by Ian Smith
It is important to place on record that our commercial farming community is one of the success stories of Africa. They have consistently out-produced other farmers in this part of the world, and succeeded in breaking the world record for corn or maize yield — the staple food of Africa. The average farmer is not concerned with politics or racism — he concentrates on maintaining viability in a part of the world notorious for the hazards of nature. Our farming industry not only produces the lion’s share of our foreign exchange earnings, but is also the country’s major employer of labour, the dynamo which motivates the national economy. Who in his right senses would be party to deliberately inflicting damage on this invaluable asset?
In February 1993 the Minister of Agriculture gave an assurance to the Farmers’ Union that government had no intention of interfering with productive farms — only under-utilised farms would be expropriated and then only after consultation with the Farmers’ Union. In May, however, several highly productive farms were summarily expropriated, no consultation having taken place. Obviously there were complaints not only from the farming community but generally from those concerned about the adverse effect on confidence and investment. This was too much for ZANU(PF), who were outraged that people had the effrontery publicly to criticise their right to take over land, as and when they wished, in order to satisfy the demands of their comrades. In order to create the right ground for their attack there had been a series of accusations against farmers for their obstructionist attitude to the land acquisition question. This was a deliberate misrepresentation of the publicly stated position of the Commercial Farmers’ Union that they agreed with the need for land distribution and offered their co-operation. Let me reiterate that, to date, the government’s exercise at land settlement has been a complete disaster, occasioned by their own gross ineptitude. However, the commercial farmers were being blamed for causing the predicament and through their control of the mass communication media the government would ensure that their version prevailed.
Mugabe was given the necessary platform at a meeting of his party’s central committee in September 1993. He used extravagantly provocative racial terminology, but let there be no doubt that the vote-winning objective was well executed. He referred to our commercial farmers as a ‘greedy bunch of racist usurpers who are determined to challenge the popular will of the people’. He ended his diatribe with the emphatic statement that he would ‘brook no opposition from the courts on the issue of land expropriation and redistribution’.
In spite of all these accusations and threats, action has been limited. About half a dozen farms have been designated and, in response to the complaints, the minister emphasised that any owner who objected has the right of appeal — to the Minister, not to an impartial arbitrator. Mugabe was constantly trying to do a balancing act with one foot in both camps. First and most important was the need to keep his voters on side. Second, and absolutely vital, was the necessity to avoid provocation of those countries who were his major donors. There had already been a few shots across Mugabe’s bow warning against violations of the declaration of rights and attempts to undermine the course of justice. With the economy virtually on the rocks, any action which would prejudice the availability of finance to the national exchequer would be insane.
The principal economic problem resulted from the government’s inability to curb its reckless spending spree. The civil service continued to expand, the security forces were thriving and government ministers lived in opulence. They asked: ‘Why are people concerned; after all, the government provides the money?’
But at what price — the poor taxpayer received the message every day. Inflation had reached 50 per cent, interest rates peaked at 55 per cent and unemployment continued to increase — as it had done for the past twelve years since the coming to power of ZANU(PF). Headlines in March 1993 told us that the Minister of Defence was planning a 40 per cent reduction in the size of the army — proportional to population the largest in Africa. However, in the national budget produced in Parliament at the end of July there was an increase of 14 per cent in the defence vote! The largest increases went to those ministries which helped to prop up the government, such as Information, which was a massive propaganda machine dedicated to brainwashing the public into accepting the ‘miracles’ performed by ZANU(PF).
Headlines in May were that: ‘DEBT SERVICE RATIO EXCEEDS 70%’. The development of primary and secondary industry was being stifled because the much needed foreign exchange was directed to subsidise government’s reckless extravagance in pursuit of their communist ideology. While government expenditure increased, revenue decreased in real terms, first because of massive inflation, and second because the depressed economy led to reduction in revenue from traditional taxpayers. The government found no problem in bridging the gap through increasing taxation and floating more and bigger loans, as witnessed in the year’s budget.
When leaders in commerce and industry pointed out to the government that they were killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, their reply was simple and to the point: ‘We are getting along very well without your golden eggs!’ The realities, however, did not tie up with such wishful thinking. Towards the end of the year, in October and November, there were two reports in particular which caused alarm. British, German and Swiss bankers conducted a survey and concluded that they found that Zimbabwe was not sufficiently competitive and, accordingly, unworthy of investment. The headline read: ‘THE CITY OF LONDON HAS LOST ALL CONFIDENCE IN ZIMBABWE’. This opinion was endorsed by the American chapter of the Zimbabwe–United States Business Council, which stated that it was suspending its activities, quoting a number of negative factors contributing to their fall in confidence.
So 1993 ended on a depressed note. Although people put on a brave face, the Christmas atmosphere was subdued and the business sector in general indicated a lower turnover, and 1994 was a repeat performance of 1993. The economy continued to disintegrate, the propaganda machine burgeoned and subtle intimidation increased. With the general election looming in the first half of 1995, everything else was relegated to the background.
In the first week of January 1994 the Minister of Health complained that the health services were falling apart:
The Government has become so mean that the country is facing serious manpower and drug shortages. Our own experienced doctors are leaving the country because of unacceptable conditions, and their positions are being taken up by expatriates who are rejects from their own countries. We are heading for a position where we will be looking for more money to build mortuaries.
In reply, government’s excuse was that times were tough, that they were short of money. In the same week, however, Mugabe gave himself a 64 per cent salary hike, with his ministers following closely on his heels. They had been grossly overpaid before, but the all-powerful government propaganda machine and the sycophantic hangers-on were working overtime singing the praises of our inspired leaders.
There were many lessons not to be forgotten as the government prepared for the election in 1995. There was, for example, the aforementioned wounding of Patrick Kombayi, the former mayor of Gweru, who had the effrontery to stand against Simon Muzenda, our Vice-President. As I have related, Mugabe then contemptuously overturned the sentences of the courts and pardoned Kombayi’s attackers. There was the issue of the compulsory acquisition of land about which, as I have said, the government had been talking for years, and actually acquiring land in order to settle peasant farmers. As the plan turned out to be a disaster they had been at their wits’end, wondering what to do with all the available land. In characteristic fashion they conjured up a devious plan to accommodate their friends. One would have thought that they would have learned by now that this kind of scandal eventually surfaced. A local Member of Parliament received the message from his constituents and was forced to raise the matter in Parliament. The first disclosure came early in March 1994 when the Minister of Agriculture, Kumbirai Kangai, admitted that a farm of three thous
and acres had been allocated to Minister Mangwende, his predecessor. To begin with, Kangai attempted to shelter behind a claim that the relevant information was classified, but because the question of land allocation was such an emotive subject, with so many promises having been made and so many comrades anticipating land, he had no option but to come clean. Some seventy farms were allocated to ministers, MPs, senior civil servants, members of the security forces, and influential friends. To refer to it as a national disgrace is to put it mildly. It was a classic example of communist treachery. It was patently obvious that the decision did not come from one man — it came from the politburo, with Mugabe in the chair. In any normal country, the government would be honour-bound to resign — but not in a one-party dictatorship!
The cult of protecting and supporting Mugabe, no matter what the mistakes or indiscretions of ministers or office bearers of ZANU(PF), was conscientiously preserved. Mugabe feigned ignorance of what had taken place, and then graciously intervened to offer a helping hand and restore justice to the injured party. The ZANU(PF) brainwashing machine was quick to concede the wrong — after all, human beings are not infallible — but there is one man, the saviour, always available to administer mercy. As long as his followers stood by him all would come right in the end.
The two-pronged attack continued. First, water-tight legislation was passed to preclude any other political party from meaningful opposition. Second, any criticism against Mugabe and ZANU(PF) was branded as an attack from white colonial racists against the black community.
We had been presented with a perfect example. Mugabe had recently made a trip to Marondera (formerly Marandellas), about eighty kilometres east of Harare, and publicly denounced the white community for their hostile attitude towards a local farmer, a recent immigrant from Ghana — the home of Mugabe’s late wife. He said: ‘I am disturbed that there have been acts of sabotage to undermine your farming here. Unless they desist we will take action to deprive these whites of their land. They must accept the reality of a black government here and the reality of defeat.’
The true story subsequently came out in our farming magazine. There was a report from the local intensive conservation area committee to the natural resources board indicating the land abuse and subsequent environmental degradation on the farm in question. The report was endorsed by the local Agritex conservation officer, incidentally a black man and an appointee of Mugabe’s government. Mugabe had rushed in, without ascertaining the true facts, to use this opportunity to reinforce political support from the rabble of ZANU(PF). The fact that he further aggravated race relations in our country and prejudiced investor confidence, both internally and externally, was of no concern to a power-hungry politician.
Moreover, there was ever present the continuous campaign of intimidation, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle. In June 1994 Mugabe launched a campaign which was a mixture of both. It was announced that: ‘President Mugabe calls on ZANU(PF) Youth League to undertake house-to-house action’. The residents of the high-density townships had been through this before and many still retained memories of the petrol-bombing era of the 1960s. The party youths would be given tremendous power to invade private lives, and, because of the high rate of unemployment, there would be no shortage of volunteers for the daily payment. From past experience everybody knew that the police would have their hands tied — in other words, mob rule would be condoned.
In August 1994, Mugabe visited South Africa and addressed their Parliament. With breathtaking arrogance, he advised their government to follow the course implemented in Zimbabwe. He then called on all southern African states to gang up together and force the World Bank and IMF to give them more hand-outs — more money to top up their overseas personal bank accounts, and subsidise the inefficiency inherent in their one-party states! He was brilliantly successful in provoking South Africans in general. One of their Members of Parliament said: ‘If South Africa does exactly the opposite of what Mugabe preaches, we will not go wrong. His socialist approach has given his country a bad name and his advice should be ignored.’ Another Member of Parliament commented: ‘The IMF’s pre-conditions were the only hope for African countries to rid themselves of the after-effects of socialist experiments.’
One would have thought that Mugabe would have been mindful of Mandela’s profound comment at the recent OAU heads of state meeting, at which Mugabe was present: ‘We surely must face the matter squarely that where there is something wrong in the manner in which we govern ourselves, it must be said that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are ill-governed.’ How refreshing to find a leader in this modern world who had the courage to speak the truth, no matter how unpalatable it might be.
A recent article told us of a report from a specialist in the US Agency for International Development that: ‘The bulk of Africa’s economic woes in agriculture are a product of the interference and mismanagement of the continent’s governments, and are not, as these governments claim, a result of North–South economic conspiracy or pressure from international organisations.’
The year ended on what I suppose can only be regarded as a not unfamiliar note. There is honour, so they say, even among thieves and gangsters! During the month of December we had been reading much about Mengistu, the Ethiopian leader who fled from his country in 1991 and had been living in Zimbabwe ever since, under the generous hospitality of his friend and comrade Robert Mugabe. At this time he was on trial in his homeland for crimes against humanity, accused of massacring thousands of his own innocent subjects. The Ethiopian government had requested his extradition, but this had been turned down by the Zimbabwe government. The matter had recently resurfaced because of a complaint from one of the government’s ministries that in one month Mengistu’s telephone bill had exceeded $60,000. He resided in a large, luxurious mansion, with all expenses, including security guards, paid for by the Zimbabwe taxpayer. The cost was estimated to exceed a couple of million dollars per annum. It had been stated in his own country that, in addition to his evil record as a murderer, he had also been guilty of misappropriating large amounts of public funds. The fact that he was simply doing what some other African leaders do in no way excuses him. It was nauseating for the average decent Zimbabwean to accept that we should be subjected to such an imposition. But being forced, into the bargain, to pay for the insult, made it all the more repugnant. If Mugabe and ZANU(PF) believed they were under an obligation to protect their friend, at least they should accept the responsibility to honour their own debt. It was totally indefensible and inexcusable that they should use their dictatorial powers to compel the poor Zimbabwean taxpayer, who was already suffering extreme hardship in attempting to feed, clothe and educate his family, to pay for accommodating such a monster.
And so we moved on to 1995. Rumour had it that the general election would be held in April. This meant we were heading for a traumatic period where our people would be subject to intimidation, corruption, campaigns of misinformation, bribery and the use of public funds to promote ZANU(PF). For fifteen years now our voters have been brainwashed into believing that this is how democracy works. Ninety per cent of them previously lived under the traditional tribal system and hence have no means of comparison with the genuine article. They are now experiencing the ‘freedom’ promised by ZANU(PF).
24
Elections — 1995–6
After sixteen years of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, our fight to prevent the advent of Marxist-Leninist de facto, if not de jure rule has been vindicated. Instead of entrenching multi-party Western-style democracy, as was the intention of the settlement, our ruler and his collaborators brought in a dictatorship, characterised by high living for Mugabe’s ZANU(PF) hierarchy and creeping impoverishment for the nation. Bureaucracy is rampant — there is double the number of cabinet ministers necessary, four times the number of civil servants, and a bloated army. The government has preached the necessity to cut back on their high living and introduce some control of their extravagant misuse of t
axpayers’ money. To do anything, however, which would take jobs away from comrades or introduce measures aimed at encouraging a day’s work in exchange for a day’s pay, would court unpopularity. And any increase in taxation runs contrary to the government’s constant pledges to promote conditions that will attract the investment necessary to create jobs for the masses of the unemployed. International investors, industrialists and bankers have made it clear that the present rates of taxation are a disincentive. The ZANU(PF) propaganda machine, however, will have no difficulty in convincing the electorate of government’s good intentions. The fact that any benefits that might accrue — and in the hands of government bureaucracy these are highly problematical — will be short-term and at the expense of the long-term interests of the country, will be kept under cover.
A measure of the importance of accepting party loyalty was made absolutely clear in January 1995. During the general election campaign, Minister Kumbirai Kangai, at a meeting in his constituency, said: ‘If any civil servant says that, “I work for the government and not the party in this area,” please let me know and I will see that he is removed from Manicaland.’ A week later, Minister Didymus Mutasa went even further when he countermanded a decision of the courts. At a public meeting in Mutare he boasted that he had prevented the messenger of court from presenting an attachment order to a local businessman because of failure to pay a debt. ‘When they told me that they were only acting on instructions, I told them that there is nobody who can challenge my authority.’ It was not surprising that responsible opinion and in particular, the legal fraternity in Mutare, were strong in their condemnation and accused Mutasa of setting a dangerous precedent.
