One of the current events being covered in mainstream media are the recent elections in the African country of Zimbabwe. On March 29, 2008 there were presidential elections between current President Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF), Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC) and two independent candidates Simba Makoni and Langton Towungana. The results of the election were; Tsvangirai 47.9%; President Mugabe 43.2%; Makoni 8.3%; and Towungana 0.6%.
The Electoral Act of Zimbabwe states that if one person does not get more than 50% of the vote, a runoff is required. Even though Mr. Tsvangirai attempted to pull out of the run-off election, the run-off election was held on June 29, 2008. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission released the final official results of the election showing President Robert Mugabe winning by 85.51% of the total vote cast. Morgan Tsvangirai received 9.3 percent of the total vote. President Mugabe was sworn in for a sixth 5-year term.
There have been numerous of reports about violence and intimidation by President Mugabe’s supporters against the opposition of Mr. Tsvangirai. Mr. Tsvangirai even sought refuge in the Dutch embassy claiming he was in fear of his life.
On June 28, 2008 President Bush stated, “On Friday, the Mugabe regime held a sham election that ignored the will of the people of Zimbabwe…Any legitimate government of Zimbabwe must represent the interests of all its citizens and the outcome of the March 29 elections. Given the Mugabe regime’s blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people’s democratic will and human rights, I am instructing the Secretaries of State and Treasury to develop sanctions against this illegitimate Government of Zimbabwe and those who support it.
In order to properly assess the current situation in Zimbabwe, the now, it is important to understand the historical circumstances that have led up to it. It is also important that those who seek to criticize the Mugabe government and/or engage in regime change do so with clean hands and a clear conscience. Hypocrisy has no place in the mediation of world affairs.
This is in no way an attempt to support or undermine the efforts of President Mugabe or Morgan Tsvangiri. It is an attempt to impartially provide some level of historical context for many of the arguments and positions that are being taken on these issues. As indicated above, President Bush stated that any legitimate government in Zimbabwe must represent the outcome of the March 29 elections. If President Bush understood the electoral process of Zimbabwe he would know that following a 2005 change in the Electoral Act, this was the first presidential election in Zimbabwe in which the winner must receive a majority of the vote (50% plus 1), with a second round of voting if necessary within 21 days. Since according to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) announced on May 2 that Tsvangirai won 47.9% and Mugabe won 43.2%, this process not only “..represent the interests of all its citizens and the outcome of the March 29 elections” it follows the law. President George W. Bush can not be challenging the elections in Zimbabwe based upon principals of democracy and fairness. For him to state that an election must represent the interests of all of its citizens is the epitome of hypocrisy. Let he without sin cast the first stone! After the theft of the 2000 presidential election in Florida and the 2004 election in Ohio, President Bush has no moral authority on which to question anything. He then goes on to question the Mugabe regime’s blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people’s democratic will and human rights. With President Bush ignoring the US Constitution by engaging in warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions and torture, President Bush is again, the epitome of hypocrisy and the laughing stock of the world stage. “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5 RSV)
If President Mugabe is engaged in violence to suppress the vote and democracy he is not alone. Look at King Mswati III of the Kingdom of Swaziland, President Mohammed Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, President Paul Kagame in Rwanda, or Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea just to name a few. All of these dictators preside over very repressive regimes and still receive millions of dollars in economic and military aid from the US. This is not an attempt to justify or rationalize ones injustice by comparing it others. It’s a call for justice, balance and fairness. It is disingenuous in the least and hypocritical at best for the United States to condemn President Mugabe, causing great harm to the people of Zimbabwe through sanctions while others on the continent act with impunity.
What is really at play here is the West’s fear of an independent African leader who refuses to acquiesce to the wishes and demands of former colonial powers. If Mugabe is allowed to stand, Britain and the US fear the replicative effect. Zimbabwe is one of the few countries in the world that actually control its government, economy, and resources. Other leaders in African countries, people in African countries and other leaders will be motivated to stand up for themselves and against the perceived British and US interests.
Understanding the history of Zimbabwe helps to properly analyze the now. The Republic of Zimbabwe was born out of struggle. It was formerly a British colony called Rhodesia. The white-minority government held power until the Patriotic Front guerrilla freedom forces, led by Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo forced Ian Smith to surrender power in 1978.
In December of 1979, delegations from the British and Rhodesian governments and the Patriotic Front were able to reach agreement at Lancaster House in London. The key elements of the Lancaster House Agreement were the establishment of a constitution and most important to current circumstances, a process for land to be redistributed from the white-settler minority back to the indigenous black majority. This land redistribution process was incorporated in Article 16A of the Zimbabwean Constitution. During this period, according to the new government, as much as 80% of the arable land was in the hands of approximately 5% of the white minority population.
In order to facilitate the redistribution of land, the British Government led by then Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and supported by the American government led by then President Jimmy Carter established a fund to pay the white settlers for the land being redistributed. This arrangement resulted in white farmers being paid around $35M for their land, which was then redistributed to indigenous Zimbabweans.
Changes in regimes resulted in changes in arrangements. When Jonathan Major replaced Margaret Thatcher as Brittan’s Prime Minister he decided that his government would no longer honor this arrangement. He used the accusation that President Mugabe was distributing land to his political cronies as his rational. President Ronald Reagan who replaced President Carter reneged as well.
In 2000 President Mugabe decided to continue the land redistribution process and directed the white Zimbabwean settlers to seek reimbursement from Britain and the US. It was at this point that President Mugabe fell out of favor with the West. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, and other nations imposed sanctions on the Mugabe government in an attempt to bring President Mugabe “back in line.” He has refused to acquiesce. You can not have true democracy without land. To discuss the current democratic circumstance in Zimbabwe without understanding its basis in land reform and Western manipulation is misleading at best. To view Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC) as an independent player in Zimbabwean politics is to ignore the millions of dollars that the United States, Britain, and Australia have poured into the MDC’s coffers and a total distortion of reality. If the United States is going to be a beacon of morality and an impartial arbiter of international conflict, it must do so with clean hands and a pure heart. The United States can not talk with the Palestinian’s or the Iranian’s about peace and restraint while it illegally invaded and occupies Iraq. President Bush can not challenge the validity of elections in Zimbabwe when he stole his own.Again, this is in no way an attempt to support or undermine the efforts of President Mugabe or Morgan Tsvangiri. It is an attempt to impartially provide some level of historical context for many of the arguments and positions that are being taken on these issues. If you don’t understand the players, their motivations, and their benefactors, you can’t understand the game.
