Mugabe Must Go

At independence in 1980, Zimbabwe was one of the great hopes of sub-Saharan Africa. But after twenty-two years under the rule of President Robert Mugabe and his governing Zanu-PF party, the country is a disaster on the brink of widespread famine and economic ruin. As a result of this catastrophic reversal of fortunes, the situation in Zimbabwe has been the focus of a great deal of attention. Although land reform must go forward in Zimbabwe to fix the unequal legacy left by colonization, Mugabe’s dictatorial regime has been causing more problems than it has solved.

The most-debated issue is that of the country’s land redistribution program. There is no question that urgent land reform is required in Zimbabwe, where white farmers own 65 percent of commercial farmland, or 18.5 percent of the total area of the country. This is an entirely indefensible proportion given the miniscule percentage of whites living in Zimbabwe, but far less than the inflated figures often put forward by Mugabe’s proponents. However, the need for reform has been undisputed since independence. In fact, land reform was an important part of the 1979 negotiations that paved the way for the country’s independence. One must therefore ask why this reform has taken so long. Often, white governments are accused of stalling on land reform or of not taking it seriously, whereas the truth is that Western governments have always accepted the need for reform. In reality, several of them, including the former colonial power Britain, have given the Zimbabwean government funds to undertake these reforms. But these funds have been squandered by a government that, up until now, carefully avoided undertaking all but the most perfunctory land reform. Britain’s current refusal to provide funds for reform, much vilified by Mugabe’s sympathizers, has nothing to do with some form of latent colonial sympathy. The refusal is a result of the Zimbabwean government’s refusal to adhere to the rule of law and maintain transparency in its reforms, which Britain justifiably insists upon before funds are provided.

One of Mugabe’s greatest moves has been to simplify and polarize the debate on Zimbabwe such that it focuses exclusively on land reform and redistribution so, according to Mugabe, you are either for land reform or against it. This is a simplistic description of the situation, as in most cases it is the methods and legality of Mugabe’s reforms that are being questioned, not their necessity. Almost no one disputes the need for land reform. To do so is all but pointless anyway—the majority of white farmers have been forced off their land and many have fled the country. Additionally, the land redistribution is not a direct redress of colonial wrongs as the government would have us believe, since most seized farms were not owned by colonialists. Eighty percent of commercial farms have changed hands privately, in a legal and government-approved fashion, since independence in 1980, further calling into question the legality of Mugabe’s program.

There are also numerous problems associated with the means with which Mugabe is carrying out the land reform. According to data from the Commercial Farmers Union, compiled from lists published by the government in Feb. 2002, several hundred prime farms have been allocated to wealthy government ministers and their associates, rather than the landless farmers land reform is supposed to benefit. One member of Mugabe’s cabinet told the government-owned Herald newspaper recently that farmers should, “make sure they are members of Zanu-PF or risk losing land.” This program is not merely “marred by corruption and cronyism,” as Mugabe’s apologists claim, it is a travesty that benefits only the powerful.

Most importantly, farms are being resettled with no eye to the future. Laborers who lived and worked on the farms are being forced to leave with no provision for their survival. Those established on the farms are not given title deeds, training, or support of any kind. This situation has caused serious food shortages because agriculture is based on loans from banks (requiring title deeds as surety) and the farms are designed to be worked as large, single plots (requiring technology and infrastructure). External observers agree that the estimated 6.5 million people currently facing starvation in the country are doing so largely due to Mugabe’s destructive policies.

The unfortunate side effect of a focus on the land issue is that it allows other vital concerns, such as human rights violations, to be virtually ignored. While some Western governments have criticized Mugabe’s human rights record (48 political deaths in the three month run-up to the presidential election in March, of which 32 were opposition members or supporters), the Western press focuses almost exclusively on white farmers and the land reform question, ignoring the more significant issue of widespread political torture, rape and murder.

Mugabe abandoned the best interests of Zimbabwe’s people long ago. He is a dictator doing all he can to hold onto power. That land reform is an entirely legitimate issue should not cloud our condemnation of the man or of his corrupt, harmful policies and abuses of democracy.

Frederick Bengtsson ’04 is an English concentrator in Mather House. Andrew R. Iliff ’04, a Crimson editor, is a social studies concentrator in Quincy House.