The Tragic Downfall of Zimbabwe

African politics are easy to dismiss most of the time. There's usually one group that has all the guns and power, and they exert their control in an authoritarian manner. Occassionally you may hear about a second group, one that poses a challenge to the ruling group. No matter how minimal that opposition is, the word that follows to describe what happens next is "atrocity."

We are afforded a unique opportunity to understand the modern, current state of an African nation and a little bit about metapolitics in the events that unfold in Harare. Zimbabwe was a British colony (formerly Rhodesia) until 1980, when they attained independence. As Americans, we can identify with the general sentiment of casting off British rule. There was a national pride that swept over the native people and, when independent, they vowed to be completely free of British rule. The majority of the population was black, with the minority whites usually in positions of power. Many whites farmed, and Zimbabwe was easily the breadbasket of Africa. They exported so much food that they were well regarded for it.

Once independent, people were grateful to the person that led the fight for sovreignty. Robert Mugabe was the first President of the nation, and the native people were secure in their new government. The descendants of colonists, however, were not. The changes didn't occur all at once, and not all were drastic to be sure. But at some point, the following question was asked: "Why are farms run by whites so much more successful than those run by blacks?"

If it were that simple. It wasn't. But the native people began to mill that around in their heads. And then their leader, the one who showed them independance, gave an explanation: it's because they've got the better land and more of it, they've got all the money from the colonial days, and they have the best tools. In short, they aren't playing fair.

In the U.S. or another country in the western world, they would perhaps have tried promoting better educational opportunities for farmers. Perhaps subsidizing black farmers for equipment or land purchases, or for their crops. The actual solution was a bit more African- they drove the white people off the land and gave it to blacks.

Romatically speaking, of course, this is every communist's wet dream. Equal land distribution. But that's not how it happened. Remember, I said it was an African solution. The land only went to the biggest supporters of the ruling group. Anyone that was native but dissented from the majority view did not partake in the distribution. And then the stories came out of mobs of people driving onto a farmer's land, raiding the house, throwing the farmer out with nothing, raping the wife (very rare) and throwing her out, followed by the death threats and the occassional follow-through thereof. This was 1994.

So, land now acquired by the natives, the natives' prosperity is all but assured. Only it didn't happen that way. Farm output plummeted. Food stocks dried up. Most of the descendants of colonials left, but a few still stayed on. Zimbabwe, the now former breadbasket of Africa, became a net importer of food. Not because of drought or pestilence, but because of inept farming. The reason, so explained the president now in his 16th year of rule- it's the West, Britain, and (now) the U.S. that are wrecking their lives. No one had actually put an embargo on Zimbabwe.

By the year 2000, the decline continued. An election was due, and the people began to think, "y'know, maybe the President is wrong." There was a chance the President could lose his seat. Another African solution- the presiden mustered up all the soldiers from his party and enforced brutal crackdowns. Many reports of rigged elections flowed from the country, for which the journalists were beaten. When Mugabe emerged the victor, only then did western countries place their first embargoes- on Mugabe and his closest advisors. Not on the nation. Not on the people. Just the guy.

In the last eight years, people have slowly started to realize that maybe this president is only in it for himself. Anytime the opposition speaks loudly enough, Mugabe suggests that he is only trying to incite rebellion and treason. In other words, Mugabe now identifies himself as the government. Meanwhile, the country spirals into the world toilet. I'm not even really sure how a country can have 100,000 percent inflation, but that's where they are at. Millions starving, millions jobless, and no end in sight- until this election.

What's the point of all this history?

The point is that there is little chance of peace in this country because a man decided that people loved him for a past deed so much that it entitled him to become an autocrat. There will likely be war, the opposition will likely lose, and because we all think the U.S. is some kind of international evil tyrant now millions will lose their lives over one man's ambition. The point is also that change is not always good, and that when people stop viewing power as a privilege and start viewing it as a right it only causes pain. Lastly, and perhaps most strongly, this is what can happen when people see the government as a solution to all their problems- the government can be wrong.