Throughout coming weeks, with the election drawing ever nearer,
John Kerry and other ranking Democrats will expectedly conflagrate
a four-years-gone scrum over “bogus balloting” when campaigning in
a certain panhandle state. If desirous of studying true voter
disenfranchisement, scandal in electorate and gravitas of a vote,
attention should rather be turned to a similarly, but in this case
realistic, divisive issue in a certain sub-Saharan African nation:
Zimbabwe.
Shortly after the United States holds inaugural ceremonies in
early 2005, Zimbabwe hosts a general election for their legislative
body. This serves as the nation’s first “popular” vote since
President Robert Mugabe rigged a 2002 election to continue his
long-standing rule over what is quickly becoming one of Africa’s
bleakest countries.
The magnitude of the current tragedy in Zimbabwe can only be
appreciated when characterized against how prosperous it once was.
As recently as 1997, it boasted one of the fastest growing GDPs in
all of Africa–once widely regarded as the “breadbasket” of the
continent. In just under seven years the situation quickly shifted
from abounding to desolate. Now, all it can lay claim to–besides
Victoria Falls, one of the world’s tallest, most majestic
waterfalls–is the world’s steepest inflation rate at 400 percent.
Matching that is an economically-induced starvation epidemic that
could reasonably be considered genocide by the hand of Mugabe.
After spending considerable time there, rights watchdog Samantha
Power published a piece for the Atlantic Monthly in late 2003
elaborating the destruction of Zimbabwe’s welfare. Much of the
history she provided remains outside the scope of typically visible
media. It bears frequent repeating.
Modern Zimbabwe began in a 1980 coup when Mugabe overthrew the
white ruling power of then Rhodesia. The civil war that took place
killed nearly 30,000 people but replaced what was widely regarded
as an oppressive colonial regime. Mugabe and his ZANU party quickly
took over active leadership of the country and installed new
government; but there remained a significant deal of white
influence, especially in control of large commercial farmland.
The current plight did not come to the forefront for another 20
years. In 2000, Mugabe called for a land reform effective
immediately. Clamoring for such reorganization had existed for some
time–but Mugabe’s implementation was both sudden and discordantly
executed. The land seizures served as an attempt to forcibly
restructure Zimbabwe’s social constitution, but succeeded only in
marking the opening stages of the nation’s demise.
Farmers who resisted Mugabe’s demands of forfeiture saw their
crops burned and their farmhands beaten or killed. All told, 4,000
farm owners were displaced for redistribution of land. Many fled
the country, with a fairly sizeable number relocating in nearby
Zambia (whose economy, not coincidentally, is currently
experiencing significant growth). Those who did not flee were
likely killed along with their harvest.
Now the arable land, which the whites previously owned 70
percent of, is poorly managed into producing meager output or lies
entirely dormant. The exile caused an elimination of nearly a third
of Zimbabwe’s profits from foreign exports, also fronting a wave of
starvation that increases by the millions on a monthly basis.
And, of course, they are also touched by the AIDS epidemic, with
nearly a third of Zimbabweans infected with HIV.
Sadly, Power’s article was not comprehensive enough and in less
than a year of passing, new travesties can be added to her litany.
After destroying the nation’s economic welfare, Mugabe’s chief tool
in retaining power now subsists in eradicating dissent.
The most recent kick by Mugabe can be highlighted through
restriction of foreign funding for Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs). Such groups included anything from free-media sources to
human interest groups operating within Zimbabwe’s borders.
Most notably, this would eliminate the ability of western
donors, who have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to feed
upwards of six million starving Zimbabweans. Mugabe has done
nothing to mitigate or acknowledge the matter. More and more die
every day because of it.
The chief purpose served by this act, however, roots itself in
the desire to eliminate fuel for the Movement for Democratic
Change–Mugabe’s first and only real threat from within Zimbabwe’s
boarders. Their efforts of installing a democracy by vote are
noticeable to Mugabe, but fledgling in the wider political
scope.
The 2005 elections pit ZANU-PF in harsh competition against the
MDC, with results bearing greatly on what party could hold majority
power. Displaying a bout of superficial goodwill, Mugabe promises
to clean up next year’s vote and provide an accurate count. He
makes such promises without conceding any past deceit while, at the
same time, loaded legislation and media restrictions limit any true
influence on the part of the MDC. To be sure, calling this an
“election” will prove to be a misnomer in and of itself.
States’ responsibility to a nation like Zimbabwe begin or end? Even
the usually irresolute European Union collectively forbids Mugabe
from as much as entering European territory for his vast-reaching
human rights violations (unsurprisingly, the only nation to allow a
breach of this restriction is France). Additionally, Britain and
the United States have taken especially hard lines in refusing to
recognize Mugabe’s legitimacy after 2002; but beyond that,
tolerance at even the implication of imperialistic solutions
continues to stretch thin throughout the rest of the world, with
dissent growing more noticeable inside United States borders.
Further, the oft sought, nary justified repeal of World Bank and
other sanctions on Zimbabwe prove useless–as all monetary relief
directly given in the past five years quickly disappeared–likely,
into ZANU-PF’s pocket. This, a lesson well learned from the UN/Iraq
‘Oil for Food’ scandal.
As the March vote nears, Zimbabwe braces itself for the
violence, torture and intimidation that accompanied all recent
elections. Charges of police brutality and other state-sponsored
aggression are frequent and rise accordingly in times when voters
head to the polls. Few expect 2005 to be different.
There are certainly missing elements to any analysis this brief:
Mugabe’s struggles against the Catholic Church, dispute with other
regional powers and intricacies of a society’s political
environment that cannot be fully understood. Still, what can be
certain are the atrocities in the scope of Mugabe’s autocratic rule
and the result it most frequently produces: death. Resolution is
not simple and options become increasingly limited–a fact the
people of Zimbabwe are getting used to. And in spite of its
importance, their vote will make little difference.
So, when hearing candidates say that ours is the most important
election in a lifetime, remember what country you live in. And even
if there exist, as suggested, “two Americas,” we can be sure
neither needs reorder of executive power as badly as Zimbabwe.
Robert Seefeldt is a senior studying accounting and
English.
