|
Although there is no civil war going on in Zimbabwe
like Congo, Angola or Sierra Leone on the African continent, yet it has
attracted the attention of the world due to the controversy going on around the
Question of Land. The ruling ZANU-PF has found itself sieged from all sides
after Robert Mugabe lost the referendum for a new constitution, which would have
given him the power to confiscate more than 12 million acres of land owned by
white farmers. It seems strange that the land starved peasants of Zimbabwe and
poor farm worker who constitute the majority of the franchise have not come
forward to support such a "revolutionary" measure of a government led by a party
which had led them in the national war for liberation. Only 25% of the eligible
voters voted in the referendum, which shows what a dismal record the ZANU-PF has
achieved in the 20 years since liberation in 1980. People no longer believe in
it and are disinterested in politics. The problem with ZANU-PF must have deep
roots and everything cannot be blamed on the conspiracies and threats of the
Commercial Farmers Union, as has been alleged by Mr. Mugabe. What went wrong
with the peasants and workers of Zimbabwe is as much a case of a betrayal of a
revolution as is the story of the criminal conspiracies of imperialism to drag
the emerging country along the path of neo-colonialism. The West is happy
that "Zimbabweans have come of age" and rejected the referendum. But they
don’t mention the fact that only 13.75% of the total electorate have rejected
it.
"Historic Deal"
Stopped the March Forward
The best of farmlands have continued to be occupied
by the white colonial settlers even after Zimbabwe gained ‘independence’ in
1980. The black majority government, which was installed under Mugabe, had a
constitutional binding to defend the interest of the white farmers for a period
of ten years, and even after the lapse of this period, there is a clause in the
constitution that says that the land will be touched only if the seller and
buyer of the land are "willing". This meant that there will be no confiscation
of land without paying for it, and that too with the consent of the farm owners.
The constitution, calling for these strictures, was prepared in the U.K. and
passed by the British parliament for new Zimbabwe. It sealed the fate of the
black peasants and farm workers of Zimbabwe who had paid with their blood in the
fight for liberation from their colonial masters.
The acceptance of such a constitutional binding on
the part of the People’s Front of Zimbabwe African National Union and the
Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZANU-ZAPU-PF) amounted to taking up the
responsibility of defending the colonialist’s interests when they no longer
remained the rulers of Zimbabwe. This was agreed upon by the nationalist leaders
at the Lancaster House negotiations in London in Margaret Thatcher’s times. The
transition to black majority rule did not prove a qualitative and revolutionary
leap for the poor masses of Zimbabwe although it was based on the bourgeois
democratic principle of one man-one vote. But the choice remained between the
devil and the deep sea, as the constitution was designed on the principle of the
sacredness of private property and the exploitation of man by man.
This acceptance was the abandonment of those
principles which were the driving force of the ZANU-PF led liberation movement
which had proclaimed allegiance to the cause of building a "scientific
socialist system" after the victory over the British colonists. After
realizing that it had become impossible to continue their direct rule over black
Zimbabweans, the British colonist discarded Bishop Abel Muzerewa (who was made
Prime Minister in the so-called black Majority rule in 1979), Nadabaningi
Sithole (who was the Chief of the defunct African Nationalist Council) and
Jeremiah Chirau (a black ex-minister of the white Ian Smith’s cabinet who
resigned to launch the Zimbabwe United People’s Organization) with whom they had
conducted a series of negotiations and agreements in their attempts to install a
comprador succession to the white colonialist rule. Ian Smith (the white chief
of then Rhodesia) was advised by the US and British governments to negotiate
with "moderate militant" Joshua Nikomo and "revolutionary militant" Robert
Mugabe, as both the governments considered that without ZANU-ZAPU-PF
participation no agreement will hold ground and the liberation war will continue
to be waged. Nikomo and Mugabe had rejected the previous two "settlements" which
were proposed by Henry Kissinger, the US secretary of State, and the British
government. This had called for a limited franchise (based on the quantum of
income and tax payment to the state) and for retaining the armed forces, the
judiciary and the law and order departments; while the head of the cabinet and
50% of the ministers would be from the blacks. The rising tide of the armed
struggle and the fast growing black consciousness forced Ian Smith to drop his
earlier schemes, and to become a part of the new British-American strategy
"to secure the interests" of the colonial settlers and western imperialism.
In 1977, when Carter assumed charge of the White House he was convinced by his
Secretary of State, Zbigniew Brzezinsky, that "serious social change did not
automatically mean a Marxist Revolution" and hence the US and British can
collaborate to "achieve majority rule in Rhodesia" and also forge "a
coalition of moderate Black African leaders in order to stem continental
radicalization." Thatcher in White Hall and Smith in Salisbury ultimately
came around to this new understanding, and the Lancaster House negotiations were
held in London in 1979 with ZANU and ZAPU, paving the way for Black Majority
rule and the notorious constitution, which Mugabe now seeks to replace.
What Happened From
1980 To 1999?
This constitution has helped the White settlers and
Western imperialism to defend their interests in Zimbabwe for the last 20 years.
It has prevented Robert Mugabe not only from transforming the Zimbabwean economy
and society on true nationalist lines but it has also contributed to his
abandoning the socialist agenda, and has had a corruptible influence on the
governing bodies and agencies of the government. Most of the fertile lands
remained in the hands of White settler farmers. The farm sector is the backbone
of the Zimbabwean economy where the government has the least or no control over
what is to be produced and how much is to be marketed in the international
market. The most reactionary aspect of the Land Laws has been the denial of land
to its real masters, the black peasants and farm workers. The abandonment of the
agenda for revolutionary transformation of society further pushed the rulers to
accept the IMF, WB and imperialist dictates to open the economy and society for
unbridled loot, pushing the great majority of the people into unbearable misery.
With the "revolutionary" government of
Mugabe cooperating with imperialism, the people found themselves helpless and
betrayed by the same revolutionary leaders who had promised to deliver them from
the semi-slavery of the colonial monsters.
Today 60% of Zimbabweans live below the poverty
line. The crime rate has more that doubled in the last twenty years. Corruption
of high officials and petty government servants is rampant. More than 12
million acres of the best arable land is in the hands of the 1.2% white
population, while Zimbabwean peasants starve and are not covered by any
government funding or help, least to say of the promise of being made masters of
the White owned lands after liberation. On top of that, when the 10 year
moratorium on acquiring the lands of White farmers elapsed in 1990, the Mugabe
govt. allowed its bureaucrats to acquire the lands of the willing seller. The
white farmers’ lands went into the hands of bureaucrats, the scheme for which
was funded by the UK. The Zimbabwe Govt. received millions of Pounds from the UK
to meet the expenses of compensation for the land and buildings of the White
farmers. Only a small part of those lands went to ordinary peasants. Many a
times promises were made and many a times broken. The officialdom that thus
benefited, least opted for utilizing this land for production purposes. This
fact is now being prodded by the Western media in its attempt to denigrate the
Mugabe government.
Instead of taking up the independent path of
development leading to socialism, as promised by ZANU, the Mugabe Government
initiated the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESPA) in 1989-93 at the
behest of the World Bank, pushing the country further into the clutches of
imperialism. The economy was deregulated, liberalized and made export oriented
as per the dictates of the imperialist institutions. In the thick of these
intense economic changes came the Gulf War, and the Zimbabwean government of
Mugabe which first opposed the US intervention in the gulf, let itself be
purchased with a promise of some more millions of dollars, and then voted for
the US sponsored resolution for intervention.
As Mugabe constantly sought more access to global
financial market, the power of financial institutions increased in the country
and held sway over the media too. This power of the financial institutions
resulted in the collapse of manufacturing output — a 40% decrease in the 1992-95
period. The shift of capital flow into the financial and speculative arenas set
in a process of de- industrialization. 35% of the export earnings were consumed
by the repayment of highly piling up foreign debts.
On November 14, 1997, the Zimbabwe Dollar fell by
75%, a crunch in finances occurred, and bank interest rates rose by 6%. Treasury
bill interest rose from 16% to 35% within 6 months. Inflation rates rose from
15% to 45% in just 18 months starting from Sept. 1997. In 2000 the inflation
rate soared to 60%. The rate of essential goods and food rose more than the rate
of inflation, causing food riots. Food riots, or popularly called, IMF riots
have occurred in 1993, 1995 and 1998. In 1998 more than 30,000 jobs were
retrenched. Forced by growing poverty, when 50,000 liberation war veterans
poured onto the streets, threatening to dislocate the Mugabe administration in
Harare, the desperate Mr. Mugabe immediately yielded to them, announcing Z$
50,000 to each veteran as a compensation and Z$ 2,000 as monthly pension for
each. Afraid of the war Veterans he turned on the ordinary people, imposing
heavy taxes to cover the expenses of the veterans.
Mugabe, on the one hand, became a willing tool of
imperialist finance capital and implemented the policies dictated by the World
Bank and IMF, and on the other hand, in order to secure his declining power
base, decided to fill the coffers of his bureaucracy by purchasing 1500 white
owned farms under the 1993 Land Designation Act.
But this did not take off as the UK, the W. B. and
the IMF sided with the white farmers in 1998 and vetoed the forced sales of the
farms. They demanded that full compensation for land be paid according to the
market rates. But Mugabe did not have enough money for that. Since then he has
been pressing the West, especially the UK to finance the expenses of
compensation. But Britain has been evading the issue and wanted certain
conditions to be met before the "confiscation" is done. ‘Revolutionary’ Mugabe
wanted to pay compensation for the seizure of farms as the constitution forbids
otherwise. And it was the who had signed the Lancaster House agreement 20 years
ago. He did not oppose it then. Now, he sometimes threatens the UK to honour its
commitment to finance the land "redistribution", sometimes threatens to
confiscate farms without any compensation. The tug of war goes on.
Mugabe’s Strategic
Retreat, Tactical Rhetoric
Mugabe’s strategic retreat itself came at the
Lancaster House. Then came ESAP, a logical outcome of surrender of principles.
After that, rising poverty, a job crunch, food riots, bureaucratic corruption
and loot, loss of public support all added to his woes and desperation. Now, he
threatens to launch a "second revolution" without telling his people as
to where and when the first went wrong. For him, imperialism is now a despicable
thing, which has "exploited the Zimbabweans for more than a hundred years"
and "kept them in semi-slavery." Quite Right! But he doesn’t explain
why he had collaborated with imperialism, the World Bank and IMF during his past
twenty years in office. The glory of leading the liberation struggle does not
automatically absolve him of his later doings. Zimbabwe needs a second
revolution, indeed. But it is unlikely to come under his leadership, because he
just wants to entrench his personal power base by bribing his bureaucratic
set-up through Pounds provided by the UK.
Hunger for land among Zimbabwean peasants has not
diminished in the past 20 years. Neither will the farm workers say no to the
bliss of collectively managing or owning the highly modernised and fertile farms
if they are aroused with a really revolutionary consciousness. Mugabe and his
administration did not reach out to those who work on the land, before
conducting the referendum on a new constitution. They would have voted for him
en-masse, had he really been serious to take up their cause. He only dealt with
it on a racial basis, describing whites as enemies. But such rhetoric is not
going to boost his image as an anti-imperialist. The masses stood aloof and
unconcerned and did not turn up to vote even on such a crucial and sensitive
issue, like the redistribution of land. A few who could understand something out
of the official propaganda, that the referendum was about land confiscation
without compensation turned up to vote for him. The majority of the rural
populace who voted, i.e., 25% welcomed this. Others who were told by the
opposition Movement for Democratic Change, that the constitutional referendum
was for giving a mandate to Mugabe to rule for another term, chose to oppose
him. This was particularly the case in the cities where the majority of the
petty-bourgeoisie and others cast their negative vote. This shows to what a low
level the ex-hero of the liberation war has fallen. The city populace is blinded
by consumerism and the glitter of libertine values, which accompany the present
world capitalist trend of economic liberation in the backward and oppressed
countries. While seeking a support-vote for the new constitution, Mugabe did not
appeal to the masses to come forward to oppose neo-colonialism and the New World
Order and to build a self-sufficient independent economic system. His
constitution, in fact, did not have any such orientation to organize society on
a new basis.
So, instead of relying on the masses, and
especially the peasants, the farm workers and the working class in the cities,
he hit upon a plan to recruit war veterans to do the work for him by occupying
the farms of white farmers (not all, but the 1500 out of 4500) so that the UK
could be pressurised to release further installments of a few millions of
pounds. War veterans occupied hundreds of farms, beat up some White farmers and
the Black workers who worked on those farms, killing two whites and six Blacks.
This was sufficient to raise the issue, and the pro-West and white dominated
press, went into an uproar forcing Britain to speak up over the "atrocities
on White farmers." The death of Black farm workers remained a non-event for
the media and the west. Again, the usual double standards, with politics as the
determining factor. Asked to stop the "atrocities" Mugabe demanded money
to pay for the compensation. Britain refused on the ground that "atrocities,
illegal occupation of farms be stopped first and free elections held which are
due in April 2000," Bitten with the no-vote in the referendum, it was
sufficient to enrage Mugabe who had to finally declare that that was none of the
business of UK "when or not the elections are held in Zimbabwe." In
between he promised to restore peace on the farms, met the "Commercial
Farmers’ Union" (CFU) leaders and promised them to do the needful,
threatened UK with an all out war, sent a delegation to London to have a
negotiated settlement etc.
Now the main issue for the West in Zimbabwe is the
replacement for Mugabe with the Movement for Democratic Change, headed by
Tsvangirai {also the chief of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU)}. The
CFU of the White farmers, supports the MCD and Tsvangirai as he has a wide
support base among the labour aristocracy and is least likely to oppose
imperialist interests. He is also supported by the media and has no rival among
the anti-Mugabe forces. And given Mugabe’s decline in popularity, a bourgeois
exercise of choosing the government may result in the axe of Mr. Mugabe.
For him the land issue is not the real issue,
nor is anti-imperialism of any real concern to him. The power game is being
played with a great majority of the masses staying aloof and a narrow minority
actively placed to out-flank Mugabe.
The imperialist dominated media has launched a
vicious campaign against the "land invasions" and "illegal occupation
of farms" in Zimbabwe. It has termed the restricted violence on farms as
"murder and mayhem" and has demonised Mr. Mugabe. The media does not mention
that the real murder and mayhem was committed when the white colonialists
dispossesed the rightful owners of land through wholesale extermination of the
black people a hundred years ago and continued their occupation of Zimbabwe with
brutal oppression, killing thousands of people who put up a resistance against
the colonial devils. Overnight, the bloody colonisers are being described as
helpless victims. Land in Zimbabwe belongs to the black peasants and farm
workers primarily to fulfill the basic foodgrain needs of the people and not to
the white commercial farmers who export their farm produce to the imperialist
markets. The media is playing the dirty game of serving the interests of the
international moneybags and criminally hides the stark fact of the misery of the
dispossesed black population.
As Mugabe is no match against the powerful media
backed by the UK and the West, and the trade Unions stand against him, he has
nobody to look towards except the war veterans and a part of the bureaucracy.
So, he is forced to resort to rhetoric and sporadic actions against the white
farmers and play on the anti-imperialist sentiments and legacy of the oppressed
Black working masses. Even the leaders of the Front line States of Namibia,
South Africa and Mozambique have supported Mugabe’s claims for money from the
British imperialists as the land question is almost as crucial in these
countries too and all feel the financial crunch in their own respective lands
and look towards imperialism. But, they have vehemently opposed his methods of
occupying white farm-lands. Emboldened by the seizures in Zimbabwe people in the
north of South Africa have spontaneously occupied some farms belonging to the
whites to assert their right to get back their land.
How far
Mr. Mugabe goes in his anti-imperialist and land confiscation drive in the
absence of popular mass support will become clear in the coming days but his
revolutionary credentials have suffered an irreparable loss; the result of his
own doings.
|
