Peter Godwin wrote an article entitled “Making Mugabe Laugh” in the International Herald Tribune on 20 April 2011. In the article Godwin claimed that the Ivory Coast under its recently ousted President Laurent Gbagbo and Zimbabwe, led by President Robert Mugabe, have some “striking parallels”. Godwin argues that both countries, led by highly educated presidents or intellectual-politicians who were liberators from repressive regimes, were once viewed as success stories in their respective regions. These parallels are true but they are hardly striking.
Africa has and continues to be led by many other intellectual-politicians who are also viewed as “liberators” of some sort. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki and Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika are only a few examples. Similarly Godwin’s narrative of a “success” story gone wrong can be applied to several African countries. Moreover, when Godwin likens Gbagbo and Mugabe by arguing that they resorted to “racist vestments of extreme nativism” he simplifies the deeply complex and different motives for both leaders’ actions.
Godwin also invents similarities in order to bolster his straw man argument that the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe bear some “striking similarities”. For instance he asserts that the “two countries have also been similarly plagued by north-south conflicts”. This is an irresponsible distortion of history. Indeed the Ivory Coast has been deeply divided by a north-south conflict centring on religion, among other important factors. However, Zimbabwe has never experienced a north-south conflict in its history.
Where the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe “crucially diverge”, Godwin argues, is that whereas West Africa’s leading power Nigeria refused to recognize Gbagbo after he lost the 2010 presidential election to Alassane Ouattara, Southern Africa’s leading state South Africa helped Mugabe stay in power after he lost the 2008 election. According to Godwin former South African president Mbeki “bullied” opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai into a power-sharing government led by Mugabe. Such a conclusion can only be reached by someone who has never taken the time to interview all the political actors involved in Zimbabwe’s 2008 power-sharing negotiations. Had Godwin done this, he would know that Tsvangirai was not bullied into a power-sharing arrangement. Negotiators to the power-sharing agreement, including Mbeki, have all recounted to me in interviews that sharing power was at the time the only viable solution to the 2008 political deadlock in Zimbabwe. The terms of the power-sharing agreement were crafted and agreed on by Zimbabwe’s rival political parties – not Mbeki as Godwin seems to believe.
I share Godwin’s criticism that power-sharing is a “democracy-defying model”. The spread of the model in recent years is a cause for concern. But it is clear that the question of how to resolve conflict in Africa remains extremely complex, and there may be good reasons for thinking that in some cases the benefits outweigh the costs. After all, power-sharing is usually justified principally in terms of the number of lives it is likely to save in the short term. However, in order to make accurate decisions as to when these benefits outweigh the costs, it is essential to fully recognise the barriers that power-sharing may create to genuine reform. Even if power-sharing arrangements do deliver greater peace and stability in the short term, their flaws suggest that it should only be used as a last resort.
Godwin is wrong when he writes that “Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has been rewarded by the international community by being largely ignored”. By international community I presume that Godwin means the West. Here in Britain, where I reside, Zimbabwe features in the media frequently and it is discussed in parliament more than any other African state. There are even combined American and European Union targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe – something more undemocratic and human rights violating states such as Angola, Swaziland, Equatorial Guinea, Pakistan and Middle East states are not subject to.
The problem with the West is that double standards on global human rights and democracy promotion have helped Mugabe to cast and reject Western interference as imperialism. Western double standards have become undemocratic regimes’ fall guy for their unwillingness to introduce genuine, indigenous, workable and sovereign institutions for human rights promotion and protection. Consequently, Godwin’s call for America to support democracy and human rights movements in Zimbabwe is misguided. America and the West are part of the problem – not the solution – in Zimbabwe’s problems.
