Zimbabwe's Troubles
Today there’s an article on the BBC about the economic crisis in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe’s troubles are different from the areas I’ve studied in that Zimbabwe was a ’settler’ colony - i.e. people from colonising countries actually moved there instead of just controlling it, like in West Africa. So I don’t entirely understand the history behind the problems in Zimbabwe.
The BBC states that:
Zimbabwe’s crisis has seen unemployment rise to close to 70%, and the inflation rate soar above 100%. More than half the country’s 12 million population are thought to be at risk of famine.
This is apparently a result of the ‘land reform programme’ that’s been going on for the past year or two. There could be other underlying rational for this problem, and their probably is. But the disenfranchisement of the nation’s farmers, who are for the most part white, seems to have sent Zimbabwe, which was once a model for prosperity in Africa (ior so I’ve heard), into immediate and devastating economic decline. Furthermore it seems to be a political battle with President Mugabe blatantly playing the race card in his attempt to maintain control of the country. It’s another example of politics being the source of famine, not simple lack of food.
It is true that there’s been drought in the region. This coupled with the farmers being unable to farm because of the government is certainly part of this problem. Bear in mind though that, I believe, the farmers of Zimbabwe were in fact commercial farmers who exported most of their crops. What their demise has caused, then, is the economy to falter. They didn’t necessarily feed the country. So it’s another case of people in post-colonial Africa being unable to feed themselves because of lack of capital in a system that was not organically developed but imported.
What I find most disturbing about the problems in Zimbabwe right now is how bold Mugabe is being. He’s vocally attacking Britain and his own commercial (albeit white) sector (which was obviously a mainstay of the economy) in a bid for power. He’s sacrificing the economic health of his country for his own mortal presidency. Has any president withstood the economic decline of their country when they were so obviously at fault? I have no idea but it’s troubling. Blaming Britain for Zimbabwe’s problems is merely diverting attention from the fact that Mugabe’s attempt to protect ‘traditional’ land rights is in fact starving the very people he seeks to protect. It’s disturbing that this partially legitimate agenda is the facade for his own power struggle.
I don’t know where I stand on the issue of how much colonial powers owe to their former colonies. Mugabe is holding Britain responsible for the fate of the white farmers that have been there for literally generations and have legal right to the land (however you define legal) . But it was land that was taken illegally in the century before, even if it was at some point sold legally. And who’s law are we addressing, anyway? That of an illegitimate colonial ruler? It’s obviously a sticky issue. I tend to believe in what I call ‘cultural responsibility’ which is that a culture or country does have some responsibility for current events, but individuals do not. You and I are not to blame for our ancestors but there has to be some sort of accountability and willingness to help solve problems as a result of past events. Otherwise it seems that we’ll never get anywhere. So while I disagree with Mugabe’s tactics and baldfaced twisting of the facts, I also understand where he’s coming from and what he’s trying to achieve with the land issue. I also think that what he’s trying to achieve is unrealistic and all parties should compromise.
I doubt Mugabe wants to compromise when his power is also at stake though. And do I need to add that this version of democracy and corruption was also learned and adapted from somewhere. It’s one of Africa’s more complicated trouble spots with no clear answer and definitely no clear winners.