A Tale of Two Leaders

Eduardo del Buey
Photo: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Tuesday October 8, 2019

Earlier this year, in my latest book in Spanish –[i]Trump vs. Trudeau: Opposing Messages[/i]– I compared two totally different leaders who came to power on either side of a common geographic border with totally opposing messages.

The recent death of former Zimbabwe freedom fighter turned dictator Robert Gabriel Mugabe has led me to look at two contrasting leaders from Southern Africa – Mugabe and the late South African president Nelson Mandela. From opposite sides of a common border, each leader came to his style of leadership from very different angles.

One, Mandela, based his strategy on love and respect. The other, Mugabe, based his strategy on fear, hatred, and violence. The result has been a South Africa that is a major player in Africa, until recently, a voice for racial and ethnic harmony and a voice in international affairs. On the other hand, Zimbabwe has gone from being Africa’s breadbasket to Africa’s basket case in the almost forty years of Mr. Mugabe’s reign.

Why?

The short answer is leadership.

Nelson Mandela came to office after twenty-seven years in jail as the world’s most famous political prisoner. During his time in jail, he let go whatever hatred he may have had for his oppressors, saying that, “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison”. He later observed that, “I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man”.

Mr. Mandela’s dream was to create a “rainbow” society, one that was governed with no regard to one’s race or ethnicity. He persuaded his more radical followers that racial harmony and respect for the other was the only way to avoid a bloodbath and to create a new society that would be a model for all of Africa.

Mr. Mandela also realized that a major cause for the political ills that plague Africa is that leaders often do not come to office through free and fair elections, and more often than not do not leave office when their time comes. And when they do leave office, it is with incredible wealth obtained from years of sacking the public purse.

Mr. Mandela knew how to take office after a thoroughly clean and free election, stayed in office precisely for his five-year term, and left without so much as a hint of personal corruption or a whiff of personal scandal.

Mr. Mugabe, on the other hand, came to power after decades of armed struggle and ten years as a political prisoner. He was often quoted as saying “Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy.”

After two relative years of democratic governance after independence was achieved in 1980, Mr. Mugabe’s North Korean trained special-forces Fifth Battalion murdered an estimated 20,000 Ndebele tribespersons between 1982 and 1985. Mugabe suspected this tribe of plotting to overthrow him.

Some human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch put the total number of Zimbabweans murdered by the Mugabe regime at between 3 to 6 million people. Thus began Zimbabwe’s rapid decline from a parliamentary democracy to a dictatorship.

In addition, Mr. Mugabe’s decision in 2000 to confiscate successful white owned farmlands – the major hard currency generator for the country -- transformed Zimbabwe from a major food exporter to a land of famine. The economy was destroyed and hundreds of thousands preferred exile to a slow and torturous death by oppression or from poverty, disease, or hunger.

Hyperinflation and economic contraction were the hallmarks of Mr. Mugabe’s economic policies. Indeed, the 2014 report of the Africa Progress Panel calculated that in its present state, it would take Zimbabwe 190 years to double its per capita GDP.

As U.S. Reverend Jesse Jackson observed during a 2006 visit to South Africa, “Land redistribution has long been a noble goal to achieve but it has to be done in a way that minimizes trauma. The process has to attract investors rather than scare them away. What is required in Zimbabwe is democratic rule, democracy is lacking in the country and that is the major cause of this economic meltdown.”

During his time in power, Mr. Mugabe and his cohorts stole hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to enhance their fortunes and live in luxury while the average Zimbabwean starved.

Mr. Mandela, on the other hand, left a fairly vibrant economy in South Africa without stealing even a dime. He lived an austere lifestyle both while in office as well as in retirement.

But South Africa is coming to terms with Mr. Mandela’s leadership. While he continues to be a moral example for emerging generations of African leaders, some claim that he bent over backwards to protect white rights rather than further enhance the power of the black majority.

Indeed, the Economic Freedom Fighters led by Julius Malema advocates for South Africa to implement some of Mr. Mugabe’s policies in order to redistribute white-owned arable lands among black farmers and nationalize many key industries so that the black majority can share in South Africa’s economic potential. The perceived maintenance of white rights after independence has been a long festering wound for many black African nationalists. Twenty five years after the fall of apartheid, this situation continues to rankle.

Although I would question if South Africa’s industrial, agricultural, and financial output would continue apace should such policies be implemented, these arguments will continue to be had as long as South Africans debate their current and future individual economic status and the viability of Mr. Mandela’s vision of a rainbow democracy.

This is already underway as a number of South Africans have recently reacted violently to the presence of other Africans who have come to the country in search of a better economic future.

Nigerians fleeing their quasi civil war (against Boko Haram) and the consequences of decades of inept and corrupt governments appear to be the main targets. Indeed, at time of writing, the Nigerian government is preparing to air-evac nationals from South Africa who fear the increasing anti-foreigner violence there.

As is becoming increasingly common around the world, the lure of “them versus us” governance appears to be taking hold in the rainbow state, and Mr. Mandela’s legacy may well diminish as global populism, nationalism, and nativism take root in Africa as they are in many parts of the world.

African leaders have a number of role models that they can emulate.

While Mr. Mandela remains the most positive model for those who espouse white western democratic values, many Africans continue to see these as a continuation of colonialism by other means. Indeed, Mr. Mugabe’s passing has been met by an outpouring of grief and tributes from across the African continent, celebrating the life of a revolutionary leader who dared to confront the West and pursue black majority rule in its broadest sense.

Unfortunately, not even Mr. Mandela’s successors in South Africa have appeared to be able or willing to follow in his footsteps.

And that is a pity, since Africa is a storehouse of mineral wealth and intellectual and artistic talent that is sorely in need of good governance.

Yet, many African leaders appear to continue preferring the course set out by Robert Mugabe, and herein is the root cause of Africa’s continuing stagnation.

One may ask if the rise of Chinese influence in Africa through its Road and Belt Initiative will make it easier for autocratic leaders to convince their citizens that democratic elections and freedom of expression are not necessary for sustained economic growth and development.

Aligning with Russia and China against the West was a hallmark not only of Mr. Mugabe’s foreign policy but also of his Africa policy.

And the outpouring of praise for the late Zimbabwe dictator perhaps indicates that this vision for Africa has not yet disappeared.

[i]Mérida, Yucatán[/i]
[b][email protected][/b]