Brown is wrong on Zimbabwe - but that does not make Mugabe right

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Western posturing against Zimbabwe, particularly in the case of the British, stokes the cause of the Mugabe apologists. Instead, he argues, solidarity should be with the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who should not be distracted from demanding their government be held accountable to them.

There are very few African political activists who have been publicly consistent in their criticisms of
President Mugabe and ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. I am one of them. But we are not very many. That is not because Africans do not care about what is happening in Zimbabwe; but because the external dimension: regime-change agenda induced from UK and US, and internal racial dynamics of the struggle have both combined to work in Mugabe's favour.

My position is made more difficult by the fact that I was until early last year Secretary-General of the Pan African Movement. Mugabe is indeed one of the most respected and admired leaders in the Pan African Movement, so how can I be criticising one of our icons?

Readers who routinely sent me text or email messages: 'well said'; 'aluta continua comrade'; 'give it to them man', etc, have been outraged by my stand on Zimbabwe and Mugabe. One close comrade, a well respected academic lawyer, wrote to me stating categorically that I should add a disclaimer at the end of my columns. He suggested: 'the views expressed are my personal views not necessarily the view of the Global Pan African Movement'. Both legally and politically, he is correct. But I was puzzled that he never felt it necessary to give me this legal advice until Mugabe became an issue!

One of my critics, a veteran of black struggles in the diaspora, even went as far as to suggest that my columns are syndicatedly written by the MI5 and CIA! My response to such lurid accusations is that if the CIA and MI5 could recruit me without my knowledge, then we must give them credit for good judgement!

More seriously, I have not been surprised by the hostile reactions. President Mugabe evokes extremes of passions, with no one being neutral. He is regarded by many Africans and pan-Africanists as the Liberator, the icon of anti–imperialism, the bold and courageous African leader who is able to look at imperialists in the face and say: 'to hell with you'.

In a historical period when Western arrogance and US hegemonic unilateralism are making many people angry, eliciting powerlessness and hopelessness, many are willing to embrace anyone who dares stand up against the West, especially the US. The same sentiments that drew many to admire Saddam Hussein, as an agent of the US for many years, regardless of his atrocities against his own people; or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran today in his vitriolic attacks on the US, or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many who are unsympathetic to socialism nonetheless admire Castro and Cubans for standing against the US and for having defied it for almost five decades, less than 100km from the coast of Florida! These are seen as leaders who refuse to bend to the wishes of Washington. Even other leaders, especially from the poorer countries of the world, are silently applauding them.

In the case of Mugabe, legitimacy is also derived from a genuine liberation struggle that many regarded as being ambushed by a 'Lancaster House compromise'. Therefore, they see Mugabe as returning to the unfinished agenda, differing from the negotiated settlement that led to independence in 1980. Many are stuck in 1980 and Chimurenga, and fail to judge Mugabe and ZANU PF for almost three decades of monopoly power in the country.

When this is pointed out, a lot of apologetics say that Lancaster House prevented any radical solution. But Lancaster was for only 10 years. Why then did Mugabe not restart the Chimurenga in 1990, instead of being forced to do so in the late 1990s by the veterans? But seeking answers to these questions are like arguing with Jehovah' witnesses!

What also strengthens the pro-Mugabe lobby is the evident hypocrisy of the West in dealing with the
Zimbabwe. Why is Mugabe singled out? Where were they in the mid-1980s when Matabeleland was wasting in ZANU's drive for a one-party state? Would they be making so much noise had Mugabe not attacked and repossessed land from white settlers, whose ancestors - with British imperial force - had grabbed the lands from black people? Is Mugabe being punished as a warning to the ANC in neighbouring South Africa: not to even dare to address the grotesque land inequality in that country?

It is the historic wrong against blacks in Zimbabwe that makes many Africans generally sympathetic to Mugabe, even if they will disagree with some of the methods. The pressures from the West, which is silent about similar or worse excesses of human rights, government authoritarianism and dictatorial leadership by other African leaders, but chose to make Mugabe a scapegoat, work for Mugabe apologists.

That is why the current debate sparked by Britain's Gordon Brown on the forthcoming Africa-EU dialogue scheduled for Portugal later this year can only make Mugabe's position more formidable. Britain is the least qualified country to grandstand anyone on Zimbabwe. Brown can not be threatening the rest of Europe with boycott because of one man and one country. If the dialogue is indeed between Africa and Europe, why should one side be laying down the terms?

Why do European leaders think they are the only ones with a public to respond to? African leaders must not accept this. If they do, they will prove to their people that they are spineless poodles of imperialism, whose only question, when asked to jump by the West, is not why, but how high?

However, rejecting the arrogance and hypocrisies of European leaders should not mean that we should endorse the excesses of President Mugabe's prolonged one-man-rule. Political and ideological suspicions of the opposition do not justify the attacks on them. In any case, our solidarity should be with the people of Zimbabwe, who may be ZANU loyalists, MDC supporters or neither. As citizens, they deserve to demand that their government be held accountable to them.

A disproportionate focus on the West's agenda is making us compromise in our duty to express this
solidarity much more boldly.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.