A win for Mugabe is a lesser evil for Zimbabwe
A potential crisis akin to the recent one in Kenya is probably brewing in Zimbabwe as a result of delayed results and the continued silence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) announced that it won with 50.3% while other sources put the figures at 49%
By Mwesigye Gumisiriza
A potential crisis akin to the recent one in Kenya is probably brewing in Zimbabwe as a result of delayed results and the continued silence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) announced that it won with 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’s loss has buoyed their expectations of his exit. This is because ZANU-PF fortunes have declined. The MDC won 99 parliamentary seats and ZANU-PF 97 seats in the 210-member parliament.
In Kenya, the dispute was about who, between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, had garnered the necessary votes 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. There followed a much-praised pact brokered by Kofi Annan. Wasn’t the deal sealed to protect the vast Western interests that were threatened had conflict and instability continued?
Double-standards on the part of the West is also seen in the victory of the Hamas party in Palestine in 2006, with 74 seats against 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.
The Guardian March 4, 2008 reported that “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.â€
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.
The MDC has the good will of the West. But is the mere victory for MDC the solution to the current situation in Zimbabwe? With biting inflation at 100,000%, shortage of commodities, unemployment and hunger, it will take more than that to reverse the trend.
Western powers are reportedly planning $1b per year in aid for the reconstruction plan for Zimbabwe. Though this may seem the answer, such aid or support to a ruined country may not meet the desired end.
A report by the Agency Coordinating Body for Aghan Relief showed that “peace in Aghanistan is being undermined by the failure of Western nations to deliver promised assistanceâ€.
While $25b was pledged for reconstruction and development, $15b 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 South African analyst said that once Mugabe goes, there will be a rush to get in.
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 for these interests that, by their nature, are not caring 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. This could help forestall a situation where the country is ruthlessly exploited through aid and foreign investment.
The writer is a citizen of Uganda
A potential crisis akin to the recent one in Kenya is probably brewing in Zimbabwe as a result of delayed results and the continued silence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) announced that it won with 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’s loss has buoyed their expectations of his exit. This is because ZANU-PF fortunes have declined. The MDC won 99 parliamentary seats and ZANU-PF 97 seats in the 210-member parliament.
In Kenya, the dispute was about who, between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, had garnered the necessary votes 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. There followed a much-praised pact brokered by Kofi Annan. Wasn’t the deal sealed to protect the vast Western interests that were threatened had conflict and instability continued?
Double-standards on the part of the West is also seen in the victory of the Hamas party in Palestine in 2006, with 74 seats against 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.
The Guardian March 4, 2008 reported that “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.â€
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.
The MDC has the good will of the West. But is the mere victory for MDC the solution to the current situation in Zimbabwe? With biting inflation at 100,000%, shortage of commodities, unemployment and hunger, it will take more than that to reverse the trend.
Western powers are reportedly planning $1b per year in aid for the reconstruction plan for Zimbabwe. Though this may seem the answer, such aid or support to a ruined country may not meet the desired end.
A report by the Agency Coordinating Body for Aghan Relief showed that “peace in Aghanistan is being undermined by the failure of Western nations to deliver promised assistanceâ€.
While $25b was pledged for reconstruction and development, $15b 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 South African analyst said that once Mugabe goes, there will be a rush to get in.
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 for these interests that, by their nature, are not caring 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. This could help forestall a situation where the country is ruthlessly exploited through aid and foreign investment.
The writer is a citizen of Uganda