Is Mugabe right about the British?

Now I realize that it is not in good taste to abuse one's host but sometimes it is unavoidable. If one's host suggested that  one could no longer have an independent opinion about certain issues after downing the host's sumptuous dessert, one might be in order to protest vehemently.

Many of my readers live in Britain where they are, in a technical sense, guests of the British government and the British people at large. Previously, I have suggested that the tragedy of Zimbabwe can be laid squarely on the feet of successive British governments spanning more than a century. I know that some of you will start wondering if I am suggesting that Africans have no minds of their own; that everything begins and ends in London. Nothing could be farther from my mind.

Surely, you might ask, the British did not order ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe to massacre twenty thousand of his own people in the western provinces? Surely the Brits did not instigate the recent  murderous assault on the political opposition which claimed thousands of lives and livelihoods?

My point is simply that Mugabe was a good student of British history who learned the crucial lesson that his predecessor Ian Douglas Smith also had learned equally well: the cynicism and contempt of the British governing class about most things African. Notice I do not make a distinction between the left and the right in making this point as both Labor and the Conservatives have shared in this approach.

To be fair to the Brits, their cynical approach to all things African is something they have in common with much of the western world. It explains why Bill Clinton thought intervening in Rwanda was not worth the effort while Bosnia was good policy. It explains why Harold Wilson did nothing to stop Ian Smith's naked rebellion in southern Rhodesia and Margaret Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands.

Wilson's cynical approach to the Rhodesian case resulted in the deaths of at least fifty thousand Africans in Zimbabwe's war of independence. It also resulted in the radicalization of the nationalist movement in Zimbabwe and subsequently, to  the rise of one Robert Mugabe, who has haunted the good people of our fair plateau for more than a generation.

By extension or extrapolation, one can blame the British government for much of what has transpired in Zimbabwe in more recent times.

In a very real sense, when Mugabe says to blame the British, he may be right, after all.

Next week, I will review a book which makes a far more convincing case of British diplomatic cynicism with respect to southern African affairs going back to the nineteenth century.

Can Zuma deliver?

Previously, I suggested that South African president Jacob Zuma's overriding priority over the next few months with regards to the Zimbabwean problem would be to contain it, not to fix it. This is because Zuma does not want the attention of the region and the world to be focused on anything other than the upcoming World Cup soccer tournament in South Africa next southern hemisphere summer.

If this assumption is true, it follows that Zuma will not be pushing hard to resolve the deadlock in the so-called inclusive government as any such move might invite the dogged resistance of those who know that Zuma's hand is virtually tied at this stage. It makes perfect sense from the South African side to postpone as much unpleasant conversation as possible until after the tournament.

Everything we have gleaned from the media over the past few months suggests that there will be no progress to write home about in these endless talks if only because all parties seem to have something to gain from protracted negotiations. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF want to enjoy power for as long as possible. Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC are torn between those who want to resolve the outstanding issues immediately (those outside the governing elite in parliament and cabinet) and those who want to enjoy their appointments and elective offices for as long as possible.

Arthur Mutambara and his version of the MDC clearly would be rendered irrelevant by any final settlement which leads to free elections as they are likely to be buried under electoral rubble. Anyone please tell me why a member of the legislature who has just  been given a loan to buy an expensive vehicle would suddenly want his tenure to end before they have made the first twelve payments. A doze of honesty is in order here: all parties, including SADC, the African Union have no interest in bringing this matter to an end.

Paradoxically, the only people whose interests are not being served by the continuing impasse are the western powers whose position looks increasingly untenable. Their argument that Zimbabwe has not changed enough seems cyclical if it is true that western aid could cause accelerated change if the people of Zimbabwe tasted the benefits of such aid.

I think the big boys in Washington and London need to put the sticks away and offer more carrots to the Zimbabwean people and see what happens. Right now it looks like their approach to this issue is driven more by pride than by sound policy.

It may well be that a change of tactics will turn out to be a mistake, but it would be a mistake made while trying to do the right thing. In any case, it can be successfully argued that the so-called sanctions imposed on Mugabe and his henchmen have been counter-productive. But that is another topic altogether. Besides, it would not be that hard to put Mugabe back in the box should that become necessary..

More ways to cut waste in government

Previously, I suggested that Zimbabwean defence spending is money going down the drain for no good reason. It follows that the country should take advantage of its land-locked status and lack of natural enemies to re-direct resources being wasted building a huge defence establishment towards providing essential social services such as education, health, housing and safety. I even hinted that the Swiss model might make sense for Zimbabwe but this may not be feasible in the current political climate.

Cutting defence spending is not the only way to reduce the burden on the tax-paying public. Suffice it to say that there should be no sacred cows in any serious effort to focus governmental resources on a narrow set of issues that cretate an environment where the quality of life matters more than the tenure of political office holders. In order to eliminate or reduce opportunities for political patronage, the civil service has to be streamlined and allowed to dwindle to a more affordable size by attrition, if the politics of it are too ghastly to contemplate.

Obviously the number of ministries needs to be cut to reflect the core functions of government as opposed to the political interests of certain clans. It may be that in the early post-independence era, it was necessary to create employment opportunities for many who had not been given opportunities under the previous racist system but that time has long since passed and we should be moving into an era of realism about what we can and cannot afford, as taxpayers. Political stability should not come at the expense of common sense and fiscal sanity.

Certainly the idea of creating thirty to forty ministries for the purpose of buying political support seems ludicrous for a country decimated by poverty and disease and other social and economic ailments. It goes without saying that for a country of ten million to have more than two hundred legislators would be the stuff of comedy if it was not a matter of serious concern. A maximum of fifteen ministries should be able to take care of all the business of the people at a cost that reflects the meager resources available.

I think  the number of legislators at national level should be reduced to about one for each of the administrative districts depending on population and should not be increased for political expediency but to meet the needs of a growing population. This reduction can be done as part of an exercise to devolve more and more power to the local authorities so that they can do the daily chores of government at a cost that reflects prevailing economic conditions in that particular region.

Do I think that a future government controlled by the MDC will make a significant shft towards more realism and accountability in government spending? The signs are not very encouraging because the movement seems to be learning very well under the tutelage of the masters of overbearing government, Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF. The longer this so-called inclusive government lasts, the less likely it will be that a new MDC-led government will have the courage to make the necessary changes to harness profligacy in government. 

This may be the stuff of hope, hope that often feeds on crumbs.