On the 2nd of June an interview was released on South African television that provided an exclusive glimpse of the ‘real’ Robert Mugabe. The interview gave the 89 year-old a forum to appear far more humane than many onlookers thought possible. Questions have been asked, however, about the interview’s timing in the run-up to the Zimbabwean general election later this year- many journalists have condemned the interview as a PR exercise. Nevertheless, history suggests that Mugabe tends to adopt rather more coercive means to ensure he is elected.
Robert Mugabe became Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in 1980 amidst rumours and allegations of corruption, but then, there hasn’t been an election in which Mugabe has won that hasn’t been in some way considered corrupt. The dubious circumstances in which he was re-elected in 2008 was highly publicised in the British media.
Considering Mugabe’s past performance of representing his people, events such as the genocide that took an estimated 20,000 lives at the hands of the 5th Brigade show that concerns regarding his leadership are understandable. Like something from a horror film, the 5th Brigade constituted select Zimbabwean soldiers, trained in North Korea in order to become the weapon of choice for Mugabe’s atrocities. The 5th Brigade undertook mass public executions from behind the barrel of a gun, or torched their victims alive.
Yet, the UK’s isolated view of history systematically ignores the role that the UK has played in Zimbabwe’s turbulent past. Our view of Mugabe’s time as leader of Zimbabwe tends to be from the same one sided perspective that fails to take into account the part that the UK had to play in the narrative.
However, many of Zimbabwe’s ills, he claims, are the product of the way in which his nation has been treated by its former colonial ruler and the EU. He had, in particular, an issue with Tony Blair whom he facetiously refers to as “Blair”.Britain and the United States enforced economic sanctions upon Zimbabwe, in an attempt to support conformity to Western expectations of democracy and respect of human rights.
The reasoning behind the sanctions is certainly noble, yet unemployment has risen from around 50% to an estimated rate of 95% in the last decade. The facts certainly support Mugabe’s suggestion that the sanctions represent an attempt from outside to cause unrest within the country. A more reasoned approach might highlight the great deal of suffering that the sanctions have had upon Zimbabwe’s people.
The UK’s influence over Zimbabwe’s independent political past is equally damaging. Britain’s role as a colonial power left in its wake the civil war which caused mass suffering, culminating in the atrocities which have come to characterise both the country and its leader. The story we are told here in the UK is an entirely one-sided account, which takes no account of the damages that we have caused.
Mugabe’s actions cannot be excused; however, we in the UK should not be so quick to avoid our part in a sorry series of events. The future for Zimbabwe is still unclear, and in the run up to the general election later this year, Tambo’s interview has allowed Mugabe to utter his battle cry. He suggests that “there is a fight to fight” and one the 89 year-old appears intent on fighting. The leader, described by his interviewer as “warm” and “charismatic” appears far removed from the man who has ruthlessly maintained control over Zimbabwe.
Few can doubt the man’s commitment to what he thinks is the right path for his nation, nonetheless there remains a concern that Mugabe’s desire to influence Zimbabwe’s future will come at the cost of democracy. Should he lose his influence later this year, it seems unlikely that he will walk away quietly.