Zimbabwe, the Chicken and the White Man’s Burden, by Rick Gunderman
Q: “Why did the chicken cross the road?”
A: “To get to the other side!”
This timeless classic has been admired by easy-to-amuse children for generations. Now, it is being used by the political opposition in Zimbabwe and the international community to describe the developing situation in Zimbabwe following their recent national elections.
Here again the world finds itself in a tiresome position. A decades-ruling regime in Africa is given the chance to change leaders, switching from a power-hungry megalomaniac to a brave new leader who will open up Zimbabwe and make it a world player. The choice is obvious!
Well, maybe. It would certainly seem that, at face value, Zimbabweans are choosing between tyranny and democracy. The former is certainly an accurate label for Robert Mugabe’s regime of terror that silences political dissent, starves the people and alienates the international community.
But we the people must ask ourselves whether or not a victory for the opposition would mean a victory for the Zimbabwean people or a victory for international interests.
To make this point, I will play on their very analogy.
Supposedly, the “chicken” is Zimbabwe. One side of the road would be described by some as a place of terror, an anti-white limbo that keeps a country already starved by its own ineptitude in perpetual poverty and where power all funnels down to a bespectacled lunatic in a suit. Alternatively, this side of the road might be labeled the path towards national independence for the Zimbabwean people where they can finally throw off the shackles imposed on them since colonialism.
The other side of the road is the side that represents freedom from government oppression, an open door to the world, and a healthy new paradise in the land formerly known as Rhodesia (after colonist Cecil Rhodes). Or it’s the door to western imperialism, giving up the nation’s resources to multinational corporations and giving up their sovereignty to a political system based on a Eurocentric mold.
Through all the demagogues and rhetoric it’s hard to tell exactly what each side of the road looks like, but you can believe that Mugabe subscribes to the latter description of the “other side of the road” (i.e. the side that Zimbabwe would be on should he be removed from power).
The history of Zimbabwe is a textbook example of the follies of imperialism and colonialism. Portuguese traders first arrived in the region in the early 16th Century. The Rozwi Empire was established as union of Shona states in the area that knew very well the dangers of European “exploration” and “trade”. The Rozwi managed to drive the Portuguese colonists off the plateau that makes up the majority of modern Zimbabwe.
As a result of inner turmoil in the mid-19th Century, the Rozwi Empire collapsed. Their territory was picked up by the Ndebele, who invaded from the south and built and empire. The former Shona states were either assimilated into the Ndebele empire or were made tributary-paying satellites. Mziliakazi Khumalo, the leader of the Ndebele, was made king. According to Wikipedia’s article on Matabeleland (as the region became known), “Mzilikazi organized this ethnically diverse nation into a militaristic system of regimental towns and established his capital at Bulawayo. He was a statesman of considerable stature, able to weld the many conquered tribes into a strong, centralized kingdom.”
After a treaty that Mzilikazi made with the Boer government in Transvaal in 1852, gold was discovered in his kingdom prompting the interest of the European powers. Mzilikazi died on September 9 1868, leaving power to this son Lobengula. Not to be leaving any piece of African territory unexploited, the Europeans arrived again in the late 1800s, this time the British through Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company. Rhodes used a personal relationship between Lobengula and a missionary to obtain exclusive mining rights in the region in 1888 known as the Rudd Concession.
Completely ignoring the locals, Rhodes sent a group of settlers known as the Pioneer Column into the northern part of modern Zimbabwe to establish “Fort Salisbury”, today the capital Harare. Rhodes granted much land to the settlers, establishing European economic domination.
Several wars (civil and otherwise) later Southern Rhodesia – as the land had been named in Rhodes’ honour – was annexed to the British Crown in October 1923. Discriminatory laws against the natives, such as a law that required land ownership to vote. In 1933 the white settler government in Southern Rhodesia acquired the mining rights to the territory from the British South Africa Company.
Again according to Wikipedia:
“After the onset of self-government, a major issue in Southern Rhodesia was the relationship between the white settlers and the Ndebele and Shona populations. One major consequence was that the white settlers were able to enact discriminatory legislation concerning land tenure. The Land Apportionment and Tenure Acts reserved 50% of the land area for exclusively white ownership. 25% was designated “Tribal Trust Land” which was available to be worked on a collective basis by black tribes and where individual titled ownership was not possible. In 1965, the white-settler government of Rhodesia declared its independence.”
From 1965 to 1980 a South African-inspired apartheid government ruled Rhodesia. Ultimately, guerrilla action by native militants against the settler government forced open elections. Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union, a key player in the resistance, won control of the new government.
Mugabe’s regime has been marked by terror against his political opponents, the redistribution of land from whites to black farmers. Although these statistics from the Zimbabwean government are disputed by the international community, white settlers made up less than 1% of the population but owned over 70% of arable land.
In wake of the suspected downfall of Mugabe’s regime, many white settlers who lost their land have moved to reclaim it.
Certainly Mugabe’s regime is heavily flawed, and I as a libertarian socialist cannot support an authoritarian regime, especially one as oppressive and mismanaged as this one. Going back to the chicken analogy, it appears as though the situation is grim on both sides of the road. On one side, economic ruin, social and political oppression and international isolation. On the other side, an open door for perpetual domination by international “investors” and political collaboration with Western governments.
The solution is neither for Zimbabweans to stick to the status quo with Mugabe, nor is it to elect a pro-Western government. The solution is for Zimbabweans to organize in their communities, seize political power by electing representatives who will truly represent them and have them devolve power to the localities. There must exist a small central government to ensure Zimbabwean independence, and the land must be freed from any ownership and instead be made available for all Zimbabweans to work on, be it a factory, a farm, a plant or a mine.
Only in this way can Zimbabwe’s legacy of foreign and settler oppression against the majority be erased without violence or oppression against the white minority, while still maintaining diverse and unique cultures based on their respective national histories.
It would be difficult to name a country, including Britain and the United States, that, at some point in its history, what not a colony of some other country. Of those countries that have representative governments elected by the people, each election isn’t a contest for or against re-colonization. Countries invest in the resources of other nations, and share markets, but that isn’t colonization. Countries align themselves with one another based on many economic, social, and political factors, but that isn’t colonization. Countries attempt to influence one another diplomatically for various causes, but that isn’t colonization… those things are globalization. (A discussion of pro or anti globalization is quite another topic.)
Yes, a vote for a Mugabe government is obviously a vote for the status quo, including the current violent episodes against its own people, but a vote for the opposition isn’t automatically a vote for re-colonization. To suggest that any country that is either pro or anti Western has made a choice either for colonization or for independence ignores other possibilities and injects a bias that need not be.
My voice is simply one for independent, representative government for all peoples, where each citizen’s voice is heard through their free choice of duly elected officials who must then govern openly and be accountable to their constituency… as the founders of one nation stated it, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
To suggest that is pro-colonization is a misrepresentation and absolutely wrong.
You are correct that we do not know what the alternative to Mugabe will bring, for there is no “track record” upon which to judge, and if Tsvangirai is no better, then he should be removed as well. I, personally, would like him given an opportunity to prove himself as to whether his intent is to continue the rape of the Zim people, or to secure the democratic freedoms for which the the people have voted.
I would like, perhaps equally as much as you, to see a truly democratic entity in Zimbabwe without Mugabe’s oppressive action. I’m just as certain that we both would like to see that everywhere in the world.
Fair point on your part: a vote for Mugabe is not a good vote. Personally, I don’t know how I would vote if I lived in Zimbabwe. It would all depend on my socio-economic and ethnic status.
The point I was trying to make is that the path for Zimbabwe is probably not a victory for the current opposition.
I believe that the legacy of colonialism is very much with us today, whether or not anybody would like to share my belief in that. If it’s not only the fact that European political systems (i.e. republics, parliaments, etc.) are simply not working in most parts of Africa, it’s that Western powers continue to pick and choose which governments they “support” and which they do not. Those that they do support are the ones that open up their mineral and human resources for Western multinationals to exploit, ultimately leading to a politically corrupt and economically bankrupt nation once all their resources are funneled into Capitalist Europe and Anglo North America.
Simply, Europeans and countries dominated by people of European decent need to immediately stop trying to “build democracy” in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. While it may sound like supporting a popular ideal, the reality is that it is only exporting European political systems that were conceived by European culture. Imposing them on non-European areas and areas not dominated by people of European descent we breed a cultural-political clash.
Almost all the borders of present-day Africa originate from maps drawn by the European powers based on what was best for them. They forced different ethnic and cultural groups to live under their domination, and upon leaving forced them to try to build a European political system together. How ridiculous! Can you imagine how much hell would have broken loose if an African empire had tried to take Southern France and Northern Spain and force them to be one country? Or Northern Italy and South and South-Eastern Austria?
It’s not an easy solution, nor is it one that those with Eurocentric views of the world are likely to embrace easily, but it is the right one: all current countries in Africa must be abolished and the people must begin to build their own countries and governments, starting from their communities and working their way up. It’s what must happen everywhere if we wish to see greater harmony between the people and their governments. Otherwise, the cultural and the political will be purely incompatible, leading to further conflict in all lands.