Why 43% Still Voted For Robert Mugabe on March 29, 2008

A question that many people outside Zimbabwe have been posing for sometime now is, if Robert Mugabe is as bad as the international media portrays him to be and if he is indeed the source of the miseries of Zimbabweans, why did at least 43% of the voters (according to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission results) vote for him and why did his party ZANU-PF win about 48% of the parliamentary seats and 50% of the senate seats (the two MDCs got 52% in parliament and 50% in senate)? I haven't heard of any comprehensive explanation i.e. an explanation which has done justice to this question. First of all it is important to mention that, the Zimbabwe situation is a very complex one and not easy to comprehend for people who are outside of that country and who haven't followed the rule of Robert Mugabe over the last 28 years. It is also very difficult to those who do not understand how ZANU-PF has functioned as a ruling party since 1980. This complexity is the reason for this dichotomy between the general belief that Zimbabwe's economic and political deterioration is largely due to Robert Mugabe and his party, but at the same time the fact that almost 50% of the voting public voted for him in the March 2008 elections (inspite of the "suffering" they experience largely because of him). In many languages there is a saying which goes something like "abused people tend to gravitate towards and be attracted to the source of their pain." This is similar to what psychologists term "the battered woman syndrome" where an abused woman get more and more "attracted" to the abuser and doesn't seem to be able to run away from the source of the abuse.
I am not sure if there is anything called "battered man syndrome."

The following might be viewed by some as a simplistic view about the 50% Zimbabweans who voted for Mugabe, but it is an attempt to unpack the issue. The following five reasons are some of the reasons that I believe might explain this strange phenomenon.


1. The History of Liberation Struggle of the 1970s
Mugabe led a very brutal war against the Smith government in the 1970s. This was a guerrilla war which also involved the population (especially in the rural areas). The ZANLA (ZANU's military wing) would penetrate into Zimbabwe from their bases in Mozambique and engage in battles with the Rhodesian army. The ZANLA forces depended on the people in the rural areas for support, information about the movements of the Rhodesian soldiers in the area, food and clothing. The people were part and parcel of the war. The ZANLA forces would also hold rallies and political meetings with villagers at night to "politically educate" them, and also to ensure their support. Who ever did not support the war or was accused of having informed the Rhodesian soldiers about the movements of the ZANLA forces, was considered a "sell-out" and would be killed in full view of the others. And in some cases the entire immediate family of the "sell out" would be killed (including children) in public. This was meant to send a message to the people that "if you do not support us you die." The liberation war was often driven on fear, "just and necessary" as some people might argue it was (in order to liberate people from the oppressive white regime).
Of course in such a war, there are also innocent casualties, people who are falsely accused and killed.

Any Zimbabwean who is about 42 years old and older still has vivid memories of this war. More than 28 years after the end of the war, some people might expect these people to have lost the memory and fear of the war, but the stories of people who experienced World War 2 in Europe, who are still traumatized by it almost 60 years later proves that some memories last forever. One notices that this older generation of Zimbabwean voters has been the power base of ZANU-PF over the years. Without generalising too much, many of these would rather vote ZANU-PF if that would stop the return of some form of violence. The violence perpetrated by the so called "War Veterans" in the early 2000s and now just before the June 27 re-run election, proved that ZANU-PF is still a militant party which easily resorts to violence to achieve its goals and therefore unable or unwilling to allow the democratic will of the people prevail, if that will threatens its power. The War Veterans of the 2000s called their violent actions the "Chimurenga" i.e. the liberation war.

All through his 28year rule, Robert Mugabe has constantly referred to the war of the 70s and at every opportunity reminded people that his party is going to war to fight the "puppets of the West" (that's what he calls any opposition party). The militant nature of the propaganda churned by the State media (100% controlled by the government/ZANU-PF) has always reminded people that for ZANU-PF "the bullet is more powerful than the X on the ballot paper."


2. The ZANU-PF Grip on the Rural Population
The apposition parties have always been strong in the urban areas where the effects of the economic collapse are immediately felt as jobs are lost, food and rental prices go up etc. But ZANU-PF, because of their experience in the war of the 70s where they heavily relied on the rural population, realised that they need to close out the rural areas from the opposition. The majority of the Zimbabwe population (maybe 60%) is in the rural areas. Chiefs and Heads of Villages are the authority figures in the villages. They allocate land to people and they are a force to reckon with. Right from the start, Mugabe made sure the Chiefs were on his side. This is achieved either through bribery or intimidation. He gave them certain powers and benefits but on condition that they towed the government/ZANU-PF line. That way, the chiefs "campaigned" for Robert Mugabe. Villagers have always been made to understand that there was no room for opposition people in the areas. In the 2000, Mugabe gave Chiefs cars, tractors, salaries etc. At meetings where these benefits were announced, government ministers or Mugabe himself would publicly announce that if a Chief was found to be an opposition supporter he would be stripped of his Chieftainship and benefits taken away. Chiefs were also told to ensure that their people voted "correctly" i.e. vote for ZANU-PF. There have been elections where villagers were told to go to polling stations in groups to vote. There have been cases where ZANU-PF had told villagers that, government would know whether the majority in the village voted ZANU-PF or another party. This was of course easy to know because in most cases there was one or two polling stations in each village and people voted at specific polling stations where they were registered on the voters roll. It would be easy to know that the majority in the village voted ZANU-PF or another party (without knowing who voted for who specifically). ZANU-PF threatened to stop any aid and development in villages which voted for any other party. In the urban areas, it was a different story because people were more "independent" from such threats and did not depend on "aid" from government to the same extent as the rural areas. On top of that, there are no "Chiefs" in the towns and cities to enforce ZANU-PF's wishes.

But one should also not ignore the fact that Robert Mugabe did a lot of good things to uplift the rural areas which had been neglected by the previous white government. He put roads, clinics, schools and the people were very grateful. Such basic things normally mean the world to rural people, who then often remain indebted to the government forever. ZANU-PF then used this to campaign to the rural people, as if it was ZANU-PF as a party which did all that. These developments were mostly paid for through aid money from the western world, but the people never got that part of the story. They were told that ZANU-PF was building them roads and clinics.

3. Mugabe's Stronghold on the Media
The Mugabe government has always had a tight grip on the media, both print and electronic media. The daily newspapers are state owned and state run. The government has absolute control on what gets published and how it is published.
Independent papers have struggled in Zimbabwe and many have closed down. In the 1990s, as the opposition became stronger a daily paper called "The Daily News" came up. It became so popular that it outsold the government papers e.g. The Herald and The Chronicle. The then Information Minister (Jonathan Moyo) crafted a media law which in the end led to the collapse of this paper. The printing press of The Daily News was bombed one night (a few days after Moyo had threatened it). Although the security people at the printing house reported to the police, the car which came with the "bombers" (and even its registration plates) to the police, a case was never opened (even today, 6 years later). The electronic media (TV and Radio) are also 100% state controlled. The propaganda from the media is nauseating. The opposition has little or no access at all. Opposition election adverts are rejected and not run and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Radio, which has a wide coverage and the only source of information for over 90% of the population (especially rural people) is a ZANU-PF tool to indoctrinate, threaten and brain wash people. Unless people have an alternative source of information, all they hear and see and read is ZANU-PF propaganda.
Of late ZANU-PF has been "preaching" that the MDC opposition is a British puppet and that the economic miseries of Zimbabweans are caused by sanctions imposed upon Zimbabwe by the West at the request of MDC. The reason, people are told, is because the government took land from the whites to give to the blacks.
Blacks in Zimbabwe generally are farmers and the land issue was one of the reasons for the war of liberation. When ZANU-PF presents the story this way, many people who don't know otherwise (especially rural people who live from the land) believe it. ZANU-PF also tells people that if they vote MDC into power, MDC will allow the whites back and re-posses the land.

4. The Land Invasions in the 2000s
The land invasions of the 2000 reminded people that ZANU-PF is still militant at its core and will resort to violence to achieve its goals. This has reminded the older and rural people that even after 28 years of independence, ZANU-PF can go to "war". The land invasions were also used by ZANU-PF to bribe people. The issue of land was a legitimate one and many opposition parties in the past have always criticised the government of being too slow with land retribution. Robert Mugabe only did the invasions in the 2000 when he realised that the opposition was becoming popular and he needed something extra-ordinary to "regain" his grip on power. This is proven by the fact that many farms taken over in the invasions are lying idle or are unproductive (5 years later). If the purpose of the invasion was to start an agrarian reform which was equitable, then those farms would be productive today. The land issue was used to bribe people, create a hype around reversing the uneven land distribution as well as to punish the white farmers who were beginning to support MDC.

5. ZANU-PF's Huge Capacity to Bribe or Brutalise

ZANU-PF uses two methods to make sure people tow the line. They either bribe you (hence very little is done to solve the corruption. Corruption is part of the bribe) or they threaten you. In times of poor harvests, food aid has often been channelled through government agencies. People have often been threatened that if they don't support ZANU-PF, they won't get food. ZANU-PF membership cards have been asked for as proof before people get food aid. Those who are too stubborn to succumb to bribery have had their lives threatened and some have been killed or have their houses burnt down. Because the media is under government control and outside media is not allowed into Zimbabwe (without government permission but only few if at all ever get that permission), many of these stories are never reported to the outside world.

The five reasons above are only some of the issues that might help outsiders understand how the ZANU-PF machinery works and why they have managed to stay in power for so long in spite of their record of mismanagement and corruption. These are not exhaustive and might not explain the entire picture but they should go a long way in doing that.

Unless one actually lives in Zimbabwe and talks to people and hears their stories, one might wonder why things are the way they are and why one still finds a huge number (over 40%) of people voting for Robert Mugabe. Only an in-depth analysis will unpack all the complex reasons.

Finally, one must not forget to mention that there are also people in Zimbabwe who genuinely support ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe and will die and kill for him. Why they support him, is for them to answer but the more difficult question would be "how many they really are?" My answer is, somwhere between 20 and 25%.

The Paradox of Mandela and Mugabe

As the world celebrates Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela's 90th birthday on July 18, 2008, it is impossible to remove one's eyes from another old man who resides in the Zimbabwe State House and still clings to power almost 10 years after Mandela voluntarily and graciously left the South African "State House." The histories of South Africa and Zimbabwe are intricately interwoven. The British colonialists entered and occupied the two countries at about the same time and it was in essence the same people (e.g. Cecil John Rhodes, Leander Starr Jameson etc.) who "explored" the two countries. There was even a time (during the time of colonisation) where there were suggestions to form one country out of South Africa and the then Rhodesia. Some people today still think it would have been a good idea. There are deep and long cultural ties between Zimbabwe and South Africa. The Ndebeles in Zimbabwe are in essence Zulus who left South Africa as they fled from Chaka (the Great Zulu King and Warrior). The Vendas in the Limpopo are culturally related to the Karangas/Shonas across the river.

Because of these many links between the two countries one can not miss the paradox and irony of having two old men (90yr old Mandela and 84yr old Mugabe) who have had such a great influence on their respected nations, but will leave very opposite legacies when they die one day.

It is almost sure that the day Mandela dies, the world will mourn him and everybody will feel that a great, important man has left the stage. There will be a deep sense of loss and grief and there are even people who speculate that the "Mandela Factor" is propping the South African economy and image, and the day he dies, there will be a deep in the economy and the world's perception about South Africa.

But it is also almost certain that the day Mugabe dies, many people in the world will talk of a man who inherited a beautiful and rich country; a country with great potential to succeed but "ran the country to ruins." Whether this assessment about Mugabe is right or wrong, is another debate, but that is indeed the prevailing perception and it is almost impossible to change that perception.

Both Mugabe and Mandela were driven into the liberation struggle by the injustices of the white colonial masters on their fellow country men.

Both managed to get a decent education at a time when education was a rare privilege for blacks. Mandela trained as a lawyer and Mugabe a teacher (and went on to get at least six academic degrees).

Both spent sometime studying at Forth Hare University (Eastern Cape, South Africa).

Both spent time in prison and faced personal persecution for the white regimes for their political activities.

Both developed a vision of what their countries should look like when they finally become free from oppression.

Both started well and achieved very high recognition from the world, as statesmen, African leaders and as leaders who worked for the reconciliation between the former white masters and the black oppressed masses.

But at some point in their lives, their courses diverged tremendously.

The differences between Mugabe and Mandela couldn't be any greater and clearer.

While the world celebrates Madela's 90th birthay, Mugabe is vilified as a tyrant, dictator, destroyer-of-a-nation and a power hungry megalomaniac. There are many theories that have been developed to try and explain why some leaders, who all start with good and noble intentions, end up like the villified Mugabe and others end up like the glorified Mandela.

I don't claim to be an expert in human psychology to be able to conduct an analysis of what makes some people turn out to be like Mandela and others like Mugabe, but I am convinced it has to do with the choices people make.

Although circumstances people find themselves in can indeed influence people's lives, but each person's legacy is defined through one's choices inspite of the circumstances.

Although Mandela spent many years in prison (more than Mugabe) and missed many years with his family (which even had an effect of leading to the break up of his marriage with Winnie Mandela, he was not there when his kids were growing up), he chose to forgive and reconcile with the former white oppressors. He based his task on reconciling people who were once enemies. He knew that the alternative (retribution) would destroy the nation and he had to withstand lots of pressure from his fellow black compatriots who indeed wanted "justice" (revenge).

Although Mandela knew that transforming South Africa into a just society would not be completed in his life time, he preached patience and was willing to pass on the baton of leadership to a new generation of leaders.

Although Mandela knew that not everybody loved/liked him and that there were political opponents who were always working to hinder his progress, he still realised that it was important to work with all political actors.

Although Mandela knew that his position of power (as President) gave him access to wealth and personal riches, he chose not to be tempted to be corrupt and be rich while millions of black South Africans were poor.

Although Mandela knew that he had reason to be bitter, he chose not to harbor bitterness and resentment. No wonder some people say that he could only live to be 90 because he constantly feeds on love and grace towards others.

As Bill Clinton (ex US President) once said, "when Mandela enters the room, we all stand up and cheer and clap, because on our best days, we all want to be a Mandela."

On the other hand Mugabe knew that transforming Zimbabwe into a just society was full of challenges and he chose to use force and violence (ovet and covet) to drive his angenda.

Mugabe knew that there will be political opponents to his agenda, and he chose to see them as enemies who needed to be eliminated.

Mugabe knew that a position of power gave him access to wealth, and he was tempted to be corrupt and use bribe as a means of protecting his position, even millions of Zimbabweans are poor.

And I am sure that when Mugabe enters the room, the vast majority of people in the world will NOT stand up and cheer and clap, because the vast majority does not want to end up like Mugabe.

On this note, happy birthday Nelson Rolinhlanhla Mandela on your 90th.

May the Lord Almighty continue to be gracious to you.
May the promise of God to Abraham (another Father of the Nation) indeed come true to you too "You however will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age." Genesis 15:15

God bless you Madiba!

Is The Zimbabwe Crisis a Conflict Between Britain and Zimbabwe?

The crisis is Zimbabwe has been going on for almost 10 years now (depending on when you started counting) and one of the "confusing" aspects of this matter is the message constantly being communicated by ZANU-PF (the party led by Robert Mugabe) that this a conflict between Zimbabwe and Great Britain (the former colonial master of Zimbabwe). In as much as Britain might be considered to have something to do with the Zimbabwe crisis, it must however be mentioned that the ZANU-PF government has over the past decade exaggerated the role of Britain in the whole saga. The Mugabe government has used this argument to appeal to the broader victim mentality of the African continent, which has suffered from colonialism and to deflect attention from the big mistakes, corruption and misrule the Mugabe government committed. The greater blame for the Zimbabwe crisis must be put squarely and fairly at the feet of the Mugabe government. When Mugabe took over power in 1980, he inherited one of the best economies on the African continent. Zimbabwe had an excellent basis and fundamentals to become one of the most flourishing nations in the world. But as ZANU-PF became lulled by the fact that there was no other political party threatening to replace them (there was no opposition worth talking about), they ignored to work on a framework for a land retribution program that at the same time ensured that the commercial farms (white and black) still flourished and continued to feed the nation and even export food. There was indeed money given to them by the British government to buy some land for redistributing to the landless blacks, but many of this land never got to the needy blacks. It is fact that the land redistribution program in the 1980s was marred by corruption and cronyism. The Mugabe government also mismanaged almost all the parastatal (government was majority shareholder) companies in Zimbabwe, such as the National Railways of Zimbabwe, Grain Marketing Board, Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority etc. Virtually none of them performed well because of poor management (politically appointed incompetent managers). The fiscus had to bail out these companies regularly and thus drained the state of the resources needed somewhere else. There were commissions of enquiry galore to investigate these state companies, but nothing came out of them.

Then the Mugabe government went into the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Up to today, it is not clear why Mugabe sent the Zimbabwe Army into this expensive war although there was no clear mandate from SADC or AU/OAU to get involved. This war costed the Zimbabwe economy much in terms of resources and human lives. Zimbabwe never recovered from that war.
Another phenomenon which surfaced was the sudden demand from many people to be compensated for any physical and psychological damage they might have received during the liberation struggle. Of course the majority of these people were from ZANU-PF. The government allocated money and people could claim (on producing medical certificates) financial compensation. And this happened over 10 years after independence. This fund was abused by many top ZANU-PF leaders e.g. the infamous Dr. Chenjerai Hunzvi. He was a medical doctor with ZANU-PF links, and he claimed huge amounts for compensation.
Dr. Hunzvi also issued medical certificates that exaggerated the disability of many of the "comrades" (for a fee of course), and based on these dodgy documents many people went to claim compensation. There are reports that some leaders even claimed 90% disability and got paid for it, although they were fit enough to hold very high offices. Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprising, given the culture of corruption in the ZANU-PF clique) no serious investigation was ever undertaken by government to bring these people to book. Dr. Hunzvi was even "promoted" to become one of the leading War Veterans championing the farm invasions in the early 2000s. And when he died, he was even buried at "Heroes Acre", a place reserved for the liberation struggle icons. That just goes on to show the corrupt culture of ZANU-PF. As long as someone could be used to prop up the regime, they could get away with anything. This has been happening over and over again in the last 28 years. No one is held accountable as long as they tow the party line. No wonder the party managed to run the state into bankruptcy. This culture of corruption had nothing to do with the British.

Then a group calling itself "War Veterans" came onto the scene. These were people who had been involved in the liberation war of Zimbabwe in the 1970s. It must be mentioned that after the end of the 1970 war, those fighters who were not integrated into the army of the new Zimbabwe were given some financial assistance to help them find their place in society. Some of them used it to further their education.
Then in the 1990s the War Veterans suddenly approached the State president and threatened that unless they get money, they will not support him and his party. President Mugabe decided (maybe under pressure and fearful of losing the support of his foot soldiers) to give them money. This money was not budgeted for. Many believe that this huge demand on the Treasury was the beginning of the slide of the Zimbabwe dollar to the US dollar.
There was a huge outcry from many quarters about this decision and its effect on the economy. This and other factors led to the formation of an opposition group (coming out of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions) that finally became the MDC in 1999.

When Mugabe realised that there was growing opposition, he decided to "pull the joker out of the hat." He decided to use the land issue to "mobilise" the masses. The land issue was a legitimate issue but Mugabe abused it as a weapon to stay in power.
Then of course he organised the War Veterans to invade farms and pretend it was a popular uprising. Of course the whole world took notice of the issue and in order to justify the so-called "mass uprising over land", the Mugabe government started talking about Britain reneging on its promise to fund land redistribution after 1980. It is true that Britain reneged on some of its promises (but Britain argues the land never go to the needy but to the corrupt leaders), but the main cause of Zimbabwe's economic collapse and subsequent crisis is to an overwhelming percentage Robert Mugabe's fault.

To blame Britain entirely is a red herring being used by a leadership refusing to take responsibility for its own mistakes and accepting the fact that it is has an endemic corrupt culture at its core.