“Founder, Liberator, National Hero.” (1) That is the official epitaph from the nation of Zimbabwe to Former President Robert Gabriel Mugabe, “one of Africa’s greatest warriors,” who passed away, aged 95, on September 6th in Singapore. (2) Now the debate begins – not in the European world – they established their narrative in the late 1990s. They characterised the ZANU-PF elder statesman as tyrant and international pariah (3) and everyone in the Euro-USA axis, everyone from president to plasterer, dignitary to dog walker bought and accepted it.
So, the debate is among Afrikans who, unlike pretty much every other race, have not yet managed to demonstrate that it can adhere to a global narrative in the interests of the race. For whatever else we may think, the reclamation of land in Zimbabwe was in the interests of the race. As Zimbabwean author D Gazi rightly asserts:
“Mugabe attacked the collective European psyche upon which European empires were founded – the idea of whiteness and it’s pre-eminence within Darwin’s origin of the species. He attacked the West’s assumed ownership of Africa and in so doing exposed the West’s plan for Africa post-independence.” (4)
The Euro-USA narrative focused on alleged ‘human rights abuses’ by the “Mugabe regime,” yet when there was real internal strife within the country, from independence in 1980 (but especially from 1982) to 1987 (“The Gukurahundi”), the west heaped acclaim and titles upon him. (5) Outsiders who ignored (or even tacitly approved) what was going on at the time as long as Zimbabwe appeared to support western interests but later feigned indignation at the same events are exposed as disingenuous – compounded by their refusal to address the atrocities carried out by the Grey Scouts and Selous Scouts of Ian Smith’s invader-colonialist regime. It should also be borne in mind that the ruling ZANU-PF party won successive elections after the Matabeleland massacres. Indeed, former MDT-T leader himself said Robert Mugabe was “alright up to 1995.” Consequently, there are some real issues dating from this period regarding the actions of the fifth brigade but they are for Zimbabweans to resolve rather than being used as a self-serving political football. (6)
As indicated the quote above, the real issue was the land and the process of land reform that bankrupted the country. To this day, this account remains largely unchallenged. Inconvenient facts that expose this lie receive little or no attention. For example, a study of the impact of reform in Masvingo province from 2006, supported by the UK Department for International Development, the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, The Institute of Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape and funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council and Department for International Development, was published as the book Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths & Realities, authored by Ian Scoones, Nelson Marongwe, Blasio Mavedzenge, Jacob Mahenehene, Felix Murimbarimba and Chrispen Sukume.
The book debunks the five most enduring myths on the impact of the land reclamation in the southern Afrikan state:
- Zimbabwe’s land reform has been a total failure
- The beneficiaries of Zimbabwean land reform have been largely ‘political cronies.’
- The is no investment in the new settlements
- Agriculture is in complete ruins creating chronic food insecurity
- The rural economy has collapsed. (7)
Nevertheless, it should still be asked, why was Zimbabwe’s domestic land policy such a source of international consternation, rather than being their business and theirs alone.
Of course, President Mugabe’s tenure came to an end in November 2017, ostensibly not due to external agitation but internal intrigues. (8)
Historical revisionism is one of the scourges of the age. So in an attempt to avoid that, this remembrance of the legacy of President Mugabe will be drawn from contemporaneous articles published in The Whirlwind newspaper. These three articles examine the nature of the European propaganda and economic (i.e. sanctions) war as well as it’s hypocritical assault on the democratic institutions on the country. The first two articles are pre and post the pivotal 2008 elections when regime change seemed to be a whisker away. The final article makes a comparison between Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and Robert Mugabe, noting that the Zimbabwean leader plied his trade as a teacher in Nkrumah’s Ghana and also met his first wife, Sally, there. The premise may seem like sacrilege to sum, but New African magazine’s current Editor at Large Baffour Ankomah, offers some invaluable insight and context for then, now and the future.
Condolences are due to widow Sis. Grace and family and the spirit of Baba Mugabe rise on the wings of Ma’at after a favourable judgement in the counsel of Asar.
ZIMBABWE: THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH (9)
Zimbabwe rarely fails to make global headlines, telling of some new horror that President Robert Mugabe has inflicted on his long suffering people. However, as the purveyors of these sensationalist yarns tend to be the white supremacist media pre-disposed to eschew Afrikan Liberation (or anything that appears like it), thinking Afrikans owe ourselves the duty of further investigation, not least when identifying historical parallels that can help us plot the correct path to total liberation.
The Whirlwind #4 (2007)
The main accusation against Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF government is that its leader, President Robert Mugabe, is a tyrannical dictator who has led the country to economic ruin. The fact that there is a vibrant opposition – the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) – in Zimbabwe, represented in all levels of government – local, mayoral and parliamentary, backed by a plethora of antagonistic, well-resourced Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and an aggressive anti-government media, renders this accusation a nonsense.
Assessment of the “democratic process” is equally subjective. Zimbabwe elections are monitored by the Afrikan Union, Southern Afrikan Development Community (SADC), Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), Non-Aligned Movement and other national and regional bodies. The only bodies that cry foul are the European Union (EU), USA, white British Commonwealth and of course the MDC – funded by the aforementioned European sources.
European media images of a bruised and battered Morgan Tsvangirai, (MDC leader), earlier this year, aimed to sustain these spurious claims whilst circumventing news of MDC descent into factionalism and split (since October 2005) – one group headed by Tsvangirai the other by former ‘Rhodes’ Scholar Arthur Mutambara. Tsvangirai’s faction have since abandoned electoral politics yet formed the ‘Democratic Resistance Committee’. Nonetheless, reports of MDC thuggery, vandalism and sabotage; including bombings and terror campaigns (aka “prayer meetings”), against dissenting members, as well as the opposition and police are on the increase. In an interview in Zimbabwe’s Sunday News, Welshman Ncube, MDC General Secretary recalls the reasons for the split: “We saw in him (Tsvangirai) an increasing tendency towards dictatorship…towards the use of violence.” This tendency has, reportedly, continued unabated, claiming many victims including Pretty Rushwaya, Smart Makurumure or Never Ndowa, while Tsvangirai remains the darling of the European press. Herein lies the unstated cause of the well reported police crackdown.
Regime change is the crux of the matter here, hence Zimbabwe’s dire economic state, not European propaganda of President Mugabe’s corrupt leadership. Given the ZANU-PF government’s economic record, especially the first decade and a half (ending the racist Ian Smith tyranny, economic growth, building schools and hospitals, etc.), it is illogical that they would now seek to decimate it.
Zimbabwe’s economic woes can be traced to two key events: 1) the adoption of the perilous World Bank ‘Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP)’ – (1991) resulting from pressures to “liberalise” the economy; and 2) the decision to implement the land reform programme (1997) after the UK government reneged on the Lancaster House, “willing buyer, willing seller”, agreement (1979). The European response was to besiege the economy through a range of sanctions – largely responsible for the present 1000%+ inflation, high unemployment and social disorder compounded by several seasons of drought.
The disastrous impact of the ESAP on Zimbabwe’s economy was the same as other Afrikan and Caribbbean countries. “Liberalising” the economy is white supremacy-speak for privatising the infrastructure and key utilities (education, healthcare, water, etc.) thereby preparing the groundwork for ‘foreign investment’ (European exploitation). Although Zimbabwe finally abandoned ESAP in 2001, its inimical effects had already set in.
The regime change agenda also ignores the fact that ZANU-PF has the popular support of the Zimbabwean people, especially in the rural areas. Moreover, the MDC seems to have great difficulty advancing their vision for Zimbabwe beyond, ‘Mugabe must go’, to a coherent policy. One reason for this could be that they are so beholden to their foreign benefactors that they dare not advance any policy deemed detrimental to European interests, represented by the legions of European NGOs providing funding, resources and technical expertise, including:
Westminster Foundation for Democracy – funded by the 3 major UK political parties;
Zimbabwe Democracy Trust – Patrons include former UK Foreign Secretaries Douglas Hurd, Geoffrey Howe and Malcolm Rifkind;
Media Institute of Southern Afrika – funding from USA, EU, a Danish, Norwegian and Swedish embassies.
Zimbabwe Watch – Funded by Holland.
The resolution to right the centuries old wrong by giving Afrikan people their stolen land back is the basis of European ire. ZANU-PF were compelled by the actions of the war veterans to address this colonial legacy that left White people (less than 1% of the Zimbabwean population), controlling 80% of the most fertile lands. Strategies in response included:
September 2001 – Zimbabwe declared “Ineligible to use the general resources of the IMF”: e.g. “borrowing under the Poverty and Growth Facility”
November 2001 – Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary -) reveals that he has been “building coalitions” against Zimbabwe.
December 2001 – USA passes the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, restricting credit facilities to the country. The Act sponsored, by Senator Jesse Helms (long time Ian Smith supporter) and supported by Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton, effectively seeks to return Zimbabwe to the pre 1997 pattern of land ownership.
January 2002 – the UK government threatens to withhold aid to Zimbabwe’s SADC allies Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania if they don’t withdraw support and press for sanctions against Zimbabwe.
June 2002 – IMF suspends “provision of technical assistance” and urges Zimbabwe to revive ESAP.
January 2004 – EU Common Position calls for “vigorous enforcement of all EU sanctions against the ZANU-PF regime and for a more robust commitment by the EU, ACP partners and the wider international community to enforcement sanctions”
June 2006 – EU Dutch representative, Johan Van Hecke, reveals that EU sanctions were imposed in response the government’s land reclamation programme, not ‘human rights abuses’
April 2007 – In its report, ‘Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: US Record 2006’, USA Government reveals that it is funding and actively working with MDC and other NGOs in a bid to topple the government.
So although 334,000 families (average of 8 per family – so called “cronies” of Mugabe) have been given a farm for subsistence, the impact of sanctions has meant that they have not had access to key imports like equipment, resources and fertilizer. Thus, the sanctions claimed to be targeted solely at the government are having devastating effect on the people.
Ironically, as inflation continues to rise so do prospects for investment – shares can rise by more than 50% in a week on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange. According to International Business Times (06/12/06) the country “has become a haven for speculators… people know where the good returns are. The stock market is one of the few (to offer these) and this is why we see it performing above all markets.” Like neighbouring Azania, Anglo-Boer ex-pats have a stranglehold on the “market”.
In the year of Ghana’s 50th anniversary so many of the parallels with its revolutionary government and today’s Zimbabwe have escaped some of our more respected Pan-Afrikanist. Thankfully some of the more astute, like the Pan African United Front in Ghana have made the link:
“We see the opposition in Zimbabwe in the same light as President Nkrumah’s opposition, the National Liberation Movement, which was owned, controlled, and manipulated by British and American imperialism. This opposition claimed the banner of Democracy and denounced President Nkrumah as a dictator, although President Nkrumah consistently defeated them at the polls from 1951-1966, in “free and fair” elections. These fictitious allegations were always picked up and trumpeted throughout the world by the imperialist press… The negative effects of the UK, US, EU, sanctions are called ‘economic mismanagement’ by the MDC, US, and UK. This is the same ‘Big Lie’ that was used against Nkrumah.”
Having endured the naked economic terrorism and media annihilation from the global white supremacist power structure the people and government of Zimbabwe deserve our undying respect and support. Far from being the pariah state Zimbabwe continue to garner support around the world. President Mugabe was given a standing ovation at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Cuba last year. In May this year Zimbabwe was elected to chair the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, charged with promoting economic progress and environmental protection. The recent SADC summit in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, resolved to demand the lifting of “all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe”. As reported in the New African magazine (May, 2007), Azanian (South Afrikan) President Thabo Mbeki has asserted:
“The fight against Zimbabwe is a fight against us all. Today it is Zimbabwe, tomorrow it will be South Afrika, it will be Mozambique, it will be Angola, it will be any other Afrikan country. And any government that is perceived to be strong, and resistant to imperialists, would be made a target and would be undermined. So let us not allow any point of weakness in the solidarity of SADC because that weakness will also be transferred to the rest of Afrika.”
He could have been speaking in Accra in 1957.
LAND OR DEMOCRACY? TRUTH HAS BECOME THE FIRST CASUALTY IN THE BATTLE FOR ZIMBABWE (10)
The Whirlwind #6 (2008)
The Cambridge Online dictionary defines sovereignty as “the power of a country to control its own government.” Given the intense focus (some would say interference) from the governments and media of the European Axis (UK, USA, EU, white commonwealth), one could be forgiven for thinking that Zimbabwe is actually a shire town or the 53rd state. For several months we have had to endure a relentless onslaught on Zimbabwe of one-sided reporting that often veers into the realms of fantasy. Leading the charge of course is the British government that, although in disarray at home wants to project an authoritative image abroad. To do this, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and chief cohorts Foreign Secretary and pretender to Brown’s job, David Miliband and Douglas Alexander the International Development Secretary (whose illustrious predecessors include Clare Short and Baroness Amos) has marshalled the state media apparatus – the BBC – to do his bidding. However, based on its output the BBC seems to be sharing press office duties for both the British government and Morgan Tsvangirai’s branch of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
So already the prognosis for fair and balanced reporting was not a good one. You may recall that the BBC is the place where last year staff were advised to go on ‘integrity training’ to the address “the issue of honesty with audiences.” This was after it lied on their queen, lied on their viewers and listeners (as the Daily Mail reported on 19th July 2007, “From Children in Need to Comic Relief, phone-ins were faked and viewers conned”) and even lied to its young viewers on Blue Peter. The scandals led to the BBC being fined a record £400,000 by industry watchdog Ofcom.
In addition to this, the BBC has yet to deal with former Chief Greg Dyke’s “hideously white” characterisation back in 2001. Dyke’s sentiments have been echoed more recently by the likes of Jonathan Ross (their highest paid presenter) and ‘Cracker’ writer Jimmy McGovern who called it “one of the most racist institutions in England”, on Simon Mayo ‘s Five Live show in Mosiah last year. However, it is in its treatment of Afrikans both inside and outside of the corporation that it is exposed. Recent years have seen the removal of well-regarded Afrikan presenters like Henry Bonsu, Robert Beckford, Moira Stuart and most recently Geoff Schumann. The case of Sis. Moira is particularly instructive. Months before her actual departure from the organisation in September 2007, after 34 years of service, the BBC announced that they no longer had a role for her. The announcement came soon after the broadcast of her, in the words of the Ligali Organisation, “ground breaking investigative” documentary ‘In Search of Wilberforce’, through which she questioned the white supremacist Wilberforce myth. Add to this the revelation by Sis. Pam Fraser-Solomon (producer, ‘In Search of Wilberforce’) on Colourful Radio on 03/10/07 that every Afrikan who worked on the film no longer worked for the BBC while all the Europeans who did are still there. The case of the BBC is instructive because it regards itself as Broadcasting’s “Gold Standard”. For all of its hand-wringing on the plight of Zimbabweans the BBC and indeed the British public remain as racist as ever, with Mugabe coverage providing safe cover for anti-Afrikan rantings under the guise of humanitarian concern, while Afrikan victims of real state violence in the UK like Bro. Frank Ogburo, Mikey Powell and Azelle Rodney are either unmentioned, unlamented or criminalised.
So, in this context when we hear about the scores of MDC supporters slain by “Mugabe’s thugs” in electoral violence, we should view it through Afrikan eyes. It can’t be emphasised enough that any death in such circumstances is both tragic and unacceptable. However, it is also true that it has become a characteristic of elections in Afrikan countries be it Kenya, Nigeria, Haiti or Jamaica. As with Zimbabwe the question that needs to be asked is what’s behind it. As Zimbabwean political analyst Bro. George Shire put it, “What we have to ask ourselves is who has been sabotaging the efforts of South Afrika and SADC to ensure that Zimbabwean people, ZANU-PF and MDC talk to one another and secondly we have to ask ourselves who has been ‘paying for’ the kind of insurgency that is going on in Zimbabwe.” The other thing to add is that while hyperbolic reporting characterises nearly one hundred dead in Zimbabwe as “genocide”, double or fifteen times that amount in Nigeria and Kenya respectively is not similarly described.
The intrigue deepens when the veracity of the figures themselves are examined. The editor of Pan-Afrikan magazine New African, Bro. Baffour Ankomah reported live from Zimbabwe on Voice of Afrika Radio on 30/06/07. His survey of the official police reports revealed that the number of MDC killed by ZANU-PF was 6, while the amount of ZANU-PF killed by MDC equalled 10. He added that much of the ZANU-PF violence was retaliatory, responding to initial attacks from the MDC. While re-iterating the deplorable nature of any electoral violence, the question has to be asked why were the European media reports so one-sided?
Not only one-sided but downright deceptive given The Times’ recent unreserved apology on 06/07/08 for a story by Christine Lamb published on 29/06/08, which stated that “11-month-old baby whose mother said his legs had been broken when he was dashed to the ground by Zanu-PF thugs”. Add to this Australian writer James Rose’s ghost-written piece under the name of MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai calling for military intervention that appeared in the Guardian on 25/06/08 (that Tsvangirai disavowed the next day) and the deceit ostensibly became standard.
It is not coincidental that the key to the Zimbabwe situation is often the key omission in reports by media institutions of the European axis – the land. After a series of fraudulent treaties by the British South Afrika Company (BSAC), led the notorious colonialist Cecil Rhodes in the late 19th century, the pattern of inequality that persists to this day is that over 80% of the most fertile land is in the possession of Europeans who make up less than 1% of the population. Part of the agreement for independence was that UK and USA would fund the Zimbabwean government to buy back land for the benefit of the people under the “willing seller, willing buyer” programme signed at Lancaster House, London in 1979. Only a fraction of the funds agreed were allocated and by 1997 the UK had reneged on the agreement altogether. In a letter to Kumbirai Kangai, Minister of Agriculture in Zimbabwe written on 6 November 1997, the Labour government’s International Development Secretary, Clare Short wrote:
“We do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe”. She went on to write “We are a new government from diverse backgrounds, without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers.”
News reports tend not to focus on this betrayal of the Zimbabwean people by New Labour and how it feeds into the current crisis.
Some critics of President Mugabe say that the reclamation of farms was politically motivated to revive his flagging popularity. In reality, his government honoured the agreement made at Lancaster House that the “willing seller, willing buyer” would be in place for ten years (1980-1990). However, in a new book called Thabo Mbeki – The Dream Deferred by Mark Gevisser, makes a startling revelation:
“Zimbabwe voluntarily put its own land reform process on hold, because the year it was to begin – 1990 – was the year of the South Afrikan breakthrough, and Mugabe had been persuaded to defer land reform so as not to scare white South Afrikans away from agreeing to majority rule. Mbeki’s conclusion was that because Zimbabweans sacrificed their own rights to land to help liberate their neighbours, South Afrikans owed it to them to support them in their endeavours to get back their land.”
Another popular myth is that the land that has been reclaimed has gone only to Mugabe’s “cronies”. Official figures state that to date over 300,000 families have received land through the land reclamation process. Given that a Zimbabwean family has an average of 8 members that translates to around 2,400,000 people – rather a lot of cronies for one man to have!
The land issue only tends to be mentioned in relation to how the economy is in free fall and people are starving because of the land taken away from white farmers. This argument suggests that even though Afrikans have been working white owned land for over a century, when they take up ownership they instantly forget how to farm. The reality is that it has always been Afrikan farmers that accounted for the majority (75%) of the food consumed by Zimbabweans but even that ability has been hindered by drought and of course sanctions.
The fashionable claim is that sanctions have been targeted at Mugabe and his closest allies. In reality sanctions include denial of credit from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund so that vital resources like farm equipment are beyond the reach of the country. In June 2006 Dutch representative to the European Union, Johan Van Hecke revealed that sanctions had been imposed because of the land reclamation programme and because of “human rights abuses” as is popularly claimed. Further, on BBC TV’s Newsnight on (21/07/08), Mark Ashurst of the Africa Research Institute revealed that:
“Zimbabwe hasn’t had balance of payments support to prop up its currency to prop up its foreign exchange reserves since 1999 and that’s a huge factor in the economic crisis.”
Although it’s hardly a revelation, it is a little surprising that the BBC let it slip out. On the same programme the certainty of comments from Jendayi Frazer from the USA State Department could be interpreted as implicating the USA in the country’s economic woes and its bid for regime change:
“Until they sort out their leadership issue and provide some succession plan we’re gonna continue to see the crisis. And with Robert Mugabe trying to remain as president of Zimbabwe we’re likely to also see a continuing crisis in the economy.”
Many commentators have claimed that the recent presidential run-off was illegitimate given that opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out because of electoral violence. However, although the MDC publicly decried the lack of democracy on the country, they contested three by-elections on the very same day of the presidential run-off, which indicates at best a schizophrenic relationship with Zimbabwean politics and at worse a cynical Machiavellian strategy designed to manoeuvre an unelected politician (Morgan Tsvangirai) into the heart of government.
Europe seems to want it both ways. It decries the impossibility of free and fair elections on the one hand then demands adherence to a favourable result on the other. Suddenly, the 29/03/08 poll that returned figures of 47.9% of the vote for Tsvangirai and 43.2% for Mugabe (although neither got the 50% plus one vote required for outright victory) is seen as sufficient to declare Tsvangirai president. It is a deep irony that a Labour government elected by 21.6% of whole electorate and US administration that has stolen two successive polls (the first, lest we forget with a similar 5 week delay in declaring the result that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission was so castigated for) should even attempt to dictate electoral protocols to another country.
A recent development that speaks both to the lack of a strong Pan-Afrikan media network and as well as the behind the scenes pressure that some Afrikan leaders are being subjected to is the emergence of Afrikan governments and personalities (e.g. Nelson Mandela) openly criticising the Zimbabwean government. Some, in clear attempts to curry favour with their European mentors have chimed with their unrequited tirades. Kenyan Prime Minister, Raila Odinga is a classic example of this when he urged the Afrikan Union to suspend Zimbabwe until President Mugabe allowed “free and fair” elections. It is a position that Baba Alfred Mutasa, political commentator and founder of ZANLA speaking in Voice of Afrika Radio in June 2008, found lamentable:
“I knew Raila Odinga’s father back in the 60s and he was a very principled nationalist. And to find that his son is this compradorian petty bourgeoisie who is not just stupid but very reckless.”
The only true solution to the Zimbabwe crisis is a pan-Afrikan one (see Chinweizu article on p. 18) but in the absence of that “power sharing” may bring some temporary relief through easing of sanctions. But if nothing else, the recent period has demonstrated how firmly entrenched in the European axis the MDC actually is. Indeed, at a community meeting on 05/07/08 in London organised by Moyo Wa Taifa the Pan-Afrikan women’s solidarity network, Bro. Richard Ndlovu representing the MDC confessed that they have “no blueprint” for resolving the land issue in spite of having a decade to develop one. The meeting confirmed, if any more confirmation were needed that the MDC have little to offer other than relentless ‘Mugabe must go’ sloganeering. Thus democracy (or ‘democratic change’) is not the answer, to wit, there needs to be a thorough examination of the usefulness of the whole concept of democracy in relation to Afrikan people and Afrikan culture. The source of the solution in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the Afrikan world is the reclamation of Afrikan land. If “power sharing” brings that that then it’s a promising start. If not then the Chimurenga continues. As Bro. Ldr. Mbandaka asserts:
“We cheapen and bastardise ourselves when we say that tens of thousands of our people died for the vote. Our DNA comes from the land it doesn’t come from democracy. We plant food in our land we don’t plant food in democracy. We walk and dance on the land, we can’t dance on democracy. When we die our bodies are buried in the land, we can’t bury our bodies in democracy. The bones of our Ancestors rest in our land. Our gold, our diamonds are in our land it’s not in democracy. When we pour libation, we pour it in the land we don’t pour it in democracy. We fought for the land and we will get our land back.”
TENDAI MWARI
RIGHTFUL HEIR? (11)
Debate rages over comparison of Kwame Nkrumah with Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe
The Whirlwind #8 (2010)
In terms of leadership, Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and Robert Mugabe occupy very different eras but this has not stopped some commentators identifying some parallels between them. Like Nkrumah, Mugabe led his country to independence amidst a spirit of Pan-Afrikan fervour that attracted worldwide attention. In addition to this a 2004 reader’s poll on the most influential Afrikan leaders in to 20th century in leading Pan-Afrikan magazine New African was topped by Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah with Robert Mugabe coming third after Nelson Mandela. Bro. Baffour Ankomah, editor of New African, thinks the comparison has some uses:
“There are many, many similarities between the two men. If you look at how the western governments have treated Mugabe, they used the same tactics against Nkrumah. They used the same economic sanctions against Nkrumah without even acknowledging that the man was under economic sanctions or that the Ghanaian people saw that the economy was coming down. In 1961 cocoa was selling for £480 for a tonne. By 1965 cocoa had fallen to £65 a tonne and it was the number one export product of Ghana. Nkrumah’s programme hinged on the cocoa price and who controlled the cocoa price? The people over here, in the West. They’ve done the same thing to Mugabe. Imposing economic sanctions on him, yet going around saying that ‘these are smart sanctions’. They imposed economic sanctions on Zimbabwe from 2000 but the media will not report it and who controls the media? Nkrumah was not fortunate at the time because he only had one magazine in the mode of New African – Africa In the World – which was Nkrumah’s own magazine, published from London. Mugabe has been fortunate that there is New African and others that had stood doggedly and said we are going to tell the truth willy nilly.”
Other connections between the two go back to the late 1950s when Zimbabwe’s future President was a teacher in Nkrumah’s Ghana and even met and married his first wife, Sis. Sally Hayfron, there. But a favourable comparison of the two is not shared by all, not even within pan-Afrikan circles. Some commentators, including those referred to as “progressive Pan-Africanists” and “concerned African scholars” such as Syracuse University academic Horace Campbell, author of Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The Exhaustion of the Patriarchal Model of Liberation, demand that “concerned Africans” express their outrage at the Mugabe government’s “wanton destruction” of Zimbabwean’s lives and encourages a rejection of what he sees as Zimbabwean leader’s “crude anti-imperialism.” On the other hand, Campbell’s appraisal of Nkrumah couldn’t be more different, referring to Nkrumah as “a disciple of Garvey and one of the leading exponents of Pan-African liberation…”
In contrast Obi Egbuna of the Pan-African Liberation Organisation has a decidedly different view of Mugabe, calling him a “philosophical product of Kwame Nkrumah, who was the most relentless Afrikan head of state in the propaganda war against imperialism.” Egbuna adds that that “The political opposition to Mugabe coming from the African Communities in the U.S. and Europe is shallow and predictable. These forces always seem to coincidentally criticize governments in Africa the same time they are on the radar screens of the Pentagon, CIA, White House and their allies/stooges in this case Britain.”
Having interviewed President Mugabe six times since 2002, Bro. Ankomah has had the opportunity to canvas Zimbabwe’s elder statesman for his own view of Nkrumah. In an interview on Afrika Speaks with Alkebu-Lan on Voice of Afrika Radio he summarized Mugabe’s position thusly:
“What Mugabe is saying is… we got our ideological grounding from Nkrumah, more or less, we are the disciples of Nkrumah – Nkrumah is the prophet, Mugabe is a disciple. Once you get it from people like Nkrumah, you can’t be a sell-out.” Ankomah also revealed that the red cockerel emblem of ZANU before they joined with ZAPU was the sign of Nkrumah’s CPP party. He added that in MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangiai, Mugabe has his equivalent of Nkrumah’s Danquah-Busia opposition.
Some important parallels in the nature of the external threat are also worthy of consideration. Bro. Ankomah cited the examples of the White House meeting 2nd February 1964 between President Lyndon Johnson and UK Prime Minister Douglas Hume and initiated the process that would lead to the coup that overthrew Nkrumah. In addition, he recounted the story of Zimbabwe’s then Foreign Secretary Stan Mudenge’s discussion with the late Robin Cook, the then UK Foreign Secretary in 2000 as indicative of a regime change plot, when the latter allegedly claimed, “Don’t say we didn’t, warn you. If you don’t get rid of Bob (Robert Mugabe), your people are going to stone you in the streets.” To emphasize the artificiality of the crisis created in Zimbabwe Bro. Ankomah said: “So they’ve planned this one altogether, imposed economic sanctions. The inflation we saw in Zimbabwe. How could Morgan Tsvangirai just lift his hand, like Jesus, and then inflation just fell? It hasn’t happened anywhere before. Because everything was just artificial so you just press the button, remove the artificiality and inflation becomes normal.”
One key difference that has been identified between the two, however, has been the ability to withstand the European onslaught. As Bro. Ankomah asserted:
“Going back to the time when the Portuguese first arrived on the west Afrikan coast, Mugabe has been the only Black Afrikan leader who has been able to withstand the combined might of what I call the nations of European stock. Even Nkrumah fell down within nine years of attack. Nkrumah’s downfall was played around local actors who didn’t understand what he was doing. Mugabe had to be a lot wiser than that and I think by and large he’s been able to withstand the onslaught because he has a good cadre of people behind him who really understand what is actually happening.” Alkebu-Lan Revivalist Movement Spiritual leader, Bro. Ldr. Mbandaka concurred and stated that we should be using Zimbabwe as a case study of how Europe and USA have been unable to topple an Afrikan government on the Afrikan continent “It is the only example that we have so we must study it carefully. In terms a way forward Bro. Ankomah says that Afrikans need to learn the lessons of Nkrumah in order to avoid lamenting forty years down the line and say ‘had we known’:
“Afrikans must now close ranks and support Afrikan heroes like Mugabe. Mugabe has been able to succeed because at least some Afrikans coalesced behind him and stood by him. Afrikan leaders, most of them will not be able to come out openly and say we support the man but behind the scenes they give him support.”
(1) Farirai Machivenyika (07/09/19) Founder, Liberator, National Hero. https://www.herald.co.zw/founder-liberator-national-hero/
(2) Baffour Ankomah (06/09/19) Robert Mugabe detractors dance on his grave. https://newafricanmagazine.com/19646/
(3) Jason Burke and David Smith (06/09/19) Robert Mugabe, former Zimbabwe president, dies aged 95. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/robert-mugabe-former-zimbabwean-president-dies-aged-95.
(4) D. Gazi (2004) Zimbabwe: Racism and The Land Question. Tiger Publishing. p. 7
(5) D. Gazi. p. 171
(6) D. Gazi. pp. 162-174
(7) Ian Scoones, Nelson Marongwe, Blasio Mavedzenge, Jacob Mahenehene, Felix Murimbarimba and Chrispen Sukume (2010) Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths & Realities. James Currey, Weaver Press and Jacana Media. p. 236-40.
(8) AFP (25/11/17) Zimbabwe court rules military takeover legal. https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/africa/2017-11-25-zimbabwe-court-rules-military-takeover-legal/; Gregory Elich (21/11/17) What is Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe? https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/21/what-is-behind-the-military-coup-in-zimbabwe/
(9) Olatunji Heru (2007) Zimbabwe: The Search For Truth: The Whirlwind, Edition 4, p. 20
(10) Olatunji Heru (2008) Land Or Democracy? Truth Has Become The First Casualty In The Battle For Zimbabwe: The Whirlwind, Edition 6, p. 20-1
(11) Olatunji Heru (2010) Rightful Heir? The Whirlwind, Edition 8, p. 21
we ask the question:
MUGABE: What should his legacy be?
1) Why does it seem so hard for Afrikans to adopt a singular narrative on a global issue?
2) Why did Zimbabwe’s domestic affairs attract so much international attention?
3) Can a valid comparison be made of Kwame Nkrumah and Robert Mugabe?
4) Are there anymore ‘Mugabes’ in the Afrikan world today?
Our Special Guest:
Bro. Ldr. Mbandaka: Resident guest who is Spiritual Leader of the Alkebu-Lan Revivalist Movement and UNIA-ACL Ambassador for the UK and national co-Chair of the interim National Afrikan People’s Parliament. Bro. Ldr is a renowned Afrikan-Centered Education Consultant and educator and is a veteran activist of over 30 years standing. He is a featured columnist in The Whirlwind newspaper and author of Mosiah Daily Affirmations and Education: An African-Centred Guide To Excellence.