Something Stinking In the State of Zimbabwe

If the insult be great enough, the people will rise. So said Montesquieu. Has not the insult by their present government been enough to Zimbabwean people? If so why are they not rising? Perhaps uprisings were easier in the age of revolutions than our own era where regimes, like Mugabe’s in Zimbabwe, demonstrate ingenious ways of oppressing its people. It has become easy for regimes to quickly nip civil discontent in the bud.
Incarceration and beating of opposition party leaders and such sado-masochist tactics are passé. The modus operandi are now invidious fascist tendencies . . .

The Arch Bishop of Bulawayo has recently in South African National radio broadcast recently, called for intervention from the international world against Mugabe’s regime. . . Lately he has moderated the call by advocating for the inclusion of the AU (African Union) and countries of southern Africa.

If we say organisation like the AU, or the UN (United Nations), should send peace keeping forces to Zimbabwe; what happens when the Mugabe regime does not allow them to enter the country? Do they enter by force, declaring war on Zimbabwe; or do they cower, with their tails between the legs, instructing the rest of the world to isolate the state of Zimbabwe? What gains will come out of that isolation besides escalating the already dire state of Zimbabwean people?

The idea of political revolution as the founding principle of Western democracies is obvious from French to Russian revolution—even if it’s support or indignation against, depends on who is using it against who. It was perhaps small wonder that the combined forces of the US and Britain tried to use the so called creative power of force for social transformation in Iran. Even Karl Marx admitted to the necessity of force as “ the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.” Iran is the best argument that even totalitarian oppression is far better than the unleashed chaos of forced political transformation.
Hence I would have assumed that by now most liberal minded people would regard the unabashed imperialist nonsense about “democracy” being a sovereign right of people that must be exported by force if need be as bullshit। And the fact that sanctions hurt ordinary citizens more than the thugs that rule over them. The only option left then in my mind is some kind of democratic revolution by Zimbabweans, ideally without either violence or coercion, but we’re not in an ideal world.

In my book mass political movements are the only likely route Zimbabweans can liberate themselves through, with the support of international community in the form of NGO. I’m wary of the of the revolutions’ tendencies to liberate with chaos, even degenerate to similar oppression that strengthen totalitarian tendencies in the liberators.
Another complication is that Zimbabweans are not a homogeneous lot. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that the division between people is founded not on class distinctions, religion or party ideology, but goes through their hearts. The old sense of nationalistic purpose is still fully fledged in rustic Zimbabweans who support Mugabe. Government propaganda has whipped them up with nationalistic feelings that create an atmosphere of deep suspicion of outsiders, especially Western outsiders. What’s more, the rural people are the majority in the Zimbabwe. It might be that the liberation of urban Zimbabweans means the oppression of majority rural Zimbabweans. Not all that panders to ideals of Western democracies is freedom for all.
The Zimbabwean urbanites on the other hand are a fragmented and divided lot। Most of them seek little more from politics than the protection of their own interests. Either as businesses men, union workers, and so on; they use politics for personal reasons, and are not greatly bordered with anything that does not hit their pockets directly. With Zimbabwe now teetering to economic collapse perhaps they’ve now finally awoken to their plight.

Countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan are classic examples of impotence of world organisations against sovereign states. These countries are a muckraking morality tale with many villains and few heroes. Must Zimbabweans endure the weight of oppression if they don’t believe enough on themselves to rise against it, or feel powerlessness in shaping their own future? If so how do we live with ourselves, especially as South Africans, knowing gross human rights violations are being visited on innocent people just across the Limpopo?
Human rights are a primary core value of human civilization, the cornerstones of our daily struggle for human dignity। Protecting human dignity is not only about protecting oneself from violence, but also defending the other. It’s solidarity with individuals who are fighting for their own dignity. Solidarity is not about supporting those who share our precise view of politics. It’s about supporting those who struggle against injustice and violence. Which brings us to the original question.

Does that mean that we are compelled into the position of American neo-cons who push human rights even through military force? Can force be avoided? If yes, let us be done with all these verbal intricacies and talks of poseurs. We must admit defeat into impotence by our own principles.

Blessed are we if the admittance calms the murderous ardour in the name of freedom within us, as seen in Iraqi today. Nietzsche said: Man is something that must be overcome: and for that reason you must love your virtues – for you will perish by them. Let us perish by our virtues rather than be drawn into careless with other people’s blood. There’s something stinking in the state of Zimbabwe, no question about that; but it is in the hands of Zimbabweans to sort it. All we can do is to offer our support. It is time Zimbabweans faced up to the realities of their own country.