CONVERSATIONS WITH MAWERE
"Invest in the change you want to see"
- Mutumwa Mawere -
Zimbabwe 2008 - A conversation with President Mugabe on Xenophobia
Posted on June 10th 2008
To white Zimbabweans, the exclusion of blacks during the 90 year period was justified primarily because it was argued that the state was a creature of colonial civilization and, therefore, blacks could conceivably have had no interest in participating in the administration of the affairs of a state that they played no part in its creation and was in any event not in existence prior to colonization.
The role of white people in Africa is not surprisingly still one of the most contentious and debated issue of our time. Even President Mugabe would rather shy away from discussing his record in government and rather divert attention to the demon of racism that resonates with many Africans.
Many African politicians thrive on it and to the extent that the 90 year history of race based politics is real, people like President Mugabe find the issue of extreme value in explaining black poverty and hopelessness.
It cannot be denied that colonial occupation had an adverse impact on not only black political and economic rights but has arguably some relevance to the national democratic revolution.
The colonial experience was not a pleasant one for the majority native population to make it difficult for anyone to dismiss President Mugabe's attempt to make race the principal issue that must be associated with leadership change even after 28 years in power.At independence, President Mugabe was a champion of a new civilization that understood the need for healing and reconciliation on the firm belief that the past provided no viable solution to the pressing problems that confronted the country at the defining moment in its history.
President Mugabe must have known then that Zimbabwe needed to turn a new chapter in its history and white people would be strategic players in the transformation agenda principally because the colonial race-based primitive accumulation process had uniquely advantaged them.
It was none other than President Mugabe who reached out to white Zimbabweans including the army in search for a new civilization founded on republican principles that all men are created equal and the politics of exclusion was not consistent with the values and principles that informed the liberation struggle.
A new Zimbabwean was then born so everyone thought and to a large extent President Mugabe was a credible person to champion and promote a new Zimbabwean identity.
Many white Zimbabweans were persuaded to remain in the country while a few could never trust a person who in a meeting with General Walls compared Karl Marx to Jesus Christ. White Zimbabweans distanced themselves from politics and so their role as economic agents.
However, they had more to lose if Zimbabwe degenerated into economic chaos and the question must be asked about what they did or did not do to make the system inclusive and mutually beneficial to all.
To demonstrate his magnanimity, President Mugabe appointed Ian Smith's former cabinet colleagues to his government and during the last 28 years he has made many white friends including the likes of Mr. Algy Cluff and Tony O'Reilly.
It was evident then that the colonial system had advantaged only whites to the extent that resources were allocated on racial grounds. The ownership of land was skewed as was the ownership of mineral resources.
The deal that was brokered at Lancaster House may not have been fully understood by nationalists like President Mugabe. The thorny racial issue that surrounds not only the idea of Africa but also its material realities is a complex one. It has been argued that it is not sufficient to say that whites stole African resources without acknowledging the role of whites in creating the foundations of a functioning economic model.
In advancing this argument, it is often pointed out that white people are not the cause of everything ill in the continent; for how can the poverty in many countries where the white population is small or nonexistent be understood and explained. The image of an African in the minds of people like President Mugabe is a black person. His argument is no different from the one being advanced in South Africa where black South Africans have accepted that the image of a South African cannot be a Nigerian born black person but a Zulu, Pedi, Xhosa, Afrikaner, English etc.
Even if the resources of Zimbabwe for example were handed to blacks by the state in the name of indigenization or black economic empowerment, it cannot be concluded that such inheritance will necessarily produce the same outcomes as the colonial system yielded to white settlers.
The views of President Mugabe on race may not be any different from the views shared by the architects of xenophobia in South Africa. The only difference is that President Mugabe had the power and authority for 28 years to do something about it but regrettably he has not been able to accept any responsibility for the failure to provide leadership on this defining nation building issue of identity.
President Mugabe would accept that colonialism has had a positive influence on him because his mastery of the English language and his dressing betray his ambivalence against colonialism. He speaks better English than many white Zimbabweans but has not understood the true nature of the civilization they sought to bring to Africa.
At the core of the colonial system was a market based economic architecture that was founded on an exchange of value. The white settlers created a functioning system for themselves based on fee for services or goods in exchange for money. The colonial administration was only a referee but economic games were played by the individual white actors.
Accordingly, an asset like land had only value if it could produce an income stream rather any other economic enterprise as opposed to the position taken by nationalists that ownership/possession is an end in itself.
President Mugabe's views on race are shared by many and form part of the wider hysteria in not only Africa but the developing world in general that cuts across the class spectrum. White progress in Africa is easily described as a direct consequence of colonialism without any regard to the effort and initiative of the actors concerned. To what extent was the colonial system responsible for white progress is an issue that requires critical analysis in as much as the role of the state in addressing the poverty challenges that confronts the continent.
As President Mugabe approaches the run-off elections, it is important that the issue of race and skin color be discussed comprehensively to determine whether in fact Mugabe is a saint who will make Zimbabwe a better and not bitter nation after the elections.
President Mugabe takes the credit that his administration has changed land title deeds in favor of blacks without attempting to explain that any commercial enterprise like a commercial farm ultimately belongs to its customers and suppliers. If, for example, a farmer produces crops and is not able to find customers he will perish irrespective of the color of his skin.
Whites have been able to thrive under the colonial system in as much as they have confused Mugabe during the last 28 years because they have been able to organize their economic initiatives and blacks who are in the majority have largely supported such initiatives as consumers and suppliers of labor.
If President Mugabe was serious about change then surely he would have found a way of strengthening blacks without weakening whites. At the end of the day, customers do not care who produces maize for example as long as they get it. Since 2000, Zimbabwe has been reduced to a net importer of food prompting President Mugabe to attend the food summit to register his view that were it not for racism and imperialist machinations, Zimbabwe would be in a great economic shape.
The whole idea behind the decolonization project was that Zimbabweans irrespective of their skin color would be able to occupy any office including the Presidency. However, President Mugabe is of the view that equality is a privilege conferred by the true owners of the revolution i.e. the war veterans who had 28 years to build a new foundation for a new dispensation but regrettably such foundation is missing.
What kind of Zimbabwe do Zimbabweans want to see? This question can only be answered by all who believe that Zimbabwe's brighter day is yet to come and President Mugabe needs to be told that time for change is now. His brand of politics has nothing to do with the future of the country but rather his personal legacy.
It can be argued that one of the sustainable ways of combating xenophobia would be an attempt to change the language and tone of politics in Africa.
Zimbabwe is too important hence the global attention it receives for anyone to remain disinterested and it cannot be argued by any rational person that the whole system does not need fixing.
In 1845 it took only 166 people to form Old Mutual and 83 years later Afrikaners responded by forming Sanlam, but after 28 years in power, it is evident that the language of mutuality and shared values has not resonated with the leadership of Zimbabwe.
If only President Mugabe had used his political office to unite people across racial, tribal and class lines; I have no doubt that people would have responded with real nation building institutions.
Americans have shown that they can rise above the confines of the politics of race and I have no doubt that Zimbabweans in record numbers will on 27 June register their verdict on whether the attempt by President Mugabe to blacken Zimbabwe and make it a pariah state should be condoned.
E-mail this story to a friendComments
Very good article Mr. Mawere; very honest and straight to the point. You finally won this true skeptic over. Thank you for the very sober perspective that is anchored on terra firma and it's realities. Also, Mugabe has always been a xenophobe and he taught that to his Shona people (you may not agree).
Another point to be added to your list is the fact that all races each have advantages or cultural ways that set them apart and/or above other races. The different races contribute enormously in different ways to this world.
You raised the issue of poverty and failure in Afrika even in the absence of 'white causation factors'. One may argue that the impact of colonisation e.g. borders, indoctrination, apartheid and skewed laws i.e. law of superiority of tutsi vs hutu, exploitation of resources, etc., have not been given sufficient time to pass and allow the indigenous Afrikans to be mentally and psychologically independent to alleviate these poverties and failure. Therefore poverty and 'seeming failure' are here for only a short while after which prosperity will come, inasmuch as I achieve as good a grade and plan and produce at work just as well if not better than my white colleagues at school and work. Therefore, our acquired information will render us capable in the years to come. Obviously, also, money is very new to Afrika and it comes with a culture attached to it; an ever changing one at that; that changes to the dictates of the markets. Capitalism and most economic models and their markets are still a revelation to us and with time we will understand them and catch up. We will stop buying things with bushels of corn only (and there is nothing wrong with that). Our value systems will have to undergo some metamorphosis in order to have a perfect merger.
Maybe Afrikans will someday redefine the borders to undo colonialism too, but what an all-out war that would be. I see major problems in that peninsula between Cameroon and Nigeria as the Ndebeles in Zimbabwe also want self-rule much like Eritrea, Somali Puntland, the Berbers, the little former Soviet states and republics, Bosnia, the Afrikaaners, the islands off Florida, the Native American tribes, Northern Ireland, Tibet, the Kurds, etc., the list is long. Right, wrong or indifferent, the call for independence driven by entertwining recovery from genocide, shaking off oppression, ethnocentrism and perceived prejudice and desires for growth of nations are all loud and clear.
Zimbabwe is going through some of those same pains currently. Didn't Zanu PF (you included at the time) think that the economy was too small at independence for the incoming five million people when at its peak it catered for only a quarter million whites? Wasn't there planning to increase it so as to accommodate the newly independent Afrikan? Isn't Smith smiling in his grave for advancing the ideology that only those Afrikans or Blacks who would be familiar with the system i.e. educated, be allowed to vote? Notwithstanding the fact that this point is not infallible.
Mugabe is not wrong about the manipulation by the West i.e. pushing for its interests especially at his expense. Colin Powell said it well, that, as in the past, the US (and the West for that matter, I add) would always act unilaterally and for its interest first before anything, no matter what the circumstances. He said this just prior to the invasion of Iraq as he was doing his rounds to sell the idea to the public. As Col. Dyke said about the Ndebeles, albeit wrong, Mugabe is using the tactics that the whites understand well. Unfortunately, if only during his firm rule his ways had not produced untamed corruption, violence, genocide, tribalism, neglect and oligarchs.
Which brings me to my conclusion, that God gave us all different talents. The Rhodesians, the subsequent Zimbabwean white farmers are one special interest group and a talented one at that, that needs to be protected and used to their utmost ability for the good of the nation. They prospered under Mugabe and even in Nigeria now, they continue to prosper. These special groups have been used the world over from time immemorial to the present. They each have special qualities that set them apart as the best in what they do best.
The Boers in SA with rugby and mercenaries;
the west Afrikans for their physique as slaves;
the Chinese with their acumen for maths and science;
the Indians for their unique computer programming skills and business acumen (Jews go here as well);
the strong children of the slaves from West Afrika, the black Americans in basketball and football as they are physically superior due to their ancestors and long years of hard labour as slaves;
the Anglo-Saxons for their perfected game of cold calculation and master psychology genetically acquired as adaptation in their harsh environment for survival in borrowing and using everybody else's culture to their advantage (the west has the most and harshest natural environment and disasters);
the Nigerians for their intelligence and slick moves on everyone (even before the internet advent);
the Germans for their engineering skills and renowned efficiency;
the Middle Eastern descendants and inhabitants who are suicide bombers for their courage and sacrifice;
the Israelis with their tough military action and commandos;
the Russian scientists for their brilliance in science and engineering, as they are a separate category that has its own allocation of green cards by the US State Dept and of course,
the Brazilians with their fanaticism for soccer.
Zimbabweans can claim a place in this honourable mention; as revolutionaries. The world was looking when we fought our war and won. Although Nkomo and Zapu have been lost in the shuffle, they deserve credit as well. Once again, we have spotlight. I can just see some old man somewhere else in Afrika saying, 'The Zimbabweans do not know what they are doing trying to get rid of a true son of Afrika who wants to empower them. He is making them suffer once and for all but they will end up with everything.' On the other hand, we know the realities (as you said that property and land ownership as an end in itself to Zanu) and as we continue with Morgan flashing the dollar bills, bulletproof X5's, pledges of xenophobia money, Morgan buses and a new culture of Morganizing everything, we run the risk of history being very kind to Mugabe. Morgan is definitely not in touch with the people, he is busy raising his profile and fearing assassination. Without the xenophobia attacks, when would he have come home? That is why they are banning his rallies as they use his excuses of assassination, cowardice and patronism against him. He talks to the West and has no 'Mbeki' of his own in the region. He needs to spend some of that white money and buy himself a Mbeki somewhere, preferably in SADC.
In conclusion, we know as Christians that all men (and all people) are created equal (of course the colonizers never stressed this). They come in different types with different adaptations and abilities. As there are many animals in the animal kingdom and different ones too, there are many people in this world and they are different. Look at the cat family, the lion is a savage and a beast (but feared and admired) and the leopard is beautiful and strong, the cheetah sleek and graceful, the tiger a real tiger and the jaguar, elusive, admired, quick and beautiful; they are all different, they all have different attributes that we totally appreciate. So are people in their ways and strengths in all different corners of the earth.
Gooday Mr. Mawere,
I just want to respond to your well written and very logical article in the New Zimbabwe Magazine, Mugabe using language of xenophobes. I am a White born 57 year old Zimbabwean who fought in the war of Independence on the Rhodesian side. I work at Mimosa Mine and served Shabanie Mine for almost 30 years. I have as much Zimbabwean nationalistic fervor in my soul as any black national. In other words, I support Zimbabwe in it’s endeavors to give each and every Zimbabwean a decent, dignified life under a working Justice system. I just cannot understand why our politicians and indigenous people seem to roll around in their victimization most of the time when they fail. For goodness sake, slavery has been gone over a hundred years and Colonization twenty eight years ago.
Israel had six million of it’s citizens butchered only sixty years ago, were given a piece of desert with no natural resources, and today, are a nation that has a world class economy. Germany and Japan, in fact the whole of Europe who were a bombed out mess sixty years ago, got up, looked around and got on with the job of building some of the strongest economies in the world, without, blaming anyone for there own shortcomings. I find indigenous Africans don’t seem to want to get on with building sound economies based on sound economic principles using a human resource that is or was available to them. The squandering of human resources in this country has been nothing short of criminal. The white Zimbabweans were for the most part hard working, law abiding, and really contributed to the economy and well being of Zimbabweans. They, for the most part loved Zimbabwe as much as any other Zimbabweans and have now become victims of black, real or imagined victimization. When the economy was still functioning the Government took all the credits. When it failed, well I leave it up to you. The whole of Africa seems to suffer from the same malaise.
Your article really stirred me as I am in complete agreement with the background, guts and ending of your article. I just don’t understand why you are not here with us trying to set things right. From my own perspective you seem to have a sound understanding of the issues involved and have some very sound ideas as to how to solve them. I know there are outstanding issues between you and the Government but I feel you are one of the innovative people who will turn this place around. I am an avid reader of your articles and have met you on a couple of occasions. I just wish you would be more involved.
Best Regards and God Bless,
This is one of your best articles. When people discuss plain issues, complicated matters will become easy.Zimbabwe' matters are not compilcated save only for the bennefit of those who taking advantage of the situation.When people are well feed and healthy they do not care who their leader is.Zimbabweans are no exception.I have been in the USA long enough to tell you that when George W Bush came in the office most American did not know who their president was. It was untill he messed up and they felt the pinch on the check books that they started to get involved in politics. With just this article you have proven that you are realistic and practical.This is something we dearly need from Zimbabwean scholars and leaders. Translating our education and breaking it down to the language of the average man. Robert Mugabe can speak allt he Engish jaw breakers until he loses his teeth but that will not improve the life of ordinary Zimbabweans in Makokoba, Mbare, Kuwadzana, Highfield, Nkulumane, Sizinda,Lobengula , Mabbvuku, Chitugwiza. Thank you sir www.ikhonaindaba.blogspot.com
Mutumwa Dziva Mawere (born January 11, 1960 in Bindura, Zimbabwe), is an African business executive, pioneer, financier, banker and entrepreneur best known as the founder and Chairman of Africa Resources Limited ("ARL"). He is known for having built one of the most powerful and influential corporations in Zimbabwe's history
The beginning of the article you talk a lot about the change, the switch over of power from white rule to Mugabe. I like the fact you don’t diminish the complexities colonialism played in shaping Mugabe as a character and the scar it has left on the country. We can now see transfer of power was foremost transfer of crisis. However democratic rule was not a legacy of the European empires in Africa. Hence, it was not long before the victory of independence in Zimbabwe turned to patterns of domination and authoritarianism which replicated colonial rule. Colonialism had thus given way to neo colonialism. Mugabe personifies this, the recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa demonstrate this. Excellent point and I wholeheartedly agree Mugabe speaks better English than many white Zimbabweans but has not understood the true nature of the civilization they sought to bring to Africa. I think the white Zimbabweans have also confused Mugabe on the question of citizenship and subjectivity. Who is the citizen and who is the subject? If citizenship is a kind of freedom rooted in natural rights, what message is Mugabe sending and what does he stand for? Have any lessons at all be learned from white colonial rule?
The last point you made that really struck me was:
If President Mugabe was serious about change then surely he would have found a way of strengthening blacks without weakening whites. At the end of the day, customers do not care who produces maize for example as long as they get it.
The most powerful statement in the article Mawere, a simple pinpoint of the tragedy of Zimbabwe.
I’ll leave you with a quote by Malcolm X – ‘If Africa changes, the fate of the black man around the world will change’. Let’s pray we see a change June 27th when the eyes of the world will be on Zimbabwe.