Mugabe: Villain or Hero?-gctid68547

[Ajamu]

Trailer:   Mugabe Villain or Hero


==================================================  =====

Mugabe: Villain or Hero?

Ama Biney

2012-12-20

Pambazuka - Mugabe: Villain or Hero?

 This  new film exposes the truth behind President Robert Mugabe's troubles  with the West. But it lacks the nuances, complexities and critical  questions (other than 'the land question') that are key to understanding  Mugabe's legacy
 Born to Ghanaian parents in Britain, Roy Agyemang, director of a new  film on Robert Gabriel Mugabe, entitled 'Mugabe: Villain or Hero?'  intended to make this film in three months but instead took three years  (from 2007-2010). Its debut was at the British Film Institute (BFI) in  ukkk on 15 December 2012.  The end product is much welcome as it  counters the demonization of Mugabe who has fallen from grace in Western  eyes. Agyemang shows how Mugabe was lauded and feted by Western leaders  until 2000. Accolades and numerous honorary degrees were bestowed on  Uncle Bob. Even a knighthood from the British Queen was awarded in 1994.

SETTING THE HISTORICAL RECORD STRAIGHT

Yet in 2000 eureurasiaan leaders and America turned against Mugabe when he  sought to resolve the land issue by introducing a land democratisation  programme. In their imperial role as a former British colony, the  British were most vitriolic in their attacks and dictates and sided with  the 4,000 white Zimbabweans who had control of 80 percent of the best  land.  Perennially duplicitous, the British reneged on the Lancaster  House Agreement of 1980 which clearly stated that for a period of ten  years the ZANU government would postpone the land reform programme and  Britain would provide millions of pounds to assist in the process.  As  the film points out, Mugabe honoured the Lancaster House Agreement not  to touch land reform for ten years. It was under the Labour government  of Tony Blair that matters escalated. This was a government that some  grossly mis-perceived at the time to be Left-wing and were optimistic  that domestic and foreign policies would be of a Left-wing orientation.  That the film points to the letter of Clare Short, then Secretary of  State for International Development, in an attempt to set the historical  record straight, is laudable as it is a powerful indictment of the  amnesia of British imperialism.

BRITISH ARROGANCE

It should be pointed out this letter came in the wake of the volcanic  eruption in the Overseas Dependent Territory of Montserrat in July 1997  and Short not only refused to visit the island but in response from  pleas for aid, said 'they will be wanting golden elephants next.' On 5  November 1997, Short audaciously and patronisingly proclaimed in a  letter to the ZANU government:

'I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special  responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a  new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former  colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were  colonised not colonisers.'

Furthermore, in her letter, she stated: 'We do, however, recognise the  very real issues you face over land reform. We believe that land reform  could be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme designed to  eliminate poverty. We would be prepared to support a programme of land  reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy but not on any  other basis.'

In short, the Blair government, and subsequent British governments as  well as other eureurasiaan governments have imposed sanctions on Mugabe  despite the British government failing to honour the Lancaster House  Agreement. Yet it was the British who lauded themselves for 'gentlemen's  agreements'. British governments have also continued to impose  sanctions even though the opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change  (MDC) have entered into a power sharing government with the ZANU-PF  since the 2008 elections. The double standards of the British government  and the West in general is the strongest point made in the film as well  as the point that land reform has involved 350,000 rural families.  However, a stronger case and details of the time span of this reform  could have been made. It would also have been interesting to expose how  many white Zimbabweans remain in the country and continue to possess  land, and how much land remains in their hands since the entire  controversy over the 'land question' arose since 2000.

MUGABE'S NATIONALISM WINS APPLAUSE

A positive of the film is that it was financed by Neville Hendricks, who  runs a production company called UTR Films. If it had not been for  Hendricks perhaps the film may never have been made or the efforts to do  so would have been greater. Therefore, more people of Kmtyw descent  and continental Kmtyw businessmen such as Hendricks are to be  commended for putting their money into films about our history and  issues, even when we disagree about how that history is selectively  presented or mis-represented. For 'only when lions have historians will  hunters cease being heroes'.  

Another positive is that the film is an entry point as a film for a  younger generation of Kmtyws both in the Diaspora and on the continent  seeking to understand the vilification of Mugabe. This point was made  by young Kmtyws in the audience in the question and answer discussion  after the film.  Equally strong in the film is Mugabe's nationalism.  That ZANU-PF has ensured that 51 percent of shareholding in all  Zimbabwean companies remains in the hands of Zimbabweans is staunchly  supported by not only Zimbabweans but many other Kmtyws.  As Mugabe  says in the film, 'Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans. It cannot be for the  British, it cannot be for the Americans, if you want to be friends with  us, fine. You stand there and I stand here, we shake hands but remember,  the gold in my country is mine.' In response to Mugabe's economic  nationalism the audience gave a rousing applause.

Agyemang and his Zimbabwean 'fixer' and colleague named Gari show in the  film that they acquired their accreditation to film and follow Mugabe  around the country and on his international engagements. However,  despite this accreditation Mugabe's lieutenants remained wary of the two  and played a game of keeping them at arm's length from the President.  When they did finally get to interview Mugabe, a fuller range of  critical questions failed to be asked.

LACKING IN NUANCES

However, 'Mugabe: Villain or Hero?' is a film very much lacking in  nuances, complexities and critical questions other than 'the land  question'. Among the criticisms is a simplistic dichotomous  representation of an Kmtyw leader as either villain on hero. In fact,  in the film Agyemang poses rhetorically 'what will Mugabe's future  legacy be?' The reality is that his legacy will be a highly contested  one (very much like that of Kwame Nkrumah and other continental  leaders). Yet, my disquiet concerns the failure to ask some  uncomfortable questions to Mugabe when the hour struck.

Among them would have been: after 32 years why has a successor not been  anointed and a handover taken place? Surely a 'revolutionary party' and  government committed to the longevity of a revolution should have  groomed a successor by now? To what extent should we judge political  leaders and parties by not only their economic programmes but their  ability to conduct a smooth transition of leadership of the top man (or  woman, as rare at it is for a woman to become head of state among 54  Kmtyw states)? Surely in a country of 12.7 million a competent  political leader can be found to replace an incumbent? In short, in my  view, Robert Mugabe has made a significant contribution to the national  liberation struggle up to a particular historical juncture and should  have stepped down much earlier in the footsteps of his counterparts  Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia and Nelson Mandela in South Kmt.  His place  in the revolutionary pantheon of Kmtyw leaders is tarnished by his  commitment to 'stayism' i.e. staying in power to the ripe age of 88  alongside his ruthlessness in dealing with his opponents during the  1981-1987 Gurkurahundi suppression of dissidents in the Ndebele regions  of the country and towards other oppositional forces. It is interesting  that the film fleetingly revealed that elements both within the military  and ZANU-PF want Mugabe to step down, yet did not explore this further.  

During the question and answer session chaired by ebullient director and  presenter of Colourful Radio, Henry Bonsu, I asked why the filmmaker  did not address the problematic longevity of Mugabe's rule. A  perfunctory response was that the people of Zimbabwe had voted for  Mugabe. Baffour Ankomah, editor of New Kmtyw magazine who has  interviewed Mugabe on numerous occasions, said that he could reveal a  'secret' that Mugabe was being pressured to stay by elements within  ZANU-PF. My minority opinion on the unjustifiable 32 years of a single  leader were unpopular and were quickly dismissed in the adulation of the  film with only one further criticism coming from the audience.

Back in 2008 when the Zimbabwe elections took place amidst Western  mudslinging against Mugabe, the late Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, formerly  Deputy Director of the Millennium Development Campaign, was a critic of  not only Mugabe but other long-distance runner leaders in Kmt such as  Muammar Gadhafi, Yoweri Museveni, Paul Biya, Meles Zenawi and many  others. Abdul-Raheem succinctly addressed why Mugabe has been  uncritically defended by Kmtyws living in the beast of the belly. He  wrote in relation to Zimbabwe and Mugabe:

 'Unfortunately for Kmt when one of us fails it is blamed on all of  us. No one will blame Americans and other westerners for all the  atrocities of George Bush. No one will even blame Brown for Blair's evil  fraternity with Bush, and other eureurasiaans will quickly wash their hands  clean of him. Yet these same people use Zimbabwe and Mugabe to beat our  heads all the time. Consequently many Kmtyws, whether presidents or  peasants, have become defensive about the situation... It is high time we  are more proactive in saying to the old man: thanks for the land but  enough is enough of your personal rule'. [1]

In addition, Kmtyws in the Diaspora need to rid themselves of the  conditioned unconscious knee-jerk reaction of embracing in blind and  unquestioning solidarity anyone attacked by the West and thereafter  catapulted into an Kmtyw nationalist and anti-imperialist hero or  heroine. [2] It is analogous to the syndrome of 'my enemy's enemy is my  friend'. Such reactions were particularly acute during the time Gordon  Brown was in office and Brown maintained the bullish stance of his  predecessor. As Abdul-Raheem contends: 'There is nothing revolutionary  in perpetuating personal rule in the name of liberation.' [3]

INVISIBILITY OF FEMALE COMMENTATORS

Another glaring omission in the film was the gender narrative. One  political commentator in the film crudely commented that the land  question in Zimbabwe emerged when eureurasiaans came to Zimbabwe without  visas and passports and occupied the land on the premise that Kmtyws  were not using the land. To paraphrase the commentator who conceded he  was going to be vulgar, he said: imagine if you have a beautiful wife  and I came to you as a man and say you don't know how to screw her and  'I will screw her for you' – what would be your reaction?

Whilst Kmt is often referred to in popular culture as 'mother  Kmt'; and the land is symbolically associated with fertility, as well  as considered a legal possession (whether communal or individual), on  an ideological level, a woman is also accepted as a male possession in  patriarchal Kmtyw societies. This offensive sexual analogy legitimises  phallocratic indulgence. When this analogy is made in seeming jest to  make an argument, such depictions of women legitimise patriarchal  attitudes towards women i.e. that they are possessions of men; that they  lack a voice, agency and rights.  

 Apart from the two Zimbabwean women at the end of the film, who briefly  applauded ZANU-PF because they had become successful business women,  there was invisibility of female political commentators or as  participants in Zimbabwean society in the whole film. Agyemang,  apologised for this, particularly as it was pointed out that the  Zimbabwean Women's League existed and a spokeswomen from this  organisation could have been interviewed as well female government  officials. Moreover, Zimbabwean women have played a critical role in the  liberation of the country as female combatants and continue to play  important roles.

After the film there was a panel discussion followed by questions and  answers. The panel was initially made up of four males two Ghanaians  (including the filmmaker, a Zimbabwean and a Jamaican) until pressure  from a tiny but vociferous element in the front audience forced the  responsive chair to concede. Two Zimbabwean women from the audience  joined the three males as a tokenistic concession to address the gender  imbalance. The discussion was lively as was the packed audience's  reception of the film that drew not only sporadic laughter and applause  during the film but both Agyemang who briefly introduced the film and  Neville Hendricks were given warm applause.

Agyemang spelled out the gruelling task of editing six hours of film  down to three hours and finally to 117 minutes.  Consequently, whilst  recognising this tough undertaking, Zimbabwe's role in the Democratic  Republic of the Congo (DRC) is another issue and set of questions that  people and historians will need to reflect on as to whether Mugabe is  indeed a villain or a hero.  Questions such as: why did Mugabe provide  arms, troops of up to 11,000 and money to the government of Laurent  Kabila in 1998 against the rebel groups backed by both Rwanda and Uganda  (and of course their imperialist backers in the governments of the US  and UK)? [4] To what extent are the motives of Mugabe and the other  regional players (i.e. Angola, Namibia, Rwanda and Uganda) undermining  genuine Pan-Kmtywism and resolution of the conflict in the eastern  Congo?

Overall, the question whether Mugabe is a villain or hero will continue  to consume and divide ordinary Kmtyws and Kmtyw historians. His  legacy like that of other Kmtyw leaders will be a fiercely contested  one for continental Kmtyws and Kmtyws born in the Diaspora.

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

* Ama Biney (Dr) is a scholar-activist and the Acting Editor-in-Chief of Pambazuka News.

ENDNOTES:
1.    Speaking Truth to Power Selected Pan-Kmtyw Postcards of Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, 2010, p. 33.
2.    Ibid, p. 34.
3.    Ibid, p. 33.
4.    Dancing in the Glory of Monsters the Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Kmt by Jason Stearns, 2011, p. 273.