http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4379940

April 30, 2008 Edition 1

Imraan Buccus

Robert Mugabe successfully stole elections in Zimbabwe in 2000, 2002 and 2005.

Each time he was assisted by the complicity of the South African government and various other forces. It seems clear that the tyrant’s fourth attempt to steal an election will not go so smoothly. Mugabe is losing the support of the Zimbabwean elite that he was previously able to buy off with plunder from his “land reform programme” and his part in the militarised rape of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Moreover, he has lost the support of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and in South Africa civil society, trade unions and democratic elements in the ANC are now in open rebellion against President Thabo Mbeki’s support for Mugabe. Despite Mugabe’s recourse to torture, rape and murder in a last-ditch attempt to intimidate his people, it is clear that the tide is turning.

In South Africa we are confronted by four urgent questions.

The first is how we offer solidarity to the Zimbabwean refugees in our country. The widespread attacks on Zimbabweans by ordinary people and the reaction by our police need to be urgently opposed. We need to recall the solidarity shown to South African exiles in other African countries and demonstrate basic human decency.

The second question that we need to consider is the nature of the flaw in our political elites that has allowed them to become complicit with tyranny.

Failed

Our elites have not only failed Zimbabwe. They also, notoriously, failed Burma on the UN Security Council.

The struggle against apartheid was supported by governments and civil society around the world. One would have thought that the ANC would have taken a similarly activist position towards tyranny in other countries. But instead they have taken the same position towards tyranny in Zimbabwe, Burma and Tibet that Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher took towards apartheid – “constructive engagement” or, in Mbeki’s spin, “quiet diplomacy”. Why do our elites instinctively side with state power rather than people power? Is this a part of the Stalinist history of the ANC? We need to think about this very seriously.

The third question we must ponder is the question about what went wrong in Zimbabwe. The argument that Mugabe was a good leader who went rotten holds no water.

Revisionist Zimbabwean historians have pointed to ruthless abuses during the liberation struggle. And of course Operation Gukurahundi, the ethnic cleansing of the Ndebele in Matabeleland in the early 1980s which cost more than 20 000 lives. This crime against humanity is enough, on its own, to ensure that Mugabe should be called to account for his crimes before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It is clear that the political culture of Zanu-PF was authoritarian and rapacious long before the recent meltdown. Zimbabwe has been governed by a ruthless and predatory elite from the beginning. The seeds of the later crimes, the plunder of the Congo and the ruthless suppression of internal opposition, were planted early on.

What this means is that it is essential to think holistically. Just because a man and a movement opposed one form of tyranny does not mean that they are opposed to tyranny. There is a tremendous difference between using democracy to come to power and being democratic. A democrat is not defined as a person who came to power by democracy.

A democrat is defined as a person who, when in power, welcomes debate and dissent. By this definition it is clear that Zimbabwe has never been a democracy.

The fourth question of urgent importance for us is the question of what we can do to avoid a similar fate.

The first point to make here is that we began our journey on a much firmer footing. It is clear that there is an anti-democratic stand in the ANC, but there are also vigorously democratic elements and the democratic spirit of the community struggles of the 1980s was never fully extinguished.

Strength

Today we have a vibrant media and civil society that is gathering its strength. Movements such as the Treatment Action Campaign and Abahlali baseMjondolo have demonstrated that there is a popular willingness to challenge power even when this is difficult. The recent actions of the South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union and Bishop Reuben Phillip have made it clear that civil society can stand up for justice when the chips are down.

And the widespread excitement with which the actions of the trade union and the bishop were welcomed shows that their call to conscience and to action in the name of conscience has deep resonance within our society.

However, many of our institutions have succumbed to anti-democratic forces, for example the SABC.

If we are to ensure that we avoid the fate of Zimbabwe, we need to build and defend the democratic streams in our national culture and to oppose the anti-democratic streams vigorously and fearlessly.

No one must allow themselves to be intimidated by the claim that it is unpatriotic or even racist to be critical of a liberation movement.

On the contrary, those who wield the most power must accept the most criticism. And a real liberation movement is one that welcomes dissent. Real patriotism abhors slavish obedience and celebrates debate and dissent. That is the stand by which we can defend and depend on our democracy against what Jeremy Cronin famously called the Zanufication of our society. That is the challenge we must all take up.