FEATURE ARTICLE

Oliver Mbamara, Esq.,
Oliver@Expressionsofsoul.com
New York, USA

Before we topple Mugabe: Let us read between the lines

greed, it could be said that after two decades of Mugabe leadership, Zimbabwe is due for a change of baton in the running of the country's government. However, to stampede Mugabe out of office will only be counterproductive. If leaders of western nations were to be sincere about having the interest of Zimbabweans in mind, they would see otherwise, rather than instigate chaos and disorder in Zimbabwe.

Let me start by saying that this piece is neither in support of the Robert Mugabe Government in Zimbabwe nor is it against it. The purport here is to state that if western nations are really interested in making Zimbabwe a better place for Zimbabweans, then they must consider what Zimbabweans think rather than impose the will of the West on the African nation which by the way is supposed to be a sovereign state. Turn the table around, and imagine one African nation or the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) forcing its will on Americans because it thinks it knows what is right for Americans. Obviously, not even in a situation like the Florida recount embarrassment, would Americans tolerate an incursion of the American Polity or a deprivation of their freedom to choose their leaders, even by Britain or any other nation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

A lot of Americans felt that the last Presidential election in the United States was rigged and that many citizens were disenfranchised. Many felt that way then and many still feel the same way today. However, Al Gore was allowed to consider the situation and decide in the interest of the nation to concede defeat and support George Bush's election. He did not get his thinking clouded by pressures from foreign nations like Britain and the European Union who are now making all the noise about the Zimbabwe elections, perhaps because Zimbabwe is another developing nation in need of aide and assistance, so it must be made to pay by giving up its independence and sovereignty.

Defeated Presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai has not been given the same chance Al Gore was given in the United States to consider what would be best for his country. Instead, he is getting promises of fire and brimstone coming from the 'great' West against Robert Mugabe. Mr. Tsvangirai is being made to belief that he still has a good shot at becoming the President of Zimbabwe even at the cost of peace and stability in Zimbabwe. Very soon he will begin thinking that with western support, he could set up guerilla warfare to topple Mugabe regardless of the bloodshed that may follow or how long the strife may last. This is how 'the Jonas Savinmbis' are made, and why 'the Angolans, the Somalis, the Sudanese, and the Madagascans of Africa' continue to suffer and even kill themselves.

Unfortunately, if it were to come to that in Zimbabwe (a civil war), only Zimbabweans will suffer the brute. The same western nations making all the noise today will pull back and rather resort to selling weapons of war to the fighting factions, to destroy the same Zimbabwe they have professed to help. Later they will condemn Africa for always engaging in civil strife and warfare. Now, is this being fair and helpful or some sort of hypocrisy and deception? The allegation that Zimbabweans have not been allowed to choose the leader of their choice is simply flimsy. Zimbabwe like most other African nations is very young and still learning the practice of democracy. Even after several hundred years, nations like America still have electoral problems.

It is therefore interesting that despite the circumstances surrounding his coming to power, even President George Bush has joined in the public condemnation of President Robert Mugabe's election. During the last Presidential election in the United States, Americans waited so patiently as the military votes continued to trickle in from overseas until the count favored George Bush. Today, even before all the observer reports will come in on the Zimbabwe elections, George Bush has taken his stand and is now calling for a broadening of sanctions against the government of Zimbabwe.

Few days to the election in Zimbabwe, the European Union sanctioned Mugabe and his top aides. Was the timing meant to cripple Mugabe's bid to win another term? Even if the preceding question is not answered in the affirmative, it is clear that the West wanted Mugabe out of office and nothing short of him loosing the election would suffice. Was it any wonder that the west have widely criticized the outcome of the election ignoring the conclusions of the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) on the same issue? Now, the media in the West is frantically reporting the news that Africa will suffer if they support Mugabe. Are these objective news reporting, justified threats or propaganda? Tony Blair of Britain has been at the forefront of the call to punish Mugabe, and is now arguing that failure to act against election violations in Zimbabwe will jeopardize economic support for Africa. Are these justified threats or propaganda? Why will the entire African Continent be penalized for what happens in Zimbabwe? Could it be that this decision of the West to punish the whole of Africa because of one country, another evidence of the continued misconception that Africa is a country (or geographical region still subject to imperialist oppression and neo-colonialism), instead of a continent with up to 55 sovereign states with innumerable varying languages and cultures?

Zimbabwe is a young nation just about two decades old. The Government is not a military or blatant dictatorial type as is the case with some other countries. Why then is the case of Zimbabwe so unique? Have all mutual attempts at dialogue and reconciliation been exhausted? History will reveal that when the West suddenly picks such an unusual interest in a relatively small nation like Zimbabwe, then something is in the offing. What could the interest be in Zimbabwe? Is it land, racism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, or what? I would have concluded that the West should give Zimbabwe the chance to resolve it's internal political squabbles without external pressure because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, the problem is that the furor is not actually about the elections.

Robert Mugabe has been accused of taking lands from whites and giving them back to original black owners (a race issue?). May be the West does not like that policy because White landowners would be adversely affected, yet, that would not justify instigations by the West against the government of a sovereign state. If the West is really concerned, then it should come forward, boldly without propaganda (or blackmailing of Zimbabwe) and say that they do not support such a policy. Blaming the situation on ancillary issues is simply being unfair - calling a dog a bad name just to hang it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Part of the reason why it took so long for apartheid to collapse in South Africa was because most western countries tried to protect or even sustain the interest (or investments) of the minority whites in South Africa as well as that of western investors. We all remember how reluctant Margaret Thatcher; the former British Prime Minister was about ending apartheid. The West led by Britain engaged in propaganda and painted Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress (A.N.C.), and other pro-black and anti-apartheid organizations then in South Africa as the devil to fear rather than the obnoxious Apartheid regime. Africans fought back and the West lost that battle. Today, the battleground has shifted to Zimbabwe.

One can comprehend it when the West (leaders and the media) engages in such crusade as is ongoing against Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe, and it is expected that they could be successful considering the resources, modern technology and communication equipments at their disposal. However, African leaders and media must not be too quick in joining the bandwagon to decimate their own. It is important that Africans read between the lines. Today, it is Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe, but tomorrow, it could be any other African nation or perhaps the entire African continent.

Oliver Mbamara, Esq., is an Administrative Law Judge with the State of New York.
Website: www.Expressionsofsoul.com