Disappointed with Mamdani
Mahmood Mamdani’s is full of factual errors and brushed out truths, which I have numbered and will address below:
(1) Mamdani states ‘Although their strength lay in the countryside, the war vets formed the only alliance that was both independent of Mugabe and ZANU-PF’. Mugabe was and IS their patron, and is not independent at all.
(2) ‘By the late 1990s, market-led land transfers had dwindled to a trickle.’ Well, ask yourself why. After passing the Land Acquisition Act Mugabe had first refusal on every farm sale and he happily gave out 'expressions of no interest' in buying the land because he didn't care a jot whether the people had access to land or not.
(3) ‘It was largely for his own purposes, but also as a response to pressure from squatters, occupiers and their local leaders, as well as from sections of the new black elite, that in 1999 Mugabe decided to revise the constitution drafted at Lancaster House.’ This is completely wrong. Mugabe was forced to consider a new constitution by the action of democratic forces in civil society, in particular those of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) which the author wrongly calls the National Constituent Assembly. There was widespread anger with Mugabe’s corrupt abuse of power and his 15 (at-that-time) amendments to the constitution which had all served to give him dictatorial powers, which is why it is now so hard to have a 'power-sharing' government because according to the Mugabe-amended constitution the president has the final control of everything.
(4) The author talks of the ‘the Shona leadership of the peasant-based liberation movement’ implying that there were no Ndebele leaders, peasants, or citizens involved in the liberation. This is completely misleading.
(5) Mamdani talks of ‘Mugabe’s ferocious repression in Ndebele areas in 1986’. Actually this was ongoing and relentless between 1982 and 1987; the so-called 'unity' accord was finally agreed by Nkomo under extreme coercion in December 1987.
(6) The author says ‘The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, formed in 1981 with the blessing of the government, had by the end of the decade distanced itself from its Zanu patrons, purged internal corruption and elected an independent leadership’, but doesn't explain why it distanced itself from ZANU-PF/Mugabe, again omitting those facts that show the true nature and length of the Zimbabwe people's revolt against Mugabe and ZANU-PF's corrupt oligarchy.
(7) Talking about the 2000 referendum on the constitution, the author says ‘By the time Mugabe put forward amendments to the Lancaster House constitution, an impressive alliance of forces – not only trade unions, churches, civic and NGO groups, but white farmers and Western governments – was arrayed for battle’, failing to mention the 15 amendments already made, as if this was the first time. By this point, yes, the Zimbabwean people generally were strongly anti-ZANU-PF, which is clearly reflected not only in the results of the Constitutional Referendum – the first time Mugabe ever lost a vote – but also in the 2000 elections in which the MDC almost achieved a majority despite widespread violence, intimidation and rigging – not alleged rigging but factually reported rigging.
(8) Then there is Mamdani comment ‘The types of land that would be acquired compulsorily were specified by the government: unused or underutilised land, land owned by absentees or people with several farms; land above a certain area (determined by region) and land contiguous with communal areas’. Again, this is misleading. So very nice on paper, this makes it sound so rational, but in reality this was not what happened and the facts of the land 'acquisition' are well documented, meaning that there is no excuse for this misleading statement.
(9) ‘The closing date for “fast-track” land acquisition – August 2002 – came and went, but occupations continued unimpeded until mid-2003, and on a diminished scale for a year or so after that.’ This is completely incorrect. Land 'occupations' continued in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and yes, 2008. The author should check recent reports and also the SADC tribunal's ruling on land acquisition in 2008.
(10) If ‘Scoones identifies five myths: that land reform has been a total failure; that its beneficiaries have been largely political cronies; that there is no new investment in the new settlements; that agriculture is in ruins; and that the rural economy has collapsed’ and also that ‘Researchers at PLAAS have been quick to point out that over the past eight years small-scale farmers “have been particularly robust in weathering Zimbabwe’s political and economic turmoil, as well as drought”’, then why are Zimbabweans starving today? Why is there no food? Why are the peasant farmers searching for berries and wild fruits?
(11) Mamdani’s comments on the issue of drought – ‘The UN now estimates that nearly half the country’s 13.3 million inhabitants will once again be dependent on food aid in 2009, after another drought year’ – are also problematic. No, this year there is no drought, and last year there was no drought. There was a terrible drought in 2002–03, but it cannot be used as the main reason for starvation now. There have always been droughts in Zimbabwe and formerly in Rhodesia, but previously people had food. Why are people in all the surrounding countries able to feed themselves?
(12) The author then says that many of the people who need food aid now are ‘poor, urban residents who can’t afford imported food’, but why would Zimbabweans need expensive, imported food when the country always grew its own until the 'land reform'?
(13) Then Mamdani says that although there is no maize ‘the production of crops – sugar, tea, coffee – grown mainly by the large corporate plantations has remained steady.’ Please tell me where Zimbabweans can buy sugar then, either locally produced or imported? Nothing agricultural or economic for that matter – production, mining, nothing – has remained 'steady'.
(14) Finally, though the article is about land, is it possible to overlook the devastation of the health system, the education system, water provision, and electricity? Perhaps these are also caused by drought, the ZCTU, sanctions or perhaps the Ndebele? Meanwhile Mugabe’s clutch of cronies are building palaces, feasting on imported groceries, driving Hummers, appropriating HIV/Aids funds and looting diamonds from Chiadzwa. How can the country have no money for medicines and food when it has diamonds for the picking? Where are the diamonds going? What are Zimbabwe troops doing in the DR Congo? Carrying out another kind of 'land reform' perhaps?
This article is so very disappointing. I had, prior to reading this, deep respect for the author's views and writings, but this undermines all f that. Professor Mamdani, please, go to Zimbabwe and comprehend the utter corruption and debasement of the once-upon-a-time hero Mugabe. It is long past time for apologist theorising.