By Emeka Alex Duru
Since Tuesday, November 15, 2017, when the uncertain political developments in Zimbabwe culminated in the incursion of the military and apparent ouster of the President, Robert Mugabe the concern of analysts has been on the future of the country, subsequently.
Though the Zimbabwean Military High Command, led by General Constantino Chiwenga, had laboured to sell the impression that what took place was not coup but an attempt to rid the country of criminals at the corridors of power, it is almost certain that Mugabe’s 37 years of rulership may have come to an abrupt end.
There were speculations during the week on the 93-year old guerilla veteran being persuaded to embark on exile in a nearby country. Sources, in fact, disclosed that Mugabe’s estranged deputy, Emmerson Mnangagwa, who he sacked penultimate week, essentially to clear the way for his wife, Grace, to succeed him, was being considered to head an interim government being discussed. Some are even suggesting a coalition government that would see the country’s leader of the opposition, Walter Tsvangirai, playing a role.
But what has not been conclusively determined, is how far any of the current hazy arrangements would go in reviving the obvious comatose economy of the country that was once touted as one of the most promising states in the continent.
Zimbabwean and indeed, the Mugabe story, is an anti-climax of sort. At independence in 1980, the country held out huge promises. With abundant human and material resources, the erstwhile Rhodesian enclave, had offered an excellent example of what a people, who won independence through blood and iron, could do with freedom.
What more, led by Mugabe, who could be said to have seen it all, working and walking through the bush in grueling guerilla encounter with the minority white rulers – a feat that earned him 10-year sentence on allegation of sedition, Zimbabwe had presented an image of a work in progress.
But with time, due largely to ego on the part of the President that gradually slipped to despotism, coupled with unceasing distraction from the West that regularly engaged him on account of his leadership style that they were not comfortable with, the country began to slide in essence and public reckoning until its current state of literally being an object of derision by critics.
While the drift lasted, Zimbabwe came under severe sanctions from the West. For example, the United States in 2003 imposed targeted sanctions, a travel ban and an asset freeze against Mugabe and his close associates, citing the government’s human rights abuses as well as evidence of rigged elections.
In the process, the country’s economy was severely hurt, while its currency lost value tremendously.
What may not be readily certain, is whether any of those being touted as likely successor to Mugabe, has the capacity to halt this drift. Political and economic experts are of the opinion that reversing the trend and repositioning the country, require somebody, possibly, a fresh hand with ideas on how to steer the ship of state, aright.
This is the fear many have on Mnangagwa, seen by the Zimbabwean leadership elite as, the man that could inherit power from Mugabe. His long period of tutelage under the President, should, ordinarily, earn him automatic elevation to the high office. It should also allay the fears of the country drifting further. For one, he is a core member of Mugabe’s ruling circle and a combat-hardened veteran of the struggle for liberation from white minority rule. In fact, by 2000, he had been mooted as the likely successor to the President, in even official quarters.
But like Mugabe, many factors count against him. At 75, he is essentially of the inflexible old brigade. There are even allegations that he is more ruthless and repressive than his boss.
A report by the Cable Network News (CNN), had during the week, indicated that “the fear of Mnangagwa stems from his position as Mugabe’s enforcer and head of the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO), or secret police, and his alleged role in the 1983-84 massacres of the Ndebele ethnic group in Matabeleland, a region in Zimbabwe’s south west that was a center of political opposition to Mugabe’s regime”.
Diplomats, thus, insinuate that replacing Mugabe with Mnangagwa, would not have translated to any meaningful change in the country. “It is like substituting six with half a dozen. He cannot be less guilty than Mugabe. He may just be playing a fast one on the people. He may be playing the Lamb now that he is not in control but I am sure that the moment he gains access to power, he will manifest the same tendencies as Mugabe. After all, they had both been together and in accord, till they fell apart, recently.
“At the root of the whole thing is struggle for power. Even the Army is not that patriotic. You cannot rule out the soldiers having their own agenda. They may also want to have a shot at the political leadership of the country, if given the chance. It is rather, the common Zimbabweans that are being manipulated and the country’s democracy being trampled upon”, said, a diplomatic staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who asked not to be mentioned.
The fear of what the developments in Zimbabwe portends for democracy in even the continent, is what scholars of international relations have been bothered with since the uncertain developments in the country.
But a Professor of International Law at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, (NIIA), Lagos, Fred Aja Agwu, dismissed the fears, in an encounter withTheNiche, stressing that there was no democracy in the country, in the first place.
According to him, “The ouster of Mugabe does not portend anything for democracy in Zimbabwe because there was no democracy in that country in the first place. And the fact that there was no democracy in Zimbabwe was not the making of Mugabe either. It was the making of the West, which practically turned that country into a besieged “city” on account of Mugabe’s arbitrary approach to socio-economic reconstruction when the West reneged on Lancaster House agreement.
“You cannot have democracy in a besieged situation in which self-preservation is usually uppermost in the consciousness of the government of the day. There was no democracy in the defunct Soviet Union because the “rest of the world”, led by the West had conspired to intervene and dislodge the Bolsheviks. But this, however, is not to justify everything that Mugabe might have done wrong, like his self-perpetuation and not laying a solid foundation for succession.
“The “coup” in Zimbabwe does not equally portend anything for democracy in Africa because, when you look at political developments in countries like Burundi, Cameroun, Rwanda, and Uganda, including our own country – Nigeria – just to name a few, you certainly cannot but conclude that democracy still faces a bleak prospect on the African continent”.
Agwu added that it must be mistaken to be sold on the sentiment that democracy is the best form of governance in Africa where the institutions that would enable its existence and consolidation are non-existent.
“Democracy”, he stressed, “is actually a bourgeois indulgence for the Western nations that have developed its requisite institutions and are agreed on some vital national values. This is not yet the case in many African countries, not even in Botswana that is advertised today as a “poster child” on democratic practice in Africa”.
The best lesson for African countries in what is happening in Zimbabwe, according to Agwu, is to start building the institutions of democracy – vibrant and inclusive socio-economic and political conditions.
This, he said, could start with the present crop of African leaders focusing on the developmental state, adding that efforts must also be geared towards the unification of the people on basic values, even if it entails some form of benevolent dictatorship at the outset, provided all is for public good.
Many buy into the views by the Senior Research Fellow. The fear however, is if the soldiers do not dig in and cause further distortion on the body politics of the country. If they do, as it is feared in some corners, Zimbabwe may see itself among the crisis-ridden nations as Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, Egypt, The Gambia, among others, that had witnessed long period of dictatorship, at various times.
