MIM Notes 215
|
By an honorary comrade
Recent elections in Zimbabwe, held June 26th, resulted in huge gains for the oppositon party, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Although President Robert Mugabe's ruling party held on to power, the strong showing by the MDC is the first electoral challenge to Mugabe's power in 20 years. The real story, though, is the land occupations and pre-election violence that began earlier this year. Since February, close to 75,000 landless peasants have occupied over 1,600 of Zimbabwe's 4,000 white-owned farms. The armed occupations are led by veterans of Zimbabwe's war of liberation, which ended with independence in 1980. The veterans are tired of the slow pace of land redistribution under President Robert Mugabe's government. Close to 30 people have been killed in clashes between squatters, white farmers, black farm workers, and members of the MDC. The bourgeois media, giving more attention to Zimbabwe in the last few months than it had in the previous 20 years, painted the squatters as mere pawns in the political maneuvering of Mugabe and his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front. Although Mugabe has clearly not followed through on promises of re-distribution and may indeed have used the occupations to bolster his electoral campaign, the movement by war veterans and others to reclaim land stolen by European settlers during the colonial and apartheid periods is not so easily explained away. Roots of rebellion Zimbabwe gained independence from the white apartheid government in 1980, after a 15 year long guerrilla war. (The apartheid government called the country Rhodesia, after British imperialist Cecil Rhodes.) The new Mugabe government undertook some economic and social reforms which addressed the needs of Zimbabweans. During the 80s, school enrollment increased, the infant mortality rate decreased a bit, and some land was redistributed. But Mugabe and the ZANU-PDF did not lead Zimbabwe down the path of self-reliant socialism. Colonialism was defeated in Zimbabwe, only to be replaced by neocolonialism. Zimbabwe is now one of the most devastated countries in Africa. Life expectancy dropped to 38 years in 1999, down from 64 in 1988 and 56 in 1980.(3) Unemployment is currently 50%; the poverty rate is estimated to be between 25 and 60%; 200 people die from AIDS every day. Land reform progressed very slowly, so that between 40 and 70% of Zimbabwe's prime agricultural land is owned by a few thousand white settlers. At the same time, millions of Black Zimbabweans live landless and in poverty.(4) The ZANU-PF began to accept World Bank and IMF loans in the late 80s. In 1990, it agreed to an IMF Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP).(2) In accordance with the ESAP, Zimbabwe eliminated price subsidies on basic commodities; scaled back minimum wages and workers rights; deregulated currency and financial markets; increased cash exports to reduce foreign debts; slashed government payrolls and programs; provided concessions and tax holidays to foreign investors; and so forth.(2) Conditions for the majority of Zimbabweans deteriorated rapidly under the ESAP. Wages fell. The rate for girls attending elementary school dropped 20%. Wage cuts for public health workers drove doctors into private practice. Access to health care declined. Zimbabwe's debt burden increased, deepening its dependence on future IMF money. Land redistribution stalled. "[W]estern superpowers and their multilateral loan sharks threaten to hold future credit hostage if private property rights are not respected in Zimbabwe".(2) The last decade in Zimbabwe shows once again the importance of self-reliant, socialist development to the oppressed nations struggling for real independence. "[B]ourgeois nationalism is false nationalism. By itself in its pure form, bourgeois nationalism can never succeed in establishing national independence. True national independence requires the power to resist foreign imperialists and to set up cooperative and peaceful trade relations [as opposed to the coercive terms of the IMF and its SAPs]. "By itself, the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country can at most bargain for a neocolonial relationship to the imperialists, where it serves as the local puppet. The reason for this is very simple. The advanced economic strength of the imperialist countries makes it possible to bribe and pay the salaries of the government officials in the neo-colonial government... "It is unrealistic to expect that puppets in the Third World countries will turn down the bribery of the imperialists and risk their lives to oppose them... This is one of the most important reasons that only communism can ensure national independence and international relations of peace and equality. The workers and peasants must rule, not the minority of compradors and their imperialist masters."(9) The class struggle and the struggle against imperialism continues after an oppressed nation wins formal independence. As Mao came to recognize, class struggle continues even under a socialism. The masses rise up--again! "We fought the liberation wars for one thing: land. All other reasons are irrelevant. And we don't have that yet."--Gertrude Gaza, handicrafts seller 1998 The masses of Zimbabwe refuse to put the so-called rights of property ahead of the rights of the people to food, clothing and shelter. Some of the masses have taken up arms against their enemies: Imperialists, compradors, and white settler landlords. The bourgeois press and the MDC, however, are trying to portray the armed people taking back their land as a violent, chaotic government directed pre-election campaign. This is a lie. "While Mugabe has painted him self as the champion of the landless in recent months, it has been the landless who have been forcing him to act over the past few years. "(5) Just two years ago, in fact, "squatters occupied white farms, pointing to family grave sites and grinding stones used by their mothers to illustrate how their land was seized by British colonialists without a penny of compensation. Their immediate actions were directed at white farmers, but they were motivated by frustration after years of waiting for the government to tackle the issue."(5) As further evidence that land occupations are not a fabrication of the ruling party, the squatters occupied the lands of two high level ZANU-PF officials in 1998. They threatened to move onto state lands leased by ruling party ministers if the government didn't move faster on land reform.(6) Mugabe's response was to initiate a two week ban on public demonstrations and strikes.(5) White privilege and chauvinism are at the center of the conflict in Zimbabwe. Simply put, "Those who own the best land are white; those who want it are black. Whites stole the land from blacks for several decades at gun point; now blacks want some of it back and they are prepared to get it in the same way they lost it if they have to".(5) This simple truth is not to be found in most media coverage of the occupations. The Los Angeles Times, for example, has featured stories about frightened white farmers, besieged in their so-called homeland, and, along with members of the MDC, the victims of chaotic violence. What the media refers to as chaotic violence is in reality the response by the oppressed to decades of violence committed by white settlers, who live off the people, and imperialist bureaucrats at institutions like the IMF. Violence is currently endemic in Zimbabwe, in the form of starvation and disease. This is of little concern to the imperialists. The British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robin Cook, recently threatened to cut off $56 million in aid from Britain if the occupations do not end.(7) Britain did not threaten to cut off aid when Mugabe accepted the IMF's structural adjustment program, which has caused the death and suffering of millions, or when the government of Zimbabwe retreated from the promise of land reform. It is only when the property rights of the parasites are violated that aid is threatened. Terrible or fine? One farm worker, Gladman T., says of his boss: "The farmer here is not a good man. When he gets angry he throws things at us or lets the dogs on us. He got angry one day when the machinery broke and cut the electricity off to all our houses. He is like many whites. They only want to deal with blacks as workers. His attitude creates a bitterness among us.(5)" This bitterness has exploded, and it is unclear where the uprisings will lead. We do not know how the squatters will react to new prominence of the MDC, which is allied with some white landowners. In the words of Cedric Robinson, Professor of Black Studies and Political Science at UCSB, the MDC "merely echo[es] the demands of the white minority".(1) The bourgeoisie fears the allegedly terrible occupations will inspire the landless elsewhere. We can only hope the workers and peasants of other countries in Africa follow the fine example of the squatters and militantly struggle for true land reform. It is also unclear at this point whether or not the leaders have an agenda beyond occupying land, such as organizing to seize state power from the current comprador government. As we argued above, only the oppressed workers and peasants themselves can carrying out sweeping land reform and national industrialization, true guarantors of national independence.
Notes:
|