A Win for Mugabe is a Lesser Evil for Zimbabwe

Today, this article was published in The New Vision newspaper but of course edited to fit the 600-word limit yet the original piece was 986 words. It is my opinion on why Robert Mugabe should win the elections or put more bluntly, why he should remain the President.

To do justice to all who may want to crucify me, here is the argument in full as I sent it to the newspaper:

A Mugabe Win is a Lesser Evil

A potential electoral crisis akin to the recent one in Kenya is probably brewing in another African country—Zimbabwe as a result of delayed results from the elections held last month. There are claims and counter-claims of victory spiced with a lot of speculation. This is all happening amidst a backdrop of inadequate communication and proper knowledge of what is actually happening on the ground.

There have been varying projections of what each of the parties involved in the recent elections have achieved. This has also not been helped by the continued silence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). When the elections had been concluded, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) announced that it won with a 60%. This claim has since reduced to 50.3% while other sources put the figures at 49% for Morgan Tsvangirai and 42% for Robert Mugabe.

The so-called international community have weighed in with a call for a speedy release. Though such calls are made under the guise of ensuring democracy and good governance, it is hard to conceal the fact the likelihood of Mugabe loss has buoyed their expectations of his exit. With the indications showing that the ZANU-PF [Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front ] did not perform as well as previously thought against the MDC; the latter winning 99 seats vis-a-vis the former’s 97 seats in the 210-member parliament.

Compare this scenario with Kenya in the December 2007-Februrary 2008 period, when there was a somewhat similar election-related uncertainty. The dispute was about who, between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, had garnered the votes necessary to be declared President. The reaction of the international community was to push for a negotiated settlement between the two than to ascertain the winner and possibly an answer to the most important question. There followed a much-praised pact brokered by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General. Though this seemed a measure to prevent the country from slipping to further chaos, will it address the fundamental flaws exhibited in the politics and socio-economic situation? Note that up to now, there is a stalemate of the formation of the government.

Wasn’t the deal sealed to protect the vast Western interests that were threatened by continued conflict and instability?

Another scenario to bring the double-standards of the West into perspective is the victory of the Hamas party in Palestine in 2006 with 74 seats to the ruling Fatah's 45. This provided Hamas with the ability to form a government but the reaction of the international community to a clearly democratic process and expression of the people’s will was to threaten to cut aid! According to The Guardian of 4 March 2008: “The 2006 election result was seen as an affront to the central premise of the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East-that democratic elections would inexorably lead to pro-western governments.”

When contrasted with Zimbabwe, the policy seems to be that a “democratic” process should be one that eliminates Mugabe, in particular, and the ZANU-PF from power. But by the fact that, even in the parliamentary lections, the MDC did not have a landslide victory, this is still a long way off.

It is undeniable that MDC is supported by UK, US and others, or at least has their goodwill. But is the mere victory for MDC the solution to the current situation that Zimbabwe is in?

With inflation at more than 100,000%, a shortage of commodities, unemployment, hunger and an economy in shambles, it will take more than that to reverse the trend.

The New Vision of 7 April 2008 carries a Reuters story (“Western powers plan $ 1b per year for Zim”) on the reconstruction plan for Zimbabwe that Britain is working on with the US, European Union, World Bank and IMF that would require an annual injection of US$ 1 billion in foreign aid. Though this may seem the answer, such aid or support to ruined country most likely may not meet the desired end. Consider a report released by the Agency Coordinating Body for Aghan Relief (ACBAR) which showed that “peace in Aghanistan is being undermined by the failure of Western nations to deliver promised assistance”. While US$ 25 billion was pledged for reconstruction and development, US$ 15 billion has been spent, of which about 40% “has returned to donor countries in corporate profits and salaries”! This is in addition to the fact that not all the donors have honoured the amounts pledged!

A Reuters article (“Investors eye Zimbabwe with new interest”, 2 April 2008) shows the increasing interest, albeit cautious, of investors in Zimbabwe; some have made overtures. Probably what sums this kind of interest is the South African analyst who said “"Once Bob (Mugabe) goes, there will be a rush to get in. People who are already positioned will make a lot of money."

While there is an urgent need to find a solution to the Zimbabwe problem, a win for Mugabe at this time may actually be a lesser evil than a win for Tsvangirai, which will open the door wide for these interests that, by their nature, are not benevolent to the ordinary people in the long run.

The Mugabe government in 2007 passed the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Bill, which requires businesses to comply with at least 51% indigenous shareholding, including mergers, demergers, restructuring, acquisition of controlling interest and investment. The stated objective is to establish a national economy, majority owned and managed by Zimbabweans. May be this could help forestall a situation where the country is ruthlessly exploited through aid and foreign investment.

Bearing in mind that the sanctions have partly contributed to the economic situation, may be the March elections are the awakening call to the ZANU-PF government to work towards surmounting these challenges. They are thus in a better position to do so with the partnership of all citizens and stakeholders, not excluding the MDC.