The recent propaganda in western media describes Zimbabwe as a failed state ruled by a dangerous dictator. Accordingly, the source of all ills that are plaguing the country is said to be this tyrannical ruler and his one party rule. So, putting an end to the current regime, and imposing a Western-style democracy, is a highly important agenda for the liberation of Zimbabweans. Besides, in order to achieve these noblest of aims of western powers, an intervention on humanitarian grounds is demanded. As a first step, the west has proposed sever sanctions on Zimbabwe in the line of what we saw in Iraq before the infamous America’s intervention to liberate Iraq’s people from her rulers.
Most readers will know that it was white setters who, in the 1890s, occupied the country that were to call Southern Rhodesia. Soon they laid foundations of the racially skewed land ownership that remains at the heart of its turbulent politics. In 1923, Southern Rhodesia was annexed to the British crown; its African inhabitants thereby became British subjects, and the colony received its basic constitution.
After the onset of self-government in 1923, the major issue in Southern Rhodesia was the relationship between the European settlers and the African population. And, in 1930, Southern Rhodesia adopted a land apportionment act imposing that about half the total land area, including all the mining and industrial regions and all the areas served by railroads or roads, was reserved for Europeans. Most of the rest was designated as Tribal Trust Land, native purchase land, or unassigned land. Later acts firmly entrenched the policy of dividing land on a racial basis.
Similarly, measures were taken in political sphere to guarantee white settlers dominance. Property and education qualifications for voting were put in place. Although slightly modified over the years, they ensured a situation up to 1979 in which whites had 95% of the votes in national elections, while they were never more than 5% of the population.
During the mid-1950s, as the world was overflowing with national liberation movements, a Black Nationalist movement emerged in Rhodesia. The Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) - closer to people’s China-and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU)-closer to soviet Russia-both espoused an increasingly militant nationalism. ZANU came to be led by Robert Mugabe and drew on a largely Shona speaking majority, while Joshua Nkomo led ZAPU, supported primarily by the Sindebele speaking minority.
Problems in Rhodesia deepened after this, largely as a result of regional and international political pressure, African nationalist demands, and African guerrilla activities. Members of African nationalist groups were increasingly subjected to persecution and arrest. Nevertheless, guerrilla activity continued. Meanwhile, the British government had begun new consultations on the conflict. Negotiations that began at Lancaster House, in England, resulted in an agreement, on a new, democratic constitution, democratic elections, and independence. Following elections held in February, Robert Mugabe became the first prime minister and formed a coalition government that included Joshua Nkomo. The independent nation of Zimbabwe was proclaimed on 18 April 1980.
When Zimbabwe gained independence, 46.5% of the country’s arable land was still owned by around 6,000 commercial farmers. Mugabe accepted a “willing buyer, willing seller” plan as part of the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, among other concessions to the white minority. As part of this agreement, land redistribution was blocked for a period of 10 years.
The Thatcher government had begun to deal with the land issue, as did her successor, John Major. But when Tony Blair took over in 1997, they simply dropped doing anything about it. Consider the implications of the long struggle; the nationalists, who had the repossession of land as a key objective of their struggle, were now being told by the British government that they were not going to go ahead with it. The Zimbabwean government waited patiently for more than 10 years, but the British government defaulted. And the Zimbabweans were left with no choice but to occupy the lands that were usurped from them and therefore, rightly belong to them. Indeed, in the larger context of Africa it is a birth right to have land inherited from parents. This explains why local people love him and those conditioned by western training demonize him.
Of course, there are some things which President Mugabe and his colleagues have done are totally wrong - as the police beating of Morgan Tsvangirai. Mugabe minus his shortfalls, corruption and beating opposition members is still a true African hero. This is why very few African leaders are willing to raise a finger against him, and can also explain why the sensible ones have kept mum. He is a true Pan-Africanist, and a dedicated anti-imperialist who stands strong against forces of Western imperialism in Africa. This is why the West hates him and wants to see him out of power. Zimbabwe’s sovereignty is in danger! There is a neo-imperialist project in the guise of humanitarian intervention in Zimbabwe; to introduce western style democracy and put a puppet regime that will cater to the needs of western powers.