Back to Index

Zimbabwe: Lessons for South and Southern Africa
Zwelinzima Vavi, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)
Address to the Conference on the Crisis in Zimbabwe hosted by the South African Institute of International Affairs
February 14, 2001

http://www.cosatu.org.za/speeches/2001/zv010214.htm

Thank you Chairperson

Distinguished guests

Ladies and Gentlemen

Let me start by thanking the organisers for inviting me as a keynote speaker at this Conference. The issue before this Conference has far-reaching political, social and economic consequences for Zimbabwe and the Southern African region. This conference provides an opportunity to reflect on the situation in that country, the challenges confronting the people of Zimbabwe and the region, the nature and extent of the 'crisis'.

The history of Zimbabwe has deep personal meaning for me and many activist of my generation. When Zimbabwe was liberated in 1980 and ZANU installed as the new governing party I was a young activist in the Eastern Cape. The liberation of Zimbabwe was a source of inspiration to me and many others - it inspired us to double our efforts to defeat apartheid. More importantly the wave of deconlisation that swept through Africa particularly the liberation of Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe proved to us that the enemy could be defeated. The liberation of Zimbabwe also dramatically altered the balance of power in the region and denied the then apartheid regime an erstwhile partner in the form of Ian Smith and opened a new front for the South African liberation movement.

Many whites who could not contemplate being ruled by black people left the then Rhodesia to settle in South Africa and became the most vocal and active proponent of apartheid and evangelist of the 'swart-gevaar' pointing to the north for examples. Most of those who remained decided to oppose the liberation movement from within under the leadership of Ian Smith and a number of black puppets.

Due to the historical ties between ZANU-PF and the South African liberation movement, COSATU instinctively is biased towards ZANU. The leadership of ZANU and FRELIMO defied the apartheid government by openly supporting the liberation movement. We owe our liberation to the sacrifices that were made by these governments. It is no secret that South Africa destabilised these countries and its western allies also ostracised these progressive governments. Zimbabwe paid a heavy price for supporting the liberation movement - sanctions, economic exclusion and sabotage, and direct military attacks. All these actions were taken to intimidate the leadership of these countries to withdraw their support for the ANC but admirably stood their ground. Against this background, I am jealous about the direction and future of Zimbabwe and the rest of the region.

I have a keen interest both as a General Secretary of COSATU and the President of SATUCC in the future of Zimbabwe because our destiny is intertwined. If Zimbabwe collapses the whole region would be affected.

I have been monitoring the situation in Zimbabwe for some time and the reports that are coming out are not encouraging. The papers to be tabled in this conference paint a sombre picture about the economic, political and social situation in Zimbabwe. The forecast for the economy is not encouraging and it appears that the situation will worsen if there is no decisive intervention to arrest these developments. Further another paper to be tabled in this conference chronicle gross violations of human rights with active or indirect support from the government, particularly the political violence that engulfed the country before the elections.

In the midst of the political violence meted against the opposition last year COSATU and SATUCC issued a statement condemning government action against the ZCTU. Government threatened to invade the union's office and examine its financial records. This action would have clearly undermined the organisational autonomy and integrity of the Trade Union. Government has no business trying to run the unions - it is the members of the unions that must run the union. Government must run the country but it seems that it messing things up and look up somewhere to lay the blame for its failures.

We took a decision as a trade union movement in the region in principle to support land redistribution in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is still characterised by unequal distribution of land - still largely in the hands of whites. At the core of the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe was the land question and it is important that this be addressed in an orderly manner. However, we could not associate ourselves with the chaotic and anarchic fast track land resettlement programme unleashed by the Zimbabwean government in 2000. This programme was in flagrant disregard of the law and unleashed a wave of violence that threatened the very stability of the society. What is even more disgusting was that the violence by party hooligans was also directed at farm workers.

We are not convinced that this was a genuine programme since government has failed for 20 years to address the central question at the centre of the revolution in Zimbabwe - the land question. In order to mask its failures and faced by prospects of a credible opposition government opportunistically used the land question to deflect attention from its failures. The fast track land resettlement programme was nothing less than an election gimmick. For 20 years there was sluggish progress but when confronted with real opposition the government found enthusiasm to fast track what it failed to implement for 20 years. In the last 20 years we have not seen a government led campaign against the Lancaster agreement in so far as it impinges on successful land redistribution. Therefore, the Lancaster agreement cannot be used as an excuse for doing nothing for 20 years. I believe government's action have discredited the whole land redistribution process and many people see it purely as an election ploy. It is therefore imperative that land redistribution be salvaged in Zimbabwe.

Let me turn to a matter that has been worrying me for some time - namely the question of the MDC and COSATU. There was rife speculation and a rumour spread that COSATU supported the MDC and all manner of conspiracy theories concocted. Some were even suggesting that COSATU is exploring an MDC-type part in South Africa because of its frustrations with the Alliance. All this, ladies and gentlemen is not true. COSATU carefully studied the development of the MDC and indeed it is movement that has brought a breath of fresh air in Zimbabwean politics. The ZCTU played a central role in the formation of the MDC and its General Secretary is now the leader of the MDC. Union-inspired political parties are not new in our region - take for example the situation in Zambia, Namibia and Malawi. Some of these movements quickly turned against the constituency that brought into power - the workers. Therefore, COSATU for reasons cited above including the record of union-inspired political parties took a position not to support the MDC but study closely developments within the Party particularly whether its programme advances the interest of the working class.

At this stage we need to ponder on why a promising transformation project turned horrible? Broadly speaking I want to suggest that the crisis is a product of three-interlinked factors: mismanagement by government, ill-conceived structural adjustment programme; and several exogenous factors that are beyond the control of government some historical and other emanating from the current global political economy. The structure of the Zimbabwean economy plaid a significant role in the current crisis - Zimbabwe depends largely on the primary sector particularly agriculture.

Post independence Zimbabwe recorded significant improvements in the living conditions of the formerly oppressed. State intervention on a range of fronts in the 1980's resulted in faster GDP growth, improvement in social services and so forth. But the underlying social problems of poverty, unemployment and inequality were not wiped off the slate - but there were modest gains achieved in the 1980s.

The World Bank-inspired structural adjustment programme implemented in the early 1990s worsened rather than improve the situation in Zimbabwe. Of course some would argue that these reforms were warranted or inspired by a deep-seated economic crisis in Zimbabwe and the fact that there were half-heartedly implemented is the main cause of the problem. The turn to the market economy was not properly orchestrated but pressure was exerted on the government to proceed with the reforms. What we are now witnessing in Zimbabwe is a paradigm paralysis as the government lack a coherent strategy to resolve the economic woes facing the country. At best the programme are ad-hoc, uninspired and haphazard. The worse case scenario is that government adopting a wait and see attitude while the situation worsens.

Regarding the exogenous factors we can cite South Africa's destabilisation and the effect on sanctions against South Africa on the regional economy. Zimbabwe like other developing countries faced unfair terms of trade exporting more raw materials rather than finished goods.

However, there are serious underlying problems that can be traced back to government action. In order to deflect attention from itself government condoned the chaotic land grab campaign to mask failure to accelerate land reform over the last 20 years and to shift focus on government failures on a number of fronts. Further, the land grab campaign was well timed to intimidate political opponents during the parliamentary elections. Once the elections were over the land grab campaign slowed down and we have not seen public pronouncement from the government leadership urging the campaign to proceed. Despite claims to the contrary the fast track land resettlement programme was an electoral gimmick deployed by a leadership that had ran out of ideas.

What are the lessons that can be drawn from the Zimbabwe situation? Without being exhaustive I want to focus on three lessons, namely the need to address the colonial legacy; governance and accountability; and the need for a regional development plan.

The first lesson is around governance and the necessary checks and balances. The Zimbabwean government ruled in a heavy-handed way for many years, intolerant of dissent and political plurality. Political intolerance is manifest in the tendency to label anyone one who criticises government as counter-revolutionary and as an enemy of the revolution. This attitude in the long term degenerates into violence where the incumbents want to physically liquidate their opponents. The Trade Union movement were the mainstay of forces that have been calling for change - but like other was highly repressed by government. The near-dictatorial governance has become a fertile ground for impunity, corruption and disregard of the law. Parliament was reduced into a rubber stamp of the executive and the judiciary remained steadfast but did not entirely survive the wrath of government. This environment is hardly conducive for democratic pluralism to thrive. There is a need for a free political space and a vibrant civil society. The impact of the new opposition in parliament in creating the necessary checks and balance still remains to be seen. It is absolutely important that the question of democracy and proper governance be addressed in Zimbabwe. Equally, important accountability of international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank is of paramount importance as they have also contributed to the situation.

The second important lesson is that the colonial legacy must be addressed as a matter of urgency - otherwise the stability of society would remain fragile. The land question was left for a long time like a wound left to fester. This goes to the core of the aim of any revolution. People cannot eat slogans, rhetoric or history. Liberty must bring tangible benefits to the formerly oppressed; it must mean something to the young, the old, women and workers. Failure to resolve the pressing issues of the society such as unemployment lead to disillusionment, disenchantment and lack of interest in the transformation project. If transformation does not change the material conditions of the formerly oppressed then it is tantamount to cosmetic change - replacing white with black rulers. This is also relevant to South Africa as well.

What we have witnessed in Zimbabwe is a study in irony. Government for a long time fails to address critical issues facing the masses but in a rather Orwellian fashion turn up revolutionary rhetoric to try to whip up support. Additionally, government embraces neo-liberalism only to discard it towards election and immediately after the elections adopt IMF-World Bank-type adjustment programmes.

Zimbabwe and most of the countries in the region need a package of measures aimed at addressing the colonial legacy. Embracing neo-liberalism or structural adjustment programmes is a risk that the democratic government take at its own peril. The IMF-inspired reforms have not worked in a majority of cases in Africa including Zimbabwe. The self-imposed structural adjustment programme in South Africa - GEAR, has not worked and will never work. Governments that have adopted such policies have difficulty communicating these compromises and generally speak in fork-tongues; use intimidation and other bully tactics; and/or camouflage the shift in revolutionary rhetoric and blame others when things don't work out according to the plan.

This raises a larger issue - the need for a regional marshal plan to develop the region. At the moment the debate is focused on trade rather than overall development. While trade is important, it is bound to perpetuate the inequities - with South Africa dominating. A broad based development strategy is pivotal focusing on investment in infrastructure; human development; industrial and political democracy. Having said this, the solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe must emerge from within rather than imposed from outside.

The third lesson from the Zimbabwean and generally African experience relates to the fate of the liberation movement. Many may argue that it is inevitable that once they have tasted power the liberation movement gets corrupted and bureaucratised. Comrade Nelson Mandela always says that power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely! The bureaucratisation of the former liberation movement takes many forms: growing distance between the leadership and the masses - with former revolutionaries being aloof and talking above the heads of the people. I do not believe that the bureaucratisation of democratic movements is inevitable but it is a choice that people make. Therefore to keep the democratic movement vibrant and democratic it must retain its link with the people.

I share the sentiments that there are no quick-fix solutions for Zimbabwe's economic, political and social woes. There is no doubt in my mind that Zimbabwe confronts multifaceted challenges: political stability; addressing the legacy of colonialism, economic development, improvement of the macroeconomic situation, public sector reforms to mention a few. It is also imperative that genuine transformation takes place including transformation of the education system to ensure that the curriculum serves the interest of the new society. In particular curriculum should be restructured to ensure that the young do not lose the history and traditions of the democratic movement. This needs looking beyond the usual measures prescribed by the IMF and World Bank, which tends to prescribe privatisation, tight monetary and fiscal situation. Rather than resolve the underlying problems of poverty, unemployment and inequality these measures invariably exacerbate the social crisis. The role of the international community in providing support is also critical.

I thank you

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP