It has finally happened. After 37 years, the regime of Robert Mugabe has come to an end. Amidst the pressure from the military in the aftermath of the coup, followed by the decision of ZANU-PF to cut ties with their former leader, it took the threat of impeachment and an inglorious exit for the nonagenarian to call it a day to save what is left of his tattered legacy.
In Harare and other major centres in Zimbabwe, there is euphoria. For the first time since the end of minority rule and true independence, Zimbabwe will have a new ruler. But amidst the joy come the following questions.
Will Zimbabwe Emerge as a Democratic Nation?
This is the million-dollar question. It should be mentioned that Zimbabwe, even under white-minority rule (despite what others might say) has never experienced a truly democratic system of government. In colonial times and the UDI period, the franchise was limited to whites and a few select blacks. Under the government, power – despite being split 80:20 between the blacks and whites respectively – was dominated by ZANU-PF, with the orchestration of Gukurahundi and the hounding out of Mugabe’s rival Joshua Nkomo, followed by the merger of ZANU-PF with Nkomo’s ZAPU, setting the stage for de-facto one-party rule. After 2000 and the formation of the MDC, Mugabe has resorted to every undemocratic act to manipulate the system in his favour. Democracy has often just been wallpapering over the cracks.
That’s not to say that this is an opportunity for change. The masses have come out in support for the removal of Mugabe, the allies that kept him in office for so long have deserted him, even his Chinese allies have reportedly said in private they have had enough. But this does not suggest democracy is inevitable.
First, both ZANU-PF and the opposition are in disarray. The rivalry between Emmerson Mnangagwa and Mugabe’s wife, Grace, has led to a bitter factional rivalry that has weakened the party. As for the opposition, with former Mugabe supporters such as Joice Mujuru ending up forced out, there lacks a unified direction. While Morgan Tsvangirai, the head of the MDC, is the clear favourite to challenge, his recent cancer treatment, as well as leadership style, makes his hold on power a lot weaker than in previous years.
Then there are the backstage factors. Naturally, when a country suffers sudden political turmoil, those with the means do what they can to salvage power, wealth and influence. Zimbabwe will most likely be the same. Since Zimbabwe has seen democracy used more as an excuse to legitimise Mugabe, people with these three means will be disinclined to see its introduction immediately, let they lose it all. Rather, a period of provisional governance, such as the one Reuters speculates will emerge, could emerge as a stepping stone to a stable democracy.
Zimbabwe’s Defence Force
Despite the euphoria, people are at the same time concerned about the defence force in power. Former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, on discussing repression, remarked “I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time”. The same can be said about military coups. It must be remembered that history has not been kind to nations where the military has seized power.
Often or not, the difference between nations which have never had a coup and those which have had many is, as Paul Nugent puts it when talking about Cote D’Ivoires first coup in 1999, the ‘military genie in the bottle’. Armies which have never led a coup often are apprehensive of the blowback, often preferring to sit back and watch. However, those that have often seize power multiple times. They gain experience in governing a nation and, despite oppressive means of governance, often find support for a return among some sectors of the masses when democracy fails to live up to expectations.
In Zimbabwe’s case, it is impossible to tell how this is going to pan out. If one took General Constantino Chiwenga at his word, this is just a neccessary transition of power to rebuild an ailing nation from ‘treasonous’ forces inside government. Early signs would support this argument, with the army more or less allowing all political and democratic procedures to run their course. But the whole idea of forcing regime change is not so cut and dry. Their motive, responding to the dismissal of Mnangagwa, contrasts with this theory.
Whoever ends up in control has to sort out the disaster that has become the Zimbabwean economy. Famously dubbed the ‘breadbasket of Africa’ once upon a time, the nation has seen its fortunes tumble. It might as well be argued that a Zimbabwean optimist is one that thinks things cannot get any worse. Decades of kleptocracy, poor policy and ideological point scoring has depleted the treasury. Unemployment, though hard to measure, sits around the 60-95% mark, depending on who is telling the story. Furthermore, Hyperinflation forced the abandonment of the Zimbabwean dollar in favour of using foreign currency. Hyperinflation returned not long after the Zimbabwean government began using bond notes as a form of currency. These are serious issues where there is no easy fix.
However, if we assume that Mnangagwa is likely to assume power, there are some likely policy changes that will be of some benefit. First and foremost, unlike the teacher/career politician Mugabe, Mnangagwa is said to be Zimbabwe’s richest man. Having served as Mugabe’s spymaster in the 1980’s (for which his role in the Gukurahundi massacres means he is still reviled amongst the Matabele population), Mnangagwa has used every opportunity (much like Mujuru and other high ranking officials) to enrich himself, with speculation he even profited from Zimbabwe’s incursion into the Congo during the late 90’s.
Despite this dubiousness, Mnangagwa has shown he more than willing to work with persons Mugabe would consider ideological enemies. Mnangagwa has previously stated the need for a strong agricultural sector, something non-existent since the forced acquisition of white-owned farms begun in the early 2000s. Both he and Tsvangirai want the return of white farmers to boost the economy. Whether they will come back or, alternatively, cause friction among those who took ownership of the land in the aftermath of their expulsion is yet to be seen.However, more will need to be done.
Indigenisation policies orchestrated by Mugabe, whilst redistributing power to native Zimbabweans, has been a spectacular failure, with foreign investment drying up. Likewise, the nation’s penchant for state-ownership instead of private enterprise, particularly with the nations bountiful diamond mines, will be something that needs review. This may seem a simple fix, but it is a complicated issue, one that needs serious reform just to stem the tide of economic disaster.
It is safe to say whatever positives that have come from Robert Mugabe’s rule, be it education or health-wise, has been completely forgotten in the shadow of the misrule and repression that he openly endorsed. His role as a freedom fighter has brought admiration and affection for him in the past, but these days it is hard to reconcile that image with that of the tyrant whom many see as worse than their white oppressors. He will be remembered as one of Africa’s self-centred dictators, and the man who broke Zimbabwe’s heart.
Zimbabwe is in for a period of uncertainty. How long it lasts and how well the country recovers is yet to be seen. But right now, any prediction of how this transpires is just that. Zimbabweans may celebrate the removal of a tyrant, but there is an old saying – ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. If the best-case scenario prevails, Zimbabwe may return to its mantle as the ‘breadbasket of Africa’. If it’s the worst-case scenario, people may well start reminiscing about the Mugabe years.
Investing in Zimbabwe – Gamble or Jackpot?
After nearly four decades of rule, Robert Mugabe finally stepped down as president of Zimbabwe late last year. A nation that has been crippled by corruption, plagued by poverty and ostracised from the international community now has an unprecedented opportunity to reform its economy and re-establish itself as a major African power. President Emmerson Mnangagwa has already announced his intention to revive the country’s flagging finances, open up to foreign investors and crack down on corruption.
The first signs are encouraging. On January 15th, South African tycoon Robert Gumede pledged to invest $1.2 billion in the country to develop IT and infrastructure projects. But Mnangagwa and his new government must learn from past mistakes if Zimbabwe is to realise its potential. Otherwise, the country will almost certainly lapse back into the stagnation, inequality and squalor that came to define the Mugabe era.
Is Zimbabwe a bull market?
If history is any guide, foreign investors would be wise to play it safe. This is not the first time a hopeful figure ousts an ageing African dictator after decades of misrule, promising reform only to prove themselves equally unfit for the task. The most notable example is perhaps the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which spent three decades under the thumb of its own Mugabe-like figure: Mobutu Sese Soko. Mobutu, a textbook totalitarian, embezzled substantial amounts of state aid, played minority groups against each other and ruled with an iron fist.
After his ouster in 1997, hopes were high that the DRC’s new leader – Laurent Kabila – would steer the country in a more judicial direction. Instead, Kabila maintained the same power structure as his predecessor and ramped up the violence. His forces slaughtered thousands of Rwandan refugees within months of taking the presidency. Assassinated by one of his own bodyguards just four years into his regime, Kabila was replaced by his son, Joseph, who is still clinging to power today.
Though Joseph Kabila has proven to be slightly less bloodthirsty than the father, he appears to be every bit as addicted to his position. Despite agreeing to step down in December 2016, Kabila has repeatedly delayed elections, citing logistical obstacles and financial deficiencies. Protests at his continued reign have become increasingly violent – seven were killed at the turn of the year – while his most popular political opponent, Moïse Katumbi, has been hounded out of the country on entirely politically motivated fraud charges.
Recent polls suggest Katumbi would replace Kabila with ease, though the former provincial governor and current opposition leader is reluctant to return to his homeland as he fears for his life. Katumbi is asking for international protection and is leveraging his time abroad to maintain global pressure on Kabila’s regime.
Unsurprisingly, foreign investment in the DRC has cratered. Most outside commercial interests in the country are concentrated in the mining sector – itself embroiled in international scandals involving Dan Gertler, an Israeli tycoon added to the U.S. sanctions list for his ties to the murderous leadership in Kinshasa. Economic development has stagnated and the country’s GDP per capita stands at around half of its 1970s levels.
There are eerie parallels – not to mention unsavoury connections – between the Congolese and Zimbabwean political ordeals. When Robert Mugabe came to power as the first prime minister of the newly liberated Zimbabwe in 1980, his appointment was greeted with rapturous optimism by the world. Mugabe was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize the following year. Unfortunately, the ‘freedom fighter’ rapidly showed his true colours, using intimidation, bribery and, at times, outright slaughter to maintain his grip on power. The Matabeleland Massacres alone which claimed between 10,000 and 20,000 civilian victims between 1983 and 1987.
Mugabe prioritised military endeavours and total control over society, famously proclaiming in 1998 that “countries don’t go bankrupt!” when sending troops to the Congo in support of the elder Kabila. At the same time, he oversaw the decimation of his own country’s economy. Mugabe’s continued threats to nationalize the nation’s best performing industries has discouraged foreign direct investment (FDI). In 1992, the Land Acquisition Act decreed that the government could lawfully strip white landowners of their property and redistribute it among the indigenous population.
This bill was forcibly enacted in 2000 when 4,000 white farmers were forced into giving up their land. Mugabe then gifted the assets to friends, relatives and assorted cronies instead of promoting the interests of impoverished Zimbabweans. Agricultural output plummeted immediately. The resulting food shortages prompted the need for increased imports, financed by an unsustainably zealous attitude towards money-printing.
Predictably, inflation spiralled out of control. At its peak in 2008, monthly inflation reached 7,900,000,000% and prices doubled overnight. Gross national income (GNI) per capita fell from $890 USD in 1990 to just $300 in 2008; only in recent years has it returned to the previous levels. Even now, inflation remains at 348%. The industrial sector is operating at below 30% capacity and unemployment remains above 90%. Clearly, reform is needed – and fast.
Can Mnangagwa do it?
Fortunately for him, Zimbabwe’s economic opportunities are still there for the taking. The country was formerly known as the “breadbasket” of Africa, but a glance at its natural resources makes such a description seem positively miserly. With the world’s third-largest reserves of platinum, the fifth-biggest lithium production output and plentiful mines of coal, copper, diamonds, gold and iron ore, the country is a veritable cornucopia of resources. Mnangagwa hopes to harness that potential with a raft of measures designed to boost the economy by 4.5% in 2018.
Among other incentives, Mnangagwa has pledged to repeal the indigenisation law (so crucial to Mugabe’s regime and so damaging to the economy) from all industries except platinum and diamonds. He has also indicated that local businesses will be granted a tax amnesty on interest and fees, allowing them to clear debts and concentrate on the future. Additionally, he will also need to introduce a stable domestic currency in order to combat cash shortages that currently result in Zimbabweans queuing outside banks for days on end. Only then will the target of 4.5% become feasible.
Democracy just as important as the dollar
Even if Mnangagwa is successful in enacting his proposed measures (in itself a tall order), all that will mean nothing if he can’t get his own house in order. Corrupt political institutions will not encourage FDI or catapult the country out of its current pariah state, and if Zimbabwe is to flourish, it will need the help of the international community.
The signs thus far do not seem encouraging. New Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi has dismissed calls for electoral reform, claiming they are not needed. Mnangagwa’s opponents say that the new president – and longtime Mugabe lieutenant – will turn out to be a carbon copy of his predecessor. Unless Mnangagwa can banish such anxieties and demonstrate a real desire to reform, Zimbabweans could come to face the same Sisyphean fate as their Congolese counterparts.
Zimbabwe’s President Announces the Country’s First Free Elections
Zimbabwe’s President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has declared a clean break with the past by announcing the country’s first post-Mugabe elections.
The elections, which are expected to take place in the next four to five months, will be completely free and fair, according to the new president, Under his predecessor, Robert Mugabe, elections were rigged, opponents were intimidated and calls for electoral reform were either ignored or silenced.
The move is expected to form part of a charm offensive for Mnangagwa to attract much-needed investment into the country. Under Mugabe, the once-prosperous Zimbabwean economy went into freefall with land forcefully reallocated to party cronies and the imposition of a harmful indigenisation law which curtailed potential investment from abroad.
Some remain cynical over the President’s bon homie. Up until the coup in November, Mnangagwa was Mugabe’s longstanding ally and henchmen. The opposition has said Mnangagwa’s Zanu PF has already made moves to win the rural vote by gifting all-terrain vehicles to tribal chiefs. Something the President has refuted.
Mnangagwa, nicknamed ‘the crocodile’ for his political cunning, has said he plans to attend the Davos Economic Forum later this month. He has also expressed interest in reforging close ties with Britain, its former colonial power.
Standing Defiant: African Countries Respond to Trump’s Comments
Trump’s recent bout of racism has given African states the opportunity to exert considerable agency on the world stage and also take the moral high ground of dignity and respect. Though Trump’s comments are of a vulgar and vile nature, they represent nothing new: African countries are severely misunderstood and misrepresented in mindsets and media, in particular by those of some western publics.
This is to everyone’s detriment, as African countries are strategic partners in trade and security and will only grow more vital to the state of global, economic and political affairs – it is estimated that the majority of the world’s population growth will take place on the African continent.
The African Union’s Response
Trump’s comments are an opportunity for the African Union, or AU, and for individual African states to exert agency and also strengthen their moral standing. Trump’s outright racism and the ensuing African diplomatic response and the strong voices on social media represent a key moment in recognising Africa’s all too often under-appreciated importance to global affairs. The African Union condemned Trump’s comments in the strongest of terms, and issued a statement declaring that:
“The African Union Mission wishes to express its infuriation, disappointment and outrage over the unfortunate comment made by Mr. Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, which remarks dishonor the celebrated American creed and respect for diversity and human dignity.” The comments were further characterized by African envoys as “outrageous, racist, and xenophobic.”
Botswana has been a major voice in this response, describing the comments as “irresponsible, reprehensible, and racist.” Among the larger African states, Nigeria has not issued an official response, though South Africa is issuing a diplomatic protest over the comments, stressing that “relations between South Africa and the United States, and between the rest of Africa and the United States, must be based on mutual respect and understanding.” US diplomats were summoned in Ghana, Botswana, and Senegal – more African countries are expected to follow suit.
American Views on Africa
The racism and ethnocentrism inherent in labelling “distant” countries (such as Haiti and nations in Africa) pejoratively is nothing new. Though most Americans would not express their worldviews in such crass and vulgar terms, there is widespread ignorance about African countries, with little recognition that African countries represent strategic trade and security partners, not to mention their vast cultural wealth. This problem lies in all facets of American society, from predominantly negative and homogenising news coverage about the African continent to the Eurocentric focus of the education system.
These comments were made in a larger context of domestic demographic change within the US, in which white people will enter minority status by 2044, in addition to the global power shifts of the wider world. Not only are Trump’s comments steeped in racism and ignorance, but they represent the uncertainty and deep discomfort many white Americans feel in the midst of the changing domestic demographics and a world order in which the US is no longer the lone superpower.
Africa is the Future
The African continent is the future, as African population growth will account for the majority of the world’s global population with half of the world being African by 2100. African countries are already strategic partners in trade and security, and will only become stronger players in global political and economic affairs.
Though it is certainly a desired goal for public opinion – the worldviews of western publics in particular – to recognise and appreciate the importance of African countries in their right and their integral significance to international relations, in some respects it doesn’t matter what Americans might think about a massive continent of 54 countries. As John and Jean Comaroff have written in ‘Theory from the South‘, “Lagos is not catching up to us. Rather, we are the ones catching up to Lagos.” African countries are not waiting on Western publics’ enlightenment.
Due to the rise of emerging powers changing the global landscape of power relations, African countries have more opportunity than ever to exert agency in selecting their partners and leveraging relations for national gain. Though the US is a key economic partner for much of the continent, African countries have many other options and it is well known that the approach of China and other emerging powers are, in many respects, regarded more positively than traditional western approaches. Relations between the US and African countries have been marked by longstanding goodwill, but Trump’s comments may complicate relations, ranging from security cooperation to trade ties.
Most important is African ownership of African development, in which the harmonisation of external partners aligns with domestically articulated goals and aims in respect to the continent’s nations. African countries, and all of the diversity within them, must be appreciated in their own right and understood on their own terms.
African countries have their own visions and national development plans and are charting a course marked by innovation and holistic strategies aimed at meeting both human and environmental needs. It is time African countries are recognised and respected for the leaders they are on the world stage and that western publics realise that society’s global future is very much an African one.
Trump’s comments are of course vulgar and crude, but should make people think very seriously about society’s own failings in how people portray – and learn about – Africa, an incredibly diverse continent of 54 countries, from our media to our classrooms. Africa is the future, and – following Trump’s comments – African countries have taken the opportunity to exert agency on the world stage and take the moral high ground.
More on Africa
Investing in Zimbabwe – Gamble or Jackpot?
After nearly four decades of rule, Robert Mugabe finally stepped down as president of Zimbabwe late last year. A nation...
Standing Defiant: African Countries Respond to Trump’s Comments
Trump’s recent bout of racism has given African states the opportunity to exert considerable agency on the world stage and...
The Migrant Crisis in Europe: What Will 2018 Bring?
As 2017 drew to a close, the migrant crisis in Europe quietly slipped away from the main media headlines around...
Cryptocurrencies5 days ago
Ripple and MoneyGram: A Proof of Concept for the Use of XRP?
Cryptocurrencies4 days ago
XRP, NEO, Monero, IOTA: Can One of the New Kids on the Block Dislodge Bitcoin?
Cryptocurrencies4 days ago
ICOs: The New Gold Rush
Europe3 days ago
Silvio Berlusconi: Why Italy and Europe May Need Him
Cryptocurrencies4 days ago
Bitcoin Bubble: Cryptocurrency Values are Plunging
Cryptocurrencies5 days ago
Blockchain: Could It Improve the Quality of Financial Reporting?
America3 days ago
UN Drug Treaties Need to Rethink Cannabis
Global Affairs5 days ago
The Migrant Crisis in Europe: What Will 2018 Bring?