Mugabe shames Africa

Robert Mugabe seems determined to hang on to power in Zimbabwe, even though everything points to him having lost the country's election. He was officially declared the loser of the parliamentary election and he almost certainly lost the presidential election - where we have a farcical situation in which the country's Electoral Commission still has not yet released the official result, two weeks after Zimbabweans went to the polls.

Mr Mugabe is now asking for a second run-off presidential election against his opponent, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai, because he claims no one candidate got over 50 per cent of the popular vote.

The reluctance by the country's Election Commission to officially announce the result of the presidential election is not only shameful but points to a conspiracy by the commission and Mr Mugabe to simply play for time and intimidate voters before a second round presidential election, whenever this may be held.

"If you look at his history, if he has been humiliated or rejected or disillusioned, his response is revenge," Heidi Holland, the author of Dinner With Mugabe, a new book about the Zimbabwean President, was recently quoted as saying.

Since the election, security forces have beaten, arrested and threatened MDC activists. Opposition MDC members were not allowed to present a petition in court calling on the judicial branch to order the Electoral Commission to publish the result of the presidential election.

To make matters worse and to really create tensions in the country, the so-called war veterans - who fought with Mr Mugabe against white rule in the 1970s - and militias belonging to Mugabe's Zanu PF ruling party have been unleashed on white-owned farms to stir up 'anti-colonial' feelings and to intimidate the population.

This is typical Mugabe in action. When under pressure he creates another conflict with an old enemy to win sympathy. It is no different from Saddam Hussein firing missiles against Israel in the first Gulf War to get the support of the Arab world.

In this case Mugabe is trying to get the backing of his African neighbours as well as to associate white rule with the opposition MDC, which of course is absolute nonsense. But his other motive is simply to create a climate of fear and to intimidate his opponents. The pattern has always been the same: ahead of elections in 2000 and 2002, security forces arrested, tortured and killed hundreds of opposition activists.

The shift to the opposition is not at all surprising. Besides the violence and intimidation, Zimbabwe has become an almost failed state, with an inflation rate of 100,000 per cent and public services on the verge of collapse. Zimbabwe has the semblance of a democracy, but this is meaningless when you have a leader who does not play by the rules.

Robert Mugabe has trampled on the free press, interfered with the workings of the courts, suppressed dissent and appointed cronies to run the army and police. His crazy economic policies and confiscation of private farms created unprecedented hardship and poverty.

Although Mugabe began his rule in 1980 by preaching reconciliation and moderate economic policies, his authoritarian Marxist streak - which had long been overlooked by the international community - soon emerged. Only two years after he assumed power, he brutally put down a threat to his rule in Matabeleland, the power base of his one-time ally in the war of liberation, Joshwa Nkomo. A North Korean-trained army brigade was responsible for the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians. Nobody in Africa or elsewhere batted an eyelid.

Things got gradually worse and Mugabe's 2000 shock defeat in a referendum on a new constitution to increase his powers was the last straw for the Zimbabwean President. He played the race card, confiscated 90 per cent of white-owned farms and further trampled on democracy.

Subsequent elections were characterised by vote-rigging allegations and the political and economic situation got worse by the day. Once the bread basket of Africa, half the country's population now lives on food aid.

The real tragedy about Zimbabwe is that the international community has never really exerted enough pressure on Mugabe to respect the rule of law and democratic values. Because the Zimbabwean president is regarded among some circles as a hero of his country's revolution, many countries were reluctant to take a strong stand against him.

The worst offenders are the African nations themselves, especially South Africa, which has tremendous political, economic and moral clout in Zimbabwe. South African president Thabo Mbeki has hid behind a policy of 'quiet diplomacy' in dealing with Mugabe, which in reality amounted to exerting no pressure on the authoritarian leader.

It is indeed sad that the new South Africa, which managed to end apartheid largely because of a very strong anti-apartheid international movement, should now not be spearheading international support to get rid of Mugabe and his authoritarian regime.

The Commonwealth too have been disgracefully silent on Mugabe. True, Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth in 2003 a year after being suspended from the organisation, but that is no excuse for this 53-nation bloc to remain silent as Mugabe turns his country into a failed state. Surely the Commonwealth, which includes so many of Zimbabwe's neighbours could act collectively against Mugabe?

What is needed now is for the international community to make it clear that it will not deal with Mugabe, who has not only shamed his country but the whole of Africa, any further. Europe and the United States, in particular, must promise to provide Zimbabwe with millions of dollars in much needed aid and investment the moment Morgan Tsvangirai becomes President.

Perhaps this pledge of aid will convince the generals to urge Mugabe to step down. Such international support for a new Zimbabwe is the least that can be done for this country, which has suffered for far too long under Mugabe's disastrous rule.