|
Back to Index
Challenges
for solidarity
Ronald
Wesso,
Extracted from Pambazuka News 304
May 16, 2007
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/41422
The Zimbabwean situation
raises the importance of international solidarity to extraordinary
levels.
Many stomachs fell through
the floor when people heard President Mbeki and his Southern African
Development Community (SADC) heads of state after their recent summit
in Dar es Salaam.
The most these presidents
and prime ministers are willing to do are express concern and encourage
dialogue.
It is not even clear
whether they are concerned for President Mugabe and his violent,
power hungry, oppressive regime; or for the victims of the violence,
power and oppression.
They are just concerned.
So much so that they want sanctions directed against the Zimbabwe
government to be softened or lifted.
It is also not clear
how Mugabe-s victims are supposed to dialogue with him, while
his regime is starving, demonising, beating, raping, jailing and
killing them.
Two things are however
abundantly clear. President Mbeki and his SADC counterparts will
not act against the Mugabe regime in defence of the Zimbabwean people.
They are hoping for an
'elite transition- similar to the ones in South Africa,
Namibia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where
those with the power and wealth, or who at least have the backing
of the rich and powerful, work out amongst themselves how to divide
up power and money.
The popular masses are
excluded from the process. Inevitably the resulting system leaves
them at the mercy of the oppressors and exploiters, trapped in poverty
and social crisis. For the vast majority therefore, the SADC solution
is no solution.
Zanu-PF is momentarily
even dead set against this 'solution-. Their social
base seems to have shrunk to a very tiny business elite and the
security apparatus of the state.
Their electoral base
among the rural population is shrinking fast. They are not at all
confident that any semblance of greater democracy will allow them
to satisfy their power hunger.
As for the MDC, both
factions want the same transition that the SADC leaders think will
emerge from dialogue. They just want more of it and they want it
more urgently.
The same could
be said of a number of civil society formations such as the National
Constitutional Assembly (NCA) and the Zimbabwean
Lawyers for Human Rights.
Of course these groups
are not as vile in their betrayal of the Zimbabwean masses as the
men who run SADC, but they are politically orientated to work with
these men for an 'elite transition-.
Therefore despite their
obvious bravery, courage and dignity that contrast so sharply with
the cowardice and selfishness of the region-s rulers, these
groups do not really point to a solution for the majority.
So what about other activist
forces?
The Zimbabwe
Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) has led a number of strikes
and protests for higher wages and workers- rights. But politically
they are a support for the MDC not an alternative to it.
Civil society
formations such as the Women
of Zimbabwe Arise, the Zimbabwe Social Forum, the Combined
Harare Residents Association and the Feminist Political Education
Project have organised campaigns and actions to demand social services
that meet the basic needs of the masses. They have initiated and
taken part in discussions aimed at envisioning and facilitating
a political alternative based on freedom and justice for the currently
oppressed.
These groups face enormous
odds. Even the strongest among them, the ZCTU, operate as a trade
union in a situation where 80 per cent and more of people are unemployed.
It is easy to understand how this undermines their bargaining power.
Then there is repression.
Just recently the ZCTU had to cancel four rallies they were planning
to celebrate Workers- Day because government supporters (agents)
threatened to attack and kill unionists if they go ahead.
All of the activists
in these civil society groups have had to face similar arrests,
violence, threats and insults. Being an activist in Zimbabwe requires
levels of bravery and commitment that few are able to muster right
now. It is no criticism of these heroines to say that on their own
they will not be able to significantly shift the balance of power
from the Mugabe regime, and from the SADC/MDC type of elite transition.
This is where international
solidarity becomes so important. From South Africa-s history
we know that international solidarity is helpful and necessary.
We also know that there
are certain periods when it becomes decisive. After the repression
of the Sharpeville era in the early 1960s, the struggle went through
a long period where international solidarity was one of its most
important mainstays.
Zimbabwe is in a similar
period now. International solidarity, particularly from people in
South Africa, can play a decisive role in this period and opening
up the way for future mass movements in favour of emancipation from
patriarchy, state power and capitalism.
Activists in South Africa
have been taking up the challenge in various ways. COSATU has been
openly critical of both the Mugabe and Mbeki governments and have
also organised protests at the border.
Among other things the
Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF) and the Social Movements Indaba (SMI)
went on solidarity visits to groups in Zimbabwe and have hosted
such groups on visits to South Africa.
Abahlali base Mjondolo
(Abahlali) has also expressed solidarity and shown a willingness
to take up issues, as has the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and
some other groups such as the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.
In Cape Town, the Building
Women-s Activism Forum led a public demonstration in solidarity
with sisters in Zimbabwe dealing with state and male violence.
This demonstration,
as well as others like those initiated by the Save
Zimbabwe Campaign, attracted relatively small number of people,
though not significantly smaller numbers than many demonstrations
about 'South African- issues such as water cut-offs
and the housing crisis.
Clearly, despite widespread
xenophobia, and despite numerous grinding social crises in South
Africa itself, a number of people are willing to act in solidarity
with the oppressed and exploited masses of Zimbabwe. The challenge
is to find ways making solidarity actions stronger and more effective.
Broadly it would seem
we need to move from protests that express our outrage to direct
support.
Take the Building Women-s
Activism Forum for example. These are worthy sisters that did a
great thing. They had an effective public demonstration against
gender violence in Zimbabwe that attracted significant support,
including from men. But what next? More demonstrations? Bigger,
more militant ones?
Yes, of course. However
it would certainly be helpful if the sisters could identify women-s
groups in Zimbabwe to support politically, educationally and financially.
Such support could mean the difference between surviving or not
for women-s groups in Zimbabwe trying to live a feminist agenda.
It is certainly within
the capability of activists in South Africa to support their Zimbabwean
counterparts with political and educational materials as well as
with money. Not only are we better funded and face less repression,
the exchange rate means that money we raise can sustain activities
in Zimbabwe.
In order to do this kind
of work, activists in South Africa will have to identify specific
individuals and groups in Zimbabwe to work with.
Generalised, abstract
declarations of solidarity will not do the job. High levels of trust
will be required as some of the activities will be illegal in Zimbabwe
and will be frowned upon by the quiet diplomats of the South African
government.
This would need the development
of a shared political orientation. It does not mean having the same
ideology or even the same strategy. But it needs broad agreement
on the major issue whether to seek forms of struggle that create
the possibility of going beyond the horrors of today as well as
avoiding the pains of an elite transition to slightly different
forms of patriarchy, state power and capitalism.
In fact if we take the
case of COSATU, we can argue that it is their refusal to take a
political position that has constrained their activism on Zimbabwe.
They have been careful to avoid the question of who represents the
possibility of a Zimbabwe free of state oppression, male domination
and capitalism.
When they have been pressed,
their closeness to the ZCTU has brought them to a seemingly pro-MDC
position. But they have never really acted on supporting the development
of an emancipatory political movement in Zimbabwe.
If the TACs
and the Abahlalis and the SMIs do not engage in this kind of direct
political solidarity with activists in Zimbabwe, they will similarly
miss opportunities to contribute to the making of an emancipatory
movement and a liberated society.
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
|