Africa: How we killed our dreams of freedom

Across the continent, liberation movements that fought against colonial rule proved unable to sustai

By William Gumede Published 02 April 2007

Zimbabwe's Zanu-PF has become the symbol of the descent of African liberation movements into brutal dictatorship.

The great Tunisian writer Albert Memmi noted this phenomenon back in 1957. In The Coloniser and the Colonised, he wrote of the tendency of liberation movements, once in power, to mimic the brutality and callousness of former rulers. Backsliding liberation movements in Algeria, Angola, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia and other countries have left in their wake the lost hopes and shattered dreams of millions.

In the inner sanctum of South Africa's ruling African National Congress they have coined a word for it: "Zanufication". As Zimbabweans flee across the border to avoid police brutality or the hardships of an economy in free fall (inflation at more than 1,700 per cent and shortages of basic foodstuffs), they whisper it in hushed tones, a warning.

A senior national executive member of the ANC, Blade Nzim ande, warned recently: "We must study closely what is happening in Zimbabwe, because if we don't, we may find features in our situation pointing to a similar development."

Unions, sections within civil society and church groups daily inveigh against the South African government's head-in-the-sand policy towards Zimbabwe and President Thabo Mbeki's "quiet" diplomacy. The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) has complained to the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the public broadcaster, over its failure to cover the Zimbabwean meltdown. Although the ANC in South Africa and Zanu-PF are light years apart, the spectre of "Zanufication" haunts South Africa, raising the question: "Is there something inherent in the political culture of liberation movements that makes it difficult for them to sustain democratic platforms?"

The irony is that it is the leaders of former heroic liberation movements who have become stumbling blocks to building a political culture on the African continent based on good governance. The former South African president Nelson Mandela and President Thabo Mbeki enthusiastically proclaimed in 1994 that the end of official apartheid was the dawn of a new era. Yet many liberation movement leaders - Mugabe is a good example - still blame colonialism for the mismanagement and corruption on their watch.

Obviously, the legacy of slavery and colonialism, and now unequal globalisation, are barriers to development. However, to blame the west for Zimbabwe's recent problems is not reasonable. Yet the diplomacy of South Africa, from which most African countries take their cue, is based on this assumption. Initially ANC leaders also bought in to this, but thankfully, on Zimbabwe, Mbeki is increasingly isolated. True to his contrarian and stubborn nature, he still argues that because Zimbabwe was given a raw deal by the British, Mugabe's regime should not be criticised publicly. In terms of land, for example, black Zimbabweans did indeed receive a raw deal, yet that is not the whole story. The Zim babwean government was idle for at least a decade; when it finally implemented a land reform programme, this consisted of giving fertile land to cronies who subsequently left the land fallow.

The story is similar elsewhere on the continent. As African liberation movements came to power, their supporters were keen to overlook shortcomings. The feeling was that a new, popularly elected democratic government needed to be given an extended chance. Liberation movements were seen as the embodiment of the nation as a whole.

In South Africa, criticism of the ANC by supporters has always been muted. "You cannot criticise yourself," an ANC veteran once admonished me. There has also been a fear that criticising the government gives ammunition to powerful opponents. When a top ANC leader, Chris Nissen, broke rank and publicly criticised a party official's errant behaviour, he was warned: "Do not wash the family's dirty linen in public."

As a journalist - active in the liberation struggle - I, too, gave in to this principle in the heady days after South Africa's first non-racial democratic elections in 1994: "Let's not criticise too much; let's give the new government a fighting chance." But that was a grave mistake. All governments must be kept on their toes. The problem for most liberation movements is how to establish a democratic culture.

During a liberation struggle, decision-making is necessarily left in the hands of a few. Dissent and criticisms are not allowed lest they expose divisions within the movement, which could be exploited by the colonial enemy. But if non-criticism continues during the first crucial years of power, it becomes entrenched, part of a political culture. In the early liberation years, governments often operate as if under siege. Critics are marginalised, making later criticism almost impossible.

Take, for example, the South African government's initial inaction on the Aids pandemic. Mbeki embarked on a fatal policy of denial. Many ANC supporters knew he was wrong but kept quiet, in case they were seen as supporting western governments or big pharmaceutical companies bent on perpetuating Africa's underdevelopment. Many activists preferred to reserve their misgivings about government policy, rather than be placed in the camp of the "neo-colonialists".

In Zimbabwe, Mugabe brutally quashed rebellions in the 1980s, killing thousands in the Matabeleland region. No regional liberation movement said anything about it. The silence of Zanu-PF critics laid the foundations for his reign of terror.

In many African countries - with South Africa the exception - the state is virtually the only employer after liberation. Patronage can be used to reward or sideline critics.

The cold war, during which many African governments started their life, reinforced the siege mentality of "them against us" among African liberation movements. Mugabe continues to blame imperialism. So, when the UK or Australia attacks Zimbabwe, African neighbours will fall silent: they don't want to be seen supporting their former masters.

Similarly, Mbeki's silence on Zimbabwe is partly because he does not want to be associated with the "colonial" powers. South Africa's first strong political statement on Zimbabwe during the current crisis, by the deputy foreign affairs minister Aziz Pahad, one of Mbeki's closest personal friends, was to attack the South African media for giving too much attention to the western perspective on Zimbabwe. This was after Tony Blair had called for sanctions against Zimbabwe and Austra lian leaders had bemoaned South Africa's silence.

Blair's criticism had the effect of silencing Zanu-PF's opponents in the country. About to launch a final assault against Mugabe, they felt they had to soft-pedal so that the president could not paint them as stooges of the west. One of the main problems of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has been to fight off propaganda coming from Mugabe and the media that they are fronts for the west.

That is why it is so important for Mbeki to stand up and publicly condemn Zanu-PF. It would make it far harder to see the conflict in Zimbabwe through the distorting "Africa v the west" prism. Mbeki should follow the lead of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and state clearly that Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe represents the worst backsliding of African liberation movements.

There is also a problem with the cult of the leader. Members of liberation movements defer too readily to leaders and many African countries famously retained colonial-era "insult laws" by which criticism of the president (which, in Zimbabwe, includes poking fun at him) can attract a lengthy jail sentence. Thus leaders can remain in power for decades and die in office if they are not violently pushed out of power. That is why Mandela felt it important to leave after only one term. That is also why the grass-roots democracy movements mushrooming on the African continent invariably demand that presidents limit their terms in office.

The anti-colonial struggle was often violent, and few liberation movements have attempted to restore a culture of non-violence. Thus it is no surprise that Mugabe finds it easy to use violence against his people: the colonial state apparatus was attuned to that purpose. Once violence is used, it is used again. Even the idea of an opposition - internal or external - is a difficult concept for many. Mugabe's Zanu coerced the Patriotic Front (PF), the other major liberation movement in Zimbabwe, to merge with it in the 1980s, hence the name Zanu-PF. This eliminated a possible opposition force.

The resurgence of an opposition is due partly to a generational change in the country's politics. Many of the MDC's supporters are young and have experienced Zanu-PF mainly as a party in government that exploits its people. They are not impressed by past liberation credentials.

The articulate MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa is not yet 30 years old. In South Africa, it is young activists in the Treatment Action Campaign and their leader Zackie Achmat who have been responsible for forcing the government to adopt more responsible Aids policies. Zwelinzima Vavi, leader of Cosatu, says: "We are not prepared to be merely 'yes-leader' workers' desks."

The sad truth, however, is that waiting for another generation before there can be real change is costly, even deadly, for ordinary Africans, not least Zimbabweans.

William Gumede is a former deputy editor of the Sowetan newspaper. His book, "Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC" will be republished by Zed later this year

Zimbabwe: The nation by numbers
Research by Sarah O'Connor

100,000 people reputedly gathered to watch Bob Marley perform the day after independence day, 19 April 1980

20% real growth of economy in first year of independence

20,000 numbers killed during Mugabe's crackdown on Matabeleland in the 1980s

70% of farmland still owned by white farmers in 2000, 20 years after independence

1 million dead people on the Zimbabwean electoral role in 2002

18% proportion of population made homeless by "Operation Murambatsvina" slum clearances, starting 2005

56% of population earn less than $1 a day

52 years since average income was as low as today

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Zimbabwe

View the discussion thread.

8 comments

Wed, 2007-04-11 14:56 — MusingsofaFailure

Wiliam Gumede's article is the equivalent of a batsman striking the cricket ball with the sweet spot of his bat and hitting a 6.
However he neglects to mention how Mugabe has controlled the population by politicisng the distribution of food aid which has left many Zimbabweans hungry. How can one take to the streets on an empty stomach? Anyone who has the temerity to laud Mugabe for transforming Zimbabwe from economic bread basket to economic basket case is SERIOUSLY deluded.
Mugabe is Mandela's contemporary and while I would be loathe to ask, I'm sure Madiba could bring him round.
The reason why Mugabe will die in office like Kamuzu Banda is because he has committed far too many atrocities for him to be left alone if he were to step down.
While Tony Blair condemns Mugabe, a British high street bank continues to extend credit facilities to Mugabe's regime. Cut off Zanu-PF's sources of funding and the regime will fall in weeks.
Mugabe has perpetuated a cult of fear that sees rational people reduced to quivering wrecks. It is just as well he is entering the twilight of his life.
I just wonder why Mbeki was appointed to mediate in Zimbabwe. Surely it would have been better to appoint Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania.

Thu, 2007-03-29 16:26 — rafitzpa

"Is there something inherent in the political culture of liberation movements that makes it difficult for them to sustain democratic platforms?" To be sure, the continent of Africa has a unique set of problems that it faces given the current system of globalization on top of its historical, demographical, and geographical barreiers to development. But, how can one suggest that there is an inherently undemocratic aspect of liberation movements? Seems that many liberation movements have established a robust platform for democracy. Surely, given the necessary circumstances (ie. economic growth, international support etc.) Africans are at least as capable as Americans, Europeans, Asians, or South Americans that have won their freedom and now live under democratic regimes (Please see: Chile, Czech. Republic, Mexico, The United States, Czech. Republic, India etc...)

Thu, 2007-03-29 22:55 — Mandebvu

Where in the world did Sarah O'Conner [Zimbabwe: The nation by numbers 2 April] get her numbers for the research appended to William Gumede's lead article?

In her first item, she reports: " 100,000 people gathered to watch Bob Marley perform on independence day, 18 April 1980." This would have been quite an accomplishment since Rufaro Stadium, where the concert was held has a total capacity of 35,000 when completely filled. And it was very far from completely filled on 18 April, despite the fact that several journalists reported it to be so. Ticket distribution was very restricted, and my estimate is that the stadium was considerably less than half full. Grainy photographs I took at the time confirm this impression.

One hopes the other numbers O'Conner uses have been more thoroughly researched.

Sun, 2007-04-01 02:16 — GideonPolya

Excellent article by Willliam Gumede. I agree that it is not just the PAST that should be blamed but egregiously incompetent post-independence governments PLUS, in my view, POST-colonial First World neo-colonialism involving constraints on equitable trade, malignant political interference, support for corrupt and incompetent régimes, militarization, huge militarization- and corruption-connected debt, and support for international wars and civil wars.

The difficulties of post-colonial life with a big neo-colonial influence (e.g. ruling classes highly influenced culturally by the former colonial power) is well illustrated by the case of India versus that of China. Some things have improved dramatically in India over the last 60 years – thus the “annual death rate” was a genocidal 3.5% under the British in 1947 but reduced to 0.85% by 2003 (as compared to 0.4% - what it should be for a country with India’s high birth rate demographics). In comparison, the mortality rate in 2003 was 0.7% in China (roughly the same as for demographically similar Thailand). India still has huge endemic poverty that is best measured by 1950-2005 excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) that totaled 0.35 billion /2005 population 1.1 billion (32%) as compared to China’s 0.16 billion/2005 population 1.3 billion (12%) (estimates derived from UN Population Division data; for detailed analysis see articles by Dr Gideon Polya on Sulekha, Countercurrents and MWC News e.g. see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ ).

However Africa is a disaster area with 1950-2005 excess deaths/2005 population = 300 million/697 million (43%) ; the 1950-2005 excess deaths /2005 population figures (as percentages) for Continental non-Arab Africa range from 25% (Botswana) to a horrendous 85% (Sierra Leone), with South Africa and ZIMBABWE having figures of 30% and 36%, respectively. HIV/AIDS of course is having a continuing catastrophic effect, particularly and most appallingly in Southern Africa (with incompetent government having acute responsibility).

Whereas the “annual under-5 infant death rate” has typically FALLEN in the Developing World (except for UK-US-occupied disaster areas such as Occupied Afghanistan and Occupied Iraq), this is typically appallingly high in non-Arab Africa e.g. ranging (2003 figures) from 1.4% (South Africa) to 7.8% (Sierra Leone) for Continental non-Arab Africa and 1.8% for ZIMBABWE( 2003; but surely much higher now with the economic and social devastation of Zimbabwe by the appalling Mugabe régime) – as compared to 2.7% (Occupied Iraq) and a genocidal 6.7% (Occupied Afghanistan).

The outstanding examples of some impoverished countries like Cuba (“annual under-5 infant death rate” 0.17%, the SAME as for the US) inform us that the quality and longevity of life can be hugely increased with peace, an extremely modest annual per capita income, high female literacy, good primary health care and good governance.

Mon, 2007-04-02 13:21 — proudlyleft

Interesting article, but to be fair do you really think that what we call 'democracy' today can ever thrive in a place that is not reasonably affluent on its own? You need a rather strong and indigenous class of Capitalists -- India has it, and so does South Africa -- to stay 'democratic'. Otherwise, you are either pulled into a dictatorship by the pressures of 'international capitalism' (usually backed by First World governments and policies) or you turn into a dictatorship as politics becomes populism, as we can see in Zimbabwe today. Actually, there is one shortcut to democracy in Africa: let Africans colonise Europe for a couple of centuries and build up their own dominant structures of capitalism! You will be surprised by how democratic Africa would become at the end of those two short centuries!

Wed, 2007-04-04 11:25 — lars1

My context is as follows: I have worked in Southern Africa since 1980 at that time as a Swedish volunteer in Francistown, Botswana, not far away from the Zimbabwe border and the refugee camp at Dukwe, from where many Zimbabweans return after the victory in the liberation struggle. I was together with my family the only white persons who celebrated the first anniversary of independence in Bulawayo in 1981, and had as many others amongst the people gathered great hopes for the future. In mid-1980s I started to work for SWAPO in a refugee camp (Kwanza Sul) in Angola until Namibia also got its independence ten years after Zimbabwe and continued my work in Namibia for another 10 years until the end of 2000.
My conclusion: Suffering and lIberation struggles are not the best environment to instil wisdom, understanding and humanistic values. As Abrahams (2000) writes in connection with the South African experience 'Brutalisation of any kind is a 'how to' lesson. It does not deepen anybody's humanity. And as Melber (2001) writes about the Namibian experience ' the anti-colonial war was hardly a suitable environment to instil and cultivate the internalisation and implementation of democractic values and norms.
In days when the 'liberal virus' (Amin, 2004) is infecting the globe and treathening the human basis of solidarity world wide through its individualisation and commodification processes, we can expect the fear that the liberal virus creates - also amongst previously honored leaders in Africa - will generate a lot of selfenrichment and egoism. just the same way as it operates in the West! Amen!

Thu, 2007-04-05 19:24 — bhammars

William Gumede is making a lot of good points in his article. For me “The irony is that it is the leaders of former heroic liberation movements who have become stumbling blocks to building a political culture on the African continent based on good governance” is the key sentence.

I belong to the generation for which solidarity with those fighting against apartheid and the US aggression in Vietnam was part of our growing up. Now I see that we were probably expecting too much and/or were naïve.

For he situation to improve, many peoples in Southern Africa will have to wait until the ‘liberation generation’ has passed away. Still, there is a big risk that the younger generations have got accustomed to the corrupt culture developed by the ‘freedom fighters’.

There are many of us that are deeply disappointed that there are so few Mandelas and so many despots.

Bosse Hammarstrom
Nashulta, Sweden

Thu, 2007-04-05 23:00 — Norman Philips

Mugabe and his enemies: Mugabe, the next prey of the Imperialist - how the Africans see the Zimbabwean President

By Sheikh Adelabu of AWQAF African Muslim Open College London and the African Muslims portal esinislam.com

Zimbabwe opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai receives treatment and support from the West for a beating that he provoked upon himself in police custody amid common criticism towards President Mugabe from his friends and semi-enemies including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel an as Tsvangirai was bundled into a police van and driven to hospital for national security reasons, nursing a badly swollen right eye and cuts to his head sustained as the Zimbabwean police tried to put the pro-imperialist politician under control despite hi stubborn continuous abuses of the police.

As the West, most notably the United States, the United kingdom, and Israel storm the Zimbabwean pan-African president with their usual assaults of condemnation against the way President Mugabe’s government handle its internal affairs and his dealing with lawless oppositions who Mr. Mugabe believe are agents of his enemies and supported by enemies of his country, it’s helpful someone understand how the African see their fellow African in person of President Mugabe

Fellow Africans hold just as the imperialist relished the demise of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, so will he pop the champagne and rejoiced over the downfall of President Mugabe.. Africans know the more they talk the more people come to see me beating as beating on the imperialist. Nonetheless, the more they talk, the more people will come to resent me because I preach nothing but the truth.

It is imperative to keep repeating this mantra: but, there will be no way the Africans would ever develop and be able to manage our own affairs as long as our leaders embrace lies and turn away from the "Truth" which is the light of this world. Remember, countrymen, that they once asked you all to tell me who killed Dr. Kwame Nkrumah?. To date, there has neither been a response from the imperialist nor from his neophytes ”the traitors in Ghana” who collaborated with the imperialist to kill Nkrumah secretly and in the process derailed our development effort.

some believe his soul shall never rest in peace till his enemies are brought to justice. His enemies can run but they can not hide. Many Africans shall rise to follow in the steps of Nkrumah and continue his good works. And no matter the obstacles put in their way, the next generation of Africans will continue to ask this same question the new African is asking today. In fact, they won't stop until answers are provided. My voice from the wilderness shall never seize to be heard. It shall be louder till the imperialist will hear no more.

Fellow countrymen, most of his detractors are still alive and some are buried in their transgressions. They will never rest in peace till they send someone from hell to tell the world what they did to the Great African. A house owner who through hardships builds his own house thinking that he can, as long as he lives, collects rent from his tenants to make ends meet, has to realise that the rent is being controlled by an external house owner. The external owner dictates how much he needs for his breakfast and how much he needs for other internal services rendered to him. Fellow Africans hope people understand the way they are feeling about the Zimbabweans and their patriotic leader.

Somebody is controlling you in your own four corners. The external house owners has stated in his testament clear that so-long as African house owners live, they will make it difficult for the African to manage his own affairs. Dr. Nkrumah managed to run his own house, Martin Luther King rallied and stirred up his people, Beatrice Lumumba defended his own house and President Mugabe is another African trying to manage his own house, but the question is, is such a self-reliance policy not an abomination for the external house owners?. When shall the African be able to manage his own house?.

Today, President Mugabe has his own land and natural resources but he is not permitted by the imperialist (the house owners) including traitors in his own race to manage it the way he finds appropriate. Let us not forget who Mugabe is. He saw the light just as Nkrumah did years before, and decided to take the imperialist--represented by Ian Smith--head on. He led his people to the promised land in 1979, when Zimbabwe freed itself from its colonial shackles. Having righted the wrongs visited upon his people, Mugabe is now regarded as a pariah by the imperialists, and shockingly, by some of his own African brethren.

Fellow Africans would readily agree with this assertion; most African leaders have become traitors in sheep skin, betraying their own people all because of financial pittance from the imperialist. These African politicos are more apt to help their colonial masters than remind him of the human rights abuses he has committed. These African leaders, meanwhile, have conveniently forgetting about Hiroshima human rights abuses. Nkrumah himself was accused of human rights abuses and possessing Kankan Nyame. But the truth is, in their rush to vilify and demonize Nkrumah, his critics chose to gloss over the human rights abuses in the first and second World Wars. Brave Africans wish fellow Africans, especially the Christians and economic migrants in the West, would have the courage to open their mouths in protest against super powers who have enriched themselves with the treasures they plundered from their colonies during their invasion in Africa.

Everywhere around the world, there are human right abuses - Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia... What about the Israeli daily oppression of the Palestinians?. Who has the power to stop the human rights abuses and genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinians? Isn't common knowledge when it comes to matters of capital, land and power, the super-powers are quick to act? Sadly, they have allowed the Palestinian problem to fester. No one can predict the end of this dilemma. They will say who cares if they continue killing themselves?. and yet, they themselves have chosen to kill and kill in Iraq and Afghanistan. What about Egypt aggression on his own citizens of Brotherhood opposition? The Africans must condemn without any reservations all sorts of injustice and human rights abuses, imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism and dictatorship that have been imposed on Africans and the rest of the world by the so-called super powers.

The days of President Mugabe therefore shall be like the days of Kwame Nkrumah because the enemy of the Blackman has the means to annihilate him just as they destroyed the good Africans with fabricated "Lies." Was it not the same enemies who helped him build the Akosombo Dam?. Perhaps Africans thinking like this may be wrong here. To be CANDID, the Africans believe they have more leaders who are traitors in their midst than any race in the world - fact!. It makes it impossible for the African to develop and manage his own affairs, if our leaders continue to be a pet of some philanthropist of another race, before whom he goes to debase his race in the worst form, humiliate his own manhood, all with an eye towards winning the sympathy of the "great benefactor" (the imperialist).

As Marcus Garvey puts it:

"The traitors among the African race are generally to be found among the men highest placed in education and society, the fellows who call themselves leaders. It is generally "You must go out and teach your people to be meek and humble; tell them to be good servants, loyal and obedient to their masters. If you will teach them such a doctrine you can always depend on me to give you $1,000 a year or $5,000 a year for the support of yourself, the newspaper or the institution you represent. I will always recommend you to my friends as a good fellow who is all right." With this advice and prospect of patronage the average African leader goes out to lead the unfortunate masses".

The Africans - Muslim and non-Muslims should lift themselves from this mire of degradation to the heights of prosperity, human liberty and human appreciation, the new African shall never stop in reminding their disgruntled traitors that their days are numbered. They the new Africans shall establish the truth about "Who killed Nkrumah" and other great leaders in their history, "who exaggerate achievements of Nelson Mandela and his alleged sufferings", "who and who enslaved the Africans only to come back as 'colonial masters' introducing imperialist systems of governance called 'democracy'... as to understand the reasons to protect Mugabe from plots of enemies of Africa. African would rather stand up for the truth and suffer the consequences than be slaves in tranquillity. The new African is born, you never know Mugabe could be their leading star.

esinislam.com

http://esinislam.com/Southern_Africa_Daily/Southern_Africa_Today_1.htm