Mugabe Gone? Hold the Champagne
April 1st, 2008 by Christopher Flavelle in Bright Lights
After days of anticipation, Robert Mugabe seems ever closer to losing his hold on the people of Zimbabwe. This is cause for celebration: under Mugabe, a once-rich country has been racked by inflation rates of 100,000 percent. The U.S. State Department declared 2007 the worst yet for human rights in Zimbabwe, citing political abductions, killings and torture by government security forces. By any standard, Mugabe’s was a regime that had to go.
(My Walrus blogging colleague Arno Kopecky agrees, with some great on-the-ground reporting in Zimbabwe.)
But Zimbabwe’s dilemma won’t end with the inauguration of a new president, whenever that day comes. Mugabe’s likely successor, Morgan Tsvangirai, will face two crucial decisions soon after taking office, and those decisions will test both his resolve and the country’s chances for success.
The first issue facing the new president will be dealing with the crimes committed by the state security services Mugabe’s watch. Tsvangirai will need to decide whether to prosecute those responsible for the abuses, or whether to institute some form of amnesty, possibly in conjunction with an official commission to sort through questions of responsibility, similar to the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation commission established in South Africa after Nelson Mandela took office.
Dealing with crimes committed under Mugabe will not be easy for Zimbabwe’s new president, who will face strong pressure from some quarters for a reckoning. The international community, and in particular the Commonwealth, no doubt eager to welcome Zimbabwe back into its fold, may urge a sort of negotiated amnesty, conscious of the risk of further division in the country. For the new president, the choice will not be easy.
Nor will the choice be easy for another pressing issue: what to do about Mugabe’s legacy of land reform. In September 2005, Mugabe’s government nationalized the country’s farmland, evicting the largely white landowners whose commercial farms had provided much of the country’s income. Those who took the land had little or no experience running farms. To make matters worse, Zimbabwe’s banks largely refused to provide the new farmers with loans, further limiting their chances of success.
From an economic standpoint, the best solution may be simply to reverse Mugabe’s land reforms, returning much of Zimbabwe’s farmland to those who owned it before the 2005 decree. But even in a country where Mugabe is deeply unpopular, pushing Zimbabweans off their new land may be politically impossible. Yet the new president will face strong pressure from Western countries to do so, especially Britain, to which most of the displaced farmers trace their roots.
If and when Tsvangirai finally takes office, there will be no shortage of accolades from the international community. But Zimbabwe’s challenges will not end with Mugabe’s departure. Countries that celebrate Zimbabwe’s change in government will need to follow with offers of assistance, on terms that Tsvangirai can live with.
Saturday’s election was a triumph for Zimbabwe. But the country may soon find that getting rid of Mugabe was the easy part.
More in Bright Lights | Blogs Home | Current Issue | SUBSCRIBE »
Posted on Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm. Follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comment or trackback.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I agree with you,Zimbabwe faces many challenges after the demise of the Mugabe regime.
.The immediate aspects we need to solve are inflation,fuel and food shortages.The country is rich in natural resources and we have so many investors who are holding their investments because of Mugabe.These will definately come in as soon as Mugabe leaves office.
This will definately lead to quick recovery.
So many changes need to be introduced ,most of these will be painful though
April 8th, 2008 at 5:14 am
I would wish to slightly differ with some of the opinions you reached with regards to president Mugabe’s departure as the sitting president. In as much as i would like to agree with you that the incumbent has brought Zimbabwe to some extent to where the country is today; with its inflation rates hitting an absurd rate of 100,000% - thereby leading to poor living standards of the masses and lack of basic necessities - there is need to also look at the international community and the imperial British power as being part of the indirect contributing factors that contributed to this countries current state.
Zimbabwe being an autonomous country with right to its sovereignty grants upon its leaders the discretion to decide the trajectory that they deem is right for the country to follow. History can prove that this lands that President Mugabe chose to issue to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe are pieces of land that rightfully belonged to them until they they imperialist dispossessed them forcefully from them. If anything reasonable is to be contemplated then that should be the need for the incoming president opposition leader Tsvangirai and his official representatives - with the help of both foreign and local investors - to build the capacity of the local indigenous farmers so as to enable them take full charge of what is duly theirs.
To ask but a simple question: Whose interest do the common wealth normally protect? Is it the common man or the filthy wealthy minority? This rhetoric ambassadors whose job has been to advocate for the oppressive regimes at the expense of the poor majority have no business in establishing what is good or not good in this regard.
For those investors who want to invest in the new Zimbabwe they should invest with a real intent of improving the lives of the already over impoverished people of Zimbabwe. Its time for the white settlers to start conceding that they - by the virtue of accessing large expanses of arable land illegally during and after the colonial era did/have gone astray from the spirit of democratic co-existence. Therefore they should make reparations of whatever damage this acts of slavery inflicted in the livelihood of the masses - not only in Zimbabwe but to all Africans at home and abroad.
In conclusion i would like to invoke upon the arbitrators who are to conduct the investigations as part of the truth, justice and reconciliation commission that is yet to be established - to sermon both the internal and external perpetrators who were in either way involved in making Zimbabwe and its people be in a current state that it is today to equally be held appear before the commission and be held accountable and forced to pay substantially for the wrongs committed. There should not be pockets of biasness allowed to permeate the inquiry.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
>>>>(by Oscar Odhiambo)History can prove that this lands that President Mugabe chose to issue to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe are pieces of land that rightfully belonged to them until they they imperialist dispossessed them forcefully from them.
It is not that simple. This is not simple theft. The lands were turned into something far more productive, and all Zimbabwe benefited.
>>>>…to build the capacity of the local indigenous farmers so as to enable them take full charge of what is duly theirs.
I don’t believe this is an achievable goal in the present political situation. I’m not sure it would be achievable in any context by the central authorities.
>>>>Whose interest do the common wealth normally protect? Is it the common man or the filthy wealthy minority?
It is both. We benefit from the skills, work, and investments of the wealthy. They are not inherently evil.
>>>>…should invest with a real intent of improving the lives of the already over impoverished people…
Economies are a combination of altruism and self interest. Too much of one is not a good thing.
>>>>Its time for the white settlers to start conceding that they - by the virtue of accessing large expanses of arable land illegally during and after the colonial era did/have gone astray from the spirit of democratic co-existence.
White farmers payed absurd amounts of taxes, and acceded to extensive work rules. I have a different opinion as to who is undemocratic.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
dude looks like Flavor Flave @ 80 years minus the clock