Ever since Rhodesia’s all-white government was overthrown, and the country became Zimbabwe, we’ve been hearing accounts of the Mugabe government oppressing and dispossessing white landowners.
But we haven’t heard any such stories out of South Africa since Apartheid was abolished. (In fact, the news stories I’ve heard out of South Africa in the past ten years involve the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the AIDS epidemic, and the occasional soccer riot, and not much else.) The whites in SA no longer monopolize political power but they have been left pretty much in place as a socioeconomic elite that owns most of the productive property.
Why is that? The historical situations of the two countries were very similar – a holdover colonial racist regime was replace by a black-controlled regime. Why did Zimbabwe and South Africa go in such very different directions from the same starting point?
Politics. Mugabe is desperate to hang onto power in the face of his failing economic policies and he is distracting a lot of people by promising them “free” land and by demonizing the farmers who currently hold it. South Africa has a more diversified economy, to begin with. Mandela was not interested in power in the way that Mugabe is (as indicated by Mandela’s stepping down at the end of his term) and his successors have not seen a need to play Mugabe’s game.
(I would dispute–mildly–the claim that Zimbabwe has had constant oppression from the beginning. There were incidents in the beginning that probably had more to do with the way that Mugabe came to power, but there were also several years, when it appeared that Zimbabwe might get its act together, when Mugabe did not spend most of his time playing the race card. Even today, white professionals in the cities are not as harrassed as their farming counterparts, as they are needed to keep the economy going and have no land to be chopped up and distributed to the poor.)
I can think of two good reasons why SA has not devolved into a Zimbabwe-like regime: Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela. Both have a lot of street-cred, and while Mandela refused to renounce violence for the large part of the oppression, both are now heavy advocates of a peaceful maturation of the country into a democratic society.
I think the peace commission has also been a good calming factor for society there. It appears to have reassured blacks (and, I assume, the communities formerly classified as “coloured” there) that the crimes committed against them have not been simply swept under the rug.
I think that as long as the black communities there see a steady improvement in their lives, and see the growth of a black middle-class, that SA has a great chance to minimise the violence in the future derived from the aparteid policies. But after Mandela passes away, if things start to stall, I would be concerned that a Mugabe-like figure could start to emerge there.
I believe White Rhodesians were always a smaller minority in their country than White Sooth Afrikaaners were in theirs. That tells me that the former Rhodesians are more at the mercy of Zimbabwes new rulers than the Sooth Afrikaaners are of their new rulers.
Don’t kid yourselves that Mugabe’s activities are restricted to actions against white farmers, he is actively starving those regions of the country that voted against him.
Do you have a cite for that, or are you just regurgitating standard liberal babble?
I was under the impression that the entire country was starving, due to the fact that Mugabe was stealing productive Rhodesian farms and giving them to his Zimbabwein cronies.
“Liberal babble?” What would be liberal reason for suggesting Mugabe is starving his opponents? It’s not like he is the darling of conservatives ( or anybody, for that matter ).
At any rate, the situation appears to be that the famine is country-wide, but Mugaber has politicized the food-aid distribution in favor of his supporters.
*The first two maize access mechanisms are run entirely at the discretion of government employees, and are particularly open to political selectivity: in rural areas, and also some urban areas, only known ZANU supporters are allowed to benefit.
Those who do not carry a ZANU card are not allowed to purchase maize from GMB even if they have the money to do so, and known MDC supporters report having maize stolen from them if they are lucky enough to buy it. The Daily News, 18th March and 25th March, key informant interviews from 8 districts. See also section following. It is also documented, including in the cases in this report, that members of “MDC families” are not able to take part in “food for work” programmes. *
From a Danish aid organization report quoted in the Guardian:
While I have often heard these accusations from people and organistaions in Zimbabwe I have only once heard an assurance from Mugabe that it isn’t true.
If you can provide an independent cite that people are not being starved according to their votes I will happily change my mind about this aspect of Mugabe’s despotism.
(I’m curious as to why you would think that accusations against an avowed Socialist would be “standard liberal babble”? (And why you would think the BBC would report that as news and not opinion?) But I suppose that everyone is entitled to view the entire world through their own selective filters.)
The reason I call it liberal babble is because liberals have a history of excusing racist behavior.
The “famine” is a direct result of Mugabies racist seazure of White owned farms. It is NOT a caused by natural phenomenon. Rhodesia used to be known as the bread basket of Africa. No more
Err…Okay. But I didn’t notice anyone claiming Mugabe isn’t using racial politics in his seizure of white farms. Clearly he is.
But one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. Or it does, but obliquely - I think don’t ask’s point was just that Mugabe does whatever benefits Mugabe, whether it is playing to racism or good old cronyism.
Notice what he said is that Mugabe’s actions weren’t restricted to persecutingwhite farmers.
Actually it is a combination of drought and Mugabe’s assinine policies. But again, I don’t think anyone here claimed or even implied that the famine was a wholely natural phenomena.
But you did not call the famine liberal babble (although I’m sure that Mugabe is responsible for the drought), you specifically claimed that it was liberal babble that Mugabe was targeting specific sections of the country to suffer more harshly than others, an assertion that has no basis in fact.
don’t ask never claimed that the famine did not exist. Nor did s/he assert that Mugabe played no part in the famine. In the specific context of whether Mugabe was targeting whites with his policies, don’t ask noted that even blacks suffered if they dared to oppose him. Do you think that that is “liberal babble”? Or are you simply looking to take swipes at your perceptions of who might be a liberal, regardless of facts?
Mugabe is a power-hungry monster whose policies have ruined the country. Creating false feuds with purported liberals does not answer the OP or contribute to the discussion.
“Mukiwa: A White Boy in Zimbabwe” is an excellent look at many aspects of life in Zim in the 70s and 80s, including some excerpts that describe how Mugabe killed about 10,000 of his political enemies (nearly all black) with the help of friendly governments like North Korea.
I lived in Africa for a few years a while back and really enjoyed the time I spent in Zimbabwe. Beautful country…friendly people. A damn shame that it’s going to hell in a handbasket and millions of people will suffer because of another two-bit dictator.
Oh, and whomever it was that said the people are starving because of the drought…PLEASE. While there has been a drought, it’s probably responsible for about 1% of the impact at most. The rest is Mugabe.
You guys are right. It is Mugabe’s policy to punish his opponents. Also, the drought in Zim caused the largest part of the famine, not the farm seizures.
Thank you Tomndebb for squaring me away.
I’d also like to apologize for being such an asswipe in this thread and a couple others. A long, difficult work week caused me to slam too many drinks last night. I should know better than posting while drunk. Sorry.
The government of South Africa has been quite concerned that the land grap in Zimbabwe will spill-over into South Africa. They have their own land distribution issues that they have been trying to deal with for about the last decade. By some accounts it is proceeding too slow, but I think it has been better than Zimbabwe.
Give it time. The SA government is slowing screwing everything up and will reach a point where to win voter appeal they’ll have to start the same kind of hostilities. When the farm-grabbing in Zim started, there was initially an outbreak of similar activity in SA and the government’s reaction was disturbingly ambivalent.
Zimbabwe now = SA in 10-20 years time. Once the “old guard”, Mandela and Tutu, snuff it, and their directly influenced successors are out of office, things will change…