right wing support but the unions people did the same. And the episode with the Chinese weapons shipment just show you how much the worldwide labour movement supports them too.
All in all, whether the alliance seems to converge towards some sort of compromise between the two groups. A compromise certainly made possible by the current loose-loose situation.
And even if it's a conjuctural, it's not the first time it happens. That's exactly what ANC is, or the Indian Congress.
How can Zimbabwe have a competitive political system but one where Rice, Bush, Blair and Brown do not have decisive votes that can override the domestic population?
By having a junta with decisive vote override the domestic population ?
That's a stupid comment, really. The population of Zimbabwe is smart enough to have complicated views on Land Reform and now it has the experience too. The choices are not "let's not do it" and "let's do it in the worst way possible". There are alternatives out there and way to do it (or to not do it) that maximize both efficiency and justice.
In any case, the foreign intervention conspiracy theory gets the chronology wrong. ZANU moved because it was loosing grip, facing accusations of mismanagement and calls for reform, not the other around. What happened since the early 90's is the Mobutu vicious circle of short-term moves.
I just learned that MDC could not more clearly state that it intends to press on with some form of land reform.
Yet, the US and Britain are extremely enthusiastic about putting MDC into power. I do not believe this is out of concern for the well-being of the people of Zimbabwe, I believe it is out of a belief that MDC will have more favorable (to the US and Britain, and through them to the white farmers) land reform policies. (If this is just Mobutu disease, where were the sanctions against Mobutu?)
Maybe the US and Britain are wrong about the MDC and their public statements are to be trusted. Maybe the US and Britain are right about the MDC and their public statements are not to be trusted.
The EU has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe explicitly over the land reform policies. I believe these sanctions are the cause of the economic spiral Zimbabwe that has accelerated after the sanctions were applied, and if they were not, Europe could easily demonstrate that they are not by lifting them.
So this is what we're left with from my point of view: Sanctions and economic warfare being waged against Zimbabwe over land reform. Mugabe fighting against this warfare. MDC now playing the role of at best an unwitting beneficiary of the EU's economic attack on the people of Zimbabwe. South Africa coming to the aid, to the degree if can, of the people of Zimbabwe.
Of course you think my point of view is wrong. Mbeki seems to disagree with you along with most South Africans.
Even if we're all being unreasonable, Europe backing down on land reform would remove this narrative and make Mbeki comfortable pressuring Mugabe to leave, which you think would have great benefits to the people of Zimbabwe. The EU not backing down reinforces the narrative. The EU knowing it could remove the narrative and not doing so continues to reinforce the narrative.
MDC speaking clearly against the sanctions would lessen the narrative. The position that "sanctions may be bad, but the real problem is Mugabe" reinforces the narrative.
You can define the problem as Mugabe and Mbeki if you choose. Mbeki defines the problem as the EU and its opposition to Zimbabwean land reform and many South Africans agree with him, as do I.
I believe these sanctions are the cause of the economic spiral Zimbabwe that has accelerated after the sanctions were applied
Go ahead and tell me what the sanctions are. And it leads to such a collapse.
many South Africans agree with him
how many ? who are they ?
It's really interesting that the Left Wing of ANC seems to disagree while Mbeki doesn't.
Comments closed June 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I haven't been following the situation in Zimbabwe...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3741841.stm
Tuesday, 25 May, 2004
Archbishop Tutu once said that Mr Mugabe resembled a caricature of an African dictator.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/4873
19 Mar 2007
Archbishop-Emeritus Desmond Tutu of South Africa says that he and his fellow Africans should "hang our heads in shame" at the brutal suppression of protest going on in Zimbabwe.
Posted by James | June 11, 2008 11:41 AM