Is Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe losing his head over the coming elections scheduled for June or is there a shrewd plan behind all his moves? African Business editor, Anver Versi analyses the manoeuvres. .

Robert Mugabe has never been a man to back out of an argument. Not even if his opponent has a whole army with guns trained on his head. It was Mugabe's defiance against Ian Smith that saw an escalation of the war of independence against what was then the illegal government of Rhodesia. He was not prepared to give an inch then and, it seems, he is not prepared to give an inch now despite the massive international campaign unleashed against his rule. Yet Nelson Mandela, who has had his own share of bruising encounters with Mugabe, has called him an astute leader. Like other powerful personalities, Mugabe knows when to use the iron fist and when to deploy his considerable charm. By raising the issue of white owned farms to the top the current international agenda, Robert Mugabe has thrown his last pair of dice. He stands to win all or lose all.

For starters he seems to have thrown everybody into confusion. The land issue has become hopelessly mixed up with the coming elections and by goading and taunting the British Labour government, he has dragged them into the fray. The US, which had kept its distance, has also been roped into the free-for-all although it is still very much on the sidelines. The Commonwealth, already smarting under criticism over its decision to suspend Pakistan following General Musharaff's coup, doesn't want to know. The OAU has been humming and hawing, unable to decide whether nor not to chide Mugabe or tell Britain not to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

The main rival to Mugabe's ruling Zanu PF party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has also had its momentum blunted. As a largely trade union party with strong support in the urban areas, it had hoped to gather support from farm workers whose jobs were threatened by the occupation of white farmlands by ex-combatants. However, it does not want to be seen as a party supported by the very wealthy farm owners nor does it want to be seen as the party against land reforms. Professional associations and urban employers have thrown in their lot with the MDC, as has the British government which by calling for outside observers during the next general elections, is implying that Zanu PF will rig the polls. Initially this came as a relief to the MDC but as the campaign hots up, this 'alliance' is becoming something of a millstone around its neck.

The main plank of the MDC's policies are: a common sense approach to economics, better pay and conditions for workers and a systematic approach to land reform and resettlement. Now it is laying itself open to the charge that it will henceforth dance to the tune of its new pipers - the professional and business alliance, the white farmers and Britain. Zanu PF have not been slow to exploit this juxtaposition. "The British Labour Party is like an extra opposition party here," said George Charamba, Mugabe's spokesman. "They are interfering to block investments and foreign aid and imposing undeclared economic sanctions far worse than those imposed on Ian Smith under UDI".

Whatever the merits of these claims, Zimbabweans still remember support given by the Conservative government to the highly unpopular Abel Muzorewa as leader of independent Zimbabwe in 1981. Lucas Chambositi, a university lecturer says "The British failed to impose their man on us 20 years ago and they are having another go this time around."

Spectacular blunder

The British government's almost unprecedented attack on Robert Mugabe personally, will, in hindsight be seen as a spectacular blunder. Whatever his style of ruling, Mugabe is not a dictator or a despot. He was democratically elected in free and fair elections according to the constitution of the land. When the government presented its amended constitution to a referendum, it lost and Mugabe accepted the defeat graciously. This does not square with the image of a ruthless dictator the British government has been trying to foist on the world. In trying to slot Mugabe into the same sort of category reserved for the likes of Saddam Hussein, the British government has appeared hysterical. Their attitude has gone down like a lead balloon among other African and even developing world leaders.

Of more serious consequence, the uproar created over the land issue has made the position of whites in Zimbabwe, not all of whom are wealthy farmers, almost untenable. Ill thought out pledges to evacuate whites should the situation worsen has caused unnecessary panic and not won the British any friends anywhere. They are now faced with the real prospect of having to host at least 20,000 whites with British passports and at least another 80,000 who have paternity rights. At a time in Britain when the issue of asylum seekers, mainly from eastern Europe has become a political hot potato, the last thing the Blair government wants is heavy influx of Zimbabweans demanding privileged treatment.

The heavy handed approach of the British government has been exposed as little more than bully-boy tactics designed to frighten Mugabe into submission. Instead, he has hit back.

The British probably realised that they had blundered badly and during the first week of April, Peter Haine changed his tune completely. He spent considerable media time trying to damp down the emotional climate and pinning everything on the outcome of the elections. When asked if Britain would cut its aid to Zimbabwe, he said that the British aid component was so small that it would make no difference. He added that economic sanctions would only hurt the poor in Zimbabwe and that the Commonwealth could not suspend Zimbabwe since it was not a military dictatorship, unlike Nigeria under Sani Abacha or Pakistan under General Musharaff. "What we would dearly like to see, " he said, "is a respected African leader, somebody like President Obasanjo of Nigeria, explaining the situation to Mugabe." One would have thought that if President Obasanjo had felt the need to intercede in the matter, he would not have waited for an invitation from Britain.

Potent mix

To add to the potent mix, Ian Smith emerged from the twilight zone and stated that he and Muzorewa would form another party. "We had the happiest blacks in all Africa ," he declared, referring to the Rhodesia era. This drew a storm of protest at the implied racism in the statement and the spectre that the country would be returned to the bad old days if he had his way.

This was the last thing Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the MDC wanted. He has been carefully cultivating an image of pragmatism and promising to deliver through well-thought out economic policies. But in a country still highly sensitive to issues of race and patronising or overbearing attitudes, he must demonstrate that he is his own man and that he has the interests of the majority at heart. The British government's clear leaning towards his party could prove disastrous if the electors feel they are being used by a foreign power to maintain their 'kith and kin' in their present position of high privilege. The fact that some of the white farmers have demonstrated their support for MDC and even used their vehicles to transport farm workers to MDC rallies has not really helped Tsvangarai's cause.

What of the white farmers themselves? The Commercial Farmers Union, under the leadership of Tim Henwood had tried to steer a middle course. It is under intense pressure from its members to take a firm, if not entirely confrontational stand against the government but it seems reluctant to go all out and perhaps provoke the ex-combatants into large-scale violence. If this should happen, there will be little alternative but to call for a state of emergency and indefinitely suspend the elections. Instead, it is demanding the rule of law and an orderly land reform programme. It has focussed on the economic cost to the nation of the occupation of white farms, the threat to foreign investment, jobs and the future prosperity of the country.

Most white Zimbabweans have no intention of leaving the country and abandoning the lifestyles they have become used to in order to set up home in Britain. A good number who left during the 1980s have gone back. They realised that the sort of lifestyle their incomes could buy them in Zimbabwe was completely out of reach in Britain. But of course they have the right to safety and security for themselves and their children. This President Mugabe has promised them but he has warned them that if they provoke violent confrontations with the ex-combatants, they should hold only themselves responsible.

Before we went to press, the Attorney General stated that he would not enforce a court ruling that ex-combatants be forcibly removed from the lands they have occupied. The police have refused to fire on the combatants and in any case, he said, he did not have the resources to carry out any such operation on a national scale. The key to the problem is the wish of the majority of share in some of the wealth generated from their soil. The excessive land ownership by a small minority is seen as the major barrier between the majority and their aspirations.

By rushing a constitutional amendment, which will give the government the long-delayed power to national white-owned farms, Mugabe can claim to have cut the Gordian knot at a stroke. In addition, now that land redistribution has become an act of Parliament, he can negotiate with the ex-combatants to stop their occupation and return the country to a semblance of normality. As it is, many white farmers have shown a hitherto unsuspected willingness to part with some of their land. If Mugabe can pull if off - and this is a big 'if' since the ex-combatants have declared they will not move from the land they 'have seized back', he will emerge as the strong man who helped defuse a potentially catastrophic situation without compromising his principals. This alone could ensure a landslide victory for him personally as President although his party is still likely to lose considerable seats.

Economic effect

So, while Robert Mugabe seems to have worked his election strategy with the brilliance of a field commander, has he overlooked some crucial factors and what will be the economic price the country will have to pay?

To begin with, he may have underestimated the impact of the negative publicity on the electorate and they may well vote against him rather than for the opposition.

Secondly, he may not have given due regard to the people's desire for change. There are cycles in all social organisations when the desire for change becomes overwhelming. The electorate may not be satisfied with the purported change in their relationship with commercial farmers and may demand a completely new set of personal. Voting for the opposition will also give the electorate a sense of power over their own destinies that has been lacking for the past decade or more.

Whatever happens, the one thing every Zimbabwean will demand is a better economic performance. This will be difficult to achieve unless the country can attract vastly more foreign capital. However, the occupation of farm lands, the rhetoric and the images of violence on international television screens have left a very negative impression on people's minds. The treatment of whites, with whom most westerns can identify, can be a killer blow to prospects of investment.

The white farmers, whether one likes to admit it or not, are the backbone of the economy. They have suffered, like everybody else, with the collapse in the price of tobacco, the higher input costs, high inflation and interest rates. With their future in Zimbabwe now very uncertain, the farmers cannot be expected to invest or carry out any long term improvement programmes.

The manufacturing sector, once second only to that of South Africa, has been struggling to survive with the loss of some its traditional markets and the soaring cost of imported inputs. Tourism, on which so much hope was pinned, could dwindle to nothing. In the meanwhile, the war in the DRC is draining government coffers. The state will have little option but to continue its heavy borrowing, thus driving up interest rates and inflation. The immediate outlook, for whichever government comes to power after the elections, is bleak indeed. The only hope on the horizon is that a new government is sworn in and Zimbabwean begins again with a clean slate. If the international community then rolls up its sleeves and digs into its pockets, a long, slow process of recovery can begin.

But Robert Mugabe is unlikely to go without a fight. The implied message is that after him will come the deluge. Only he can control the situation. That is what he is gambling on. That is his last throw of the dice. Which side will it come up on?

Back to the top
Contents