Tag Archive

So it seems that the Zimbabwe opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has won the Zimbabwe general election, at least on paper. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) has yet to announce the victory and has at the time of writing banned any “premature” announcements on broadcast media. Secretary-General of the MDC Tendai Biti said that his party “made a mistake” in the 2005 election by not announcing their victory, and went on to state that he does not trust the ZEC which, he said, “is not independent” (Source: Business Day).

Zimbabwe has been under great stress in the last decade, with hyperinflation, a shortage of foreign currency, and problems with the supply of many basic commodities. One can only hope that Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF party, led by the autocratic Robert Mugabe, will accept defeat gracefully and hand over power to the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai so that the long process of governmental reform and economic reconstruction can begin. If (and admittedly, this is a big if) Mugabe does concede defeat, the next chapter of Zimbabwe’s history will move to another phase of decolonisation that began with the fall of Rhodesia, leading to the former freedom fighter’s present anti-western dictatorship. A process which has been mirrored in varying degrees throughout Africa and in parts of the western world.

I was thinking the other day about this process, and in particular what final form each former colony will take. The process itself has necessarily involved the transfer of control of local lands, resources and executive power to indigenous peoples, but I wonder to what extent this must be constitutionally guaranteed. The point is somewhat moot in places like Zimbabwe and South Africa where indigenous populations are now dominant. But in places like Fiji, Australia and New Zealand, the demography reflects a significantly large population of colonial origin that in some cases form a majority. Is it possible to successfully ‘decolonise’ such a nation while retaining a democratic form of government? Fiji’s experience in particular has shown how fraught the process can be, having several military coups over the constitutional protection of indigenous rights since 1987. Zimbabwe lost much of its white population through ‘redistribution’ of farms and other human rights abuses. But it is probably unfair to place the blame for this entirely on Mugabe’s government, which has been in power since the removal of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia. Other colonial nations at least granted early suffrage to their respective indigenous populations; Ian Smith’s white minority regime did not. Civil war - with the attendant instability, corruption and ethnic tensions - may have been inevitable.

In the old days of colonialism, the thinking was that integration could best be achieved with the assimilation of native populations into the imperial family. But perhaps what needs to be assimilated most is the knowledge, history and cultural values of indigenous peoples - not simply as a patsy to contemporary liberal thought - but as recognition that no empire lasts forever, and as a way of ensuring that decolonisation must not necessarily involve the marginalisation of colonial populations through constitutionally racist, non-democratic forms of government. We have already seen how such protectionist (and worse) governance can lead to destructive ethnic tensions and economic flight. It may be a bit early for Zimbabwe to make peace with its own colonial past, but we can hope Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change make good on the promise of his party’s name, and leave corruption, economic oblivion and despotism behind.