Twisted logic of Zanu(PF) apologists

THE day Robert Mugabe ran off against the will of the Zimbabwean people in the June 27 one-horse race, I said “elements of the left are mediating the Zimbabwean crisis through narrow and paranoid conceptions of threats posed by imperialist agendas”. I added that “the people of Zimbabwe are faced with a repressive regime hiding behind the false consciousness of a pseudo-anti-imperialist discourse”. Zanu (PF) are not the only ones afflicted by this false consciousness. There is a growing queue of apologists whose intellectual output is in the service of Zanu (PF), and its favourite mediator, President Thabo Mbeki. They argue that the Zimbabwean political and economic crisis must be blamed on the imperialist designs of countries such as Britain and the US. According to this logic, Zanu (PF) should be seen as a bulwark against imperialism and neocolonialism. They even insinuate that opposition to Robert Mugabe and Zanu (PF) is “counter-revolutionary” and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has been co-opted by racists and imperialists. Were this to be true, it would still not detract from the fact that the primary problem facing Zimbabweans is that of authoritarian rule by a former liberation movement that has betrayed the revolution. It is, therefore, Zanu (PF), Mugabe and the securocrats who run the country who are actually the lackeys of imperialism. As the South African Communist Party put it: “At the heart of the crisis in Zimbabwe has been a degenerating Zanu (PF), characterised by use of the state as a means to accumulation by elites located in the state, the consequent abuse of state resources, gross mismanagement of the economy, thus leading to a growing gulf between the government and the people.” DURING the liberation struggle, the material circumstances of the people impelled them to act in defence of the revolution while the material conditions they face today force them to act in defence of democracy. To argue that those Zimbabweans who gave the MDC a parliamentary majority in the March 29 election did so under the influence of imperialism is ideological and racial scavenging of the worst kind. When I write about the options facing the MDC, I do so as one committed to democracy. I do this although I sometimes think of the MDC as a sheep in wolf’s clothing because of what at times appears to be chronic strategic ineptitude. Instead of becoming left-wing apologists, we must defend the right of the MDC to oppose Zanu (PF) and respect the choice made by Zimbabweans in March. In the words of African National Congress national executive committee member, Pallo Jordan, we must remember that “Africa waged a century-long struggle against colonialism and apartheid precisely to establish the principle that governments should derive legitimacy through the consent of the governed”. No amount of ideological posturing or sycophancy can undermine this truth. There is nothing “leftist” or “revolutionary” about preventing a democratically elected MDC from taking office. What is revolutionary is intellectual engagement in the service of freedom despite the existence of racist and imperialist agendas that will always be with us. Like Jordan, we must invoke the words of communist Rosa Luxemburg: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.” The best defence against imperialism is freedom for the people of Zimbabwe. This includes accepting that Mugabe and Zanu (PF) did not win the March 29 election. Furthermore, western governments must not be our moral compass or benchmark. As Africans, we must set a higher standard. Matshiqi is a senior associate political analyst at the Centre for Policy Studies.