Ever since Zimbabwe gained her independence from Britain in 1980, the ZANU PF government has sought to portray the new dispensation as more democratic than the colonial Rhodesia era, but a closer look at the two political systems tells a very different story altogether.
If one was to judge democracy in both these diametrically opposed systems of governance in the country, based on a 40 year period before and after independence, a very disturbing picture starts to emerge.
Ever since independence, Zimbabwe, has never experienced any meaningful change of leadership, with Robert Gabriel Mugabe being at the helm for nearly 40 years – merely changing titles from Prime Minister between 1980 and 1987, to President since then.
Nonetheless, Rhodesia had a very different experience in the 40 year period before independence – between 1960 and 1980.
I am deliberately leaving out the period from 1923 – when the land ‘owned’ by the British South Africa Company (BSAC), since colonialism in 1890, was annexed by the British government and immediately sold to the newly formed ‘responsible government of Southern Rhodesia’ for £2 million, becoming the British self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia on 1 October – as I just want to focus on a 40-year period that equates to Mugabe’s rule.
From 1960 – which was during the time of the ill-fated 10 year existence of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953 to 1963) – to 1979, the country had a total of five Prime Ministers.
This also excludes the short-lived Zimbabwe-Rhodesia era of Bishop Able Tendekai Muzorewa in 1979.
Those five Rhodesian Prime Ministers between 1960 and 1979 were Roy Welensky, Garfield Todd, Edgar Whitehead, Winston Field, and Ian Douglas Smith.
Such smooth change of leadership in the country demonstrated a vibrant democracy, which, unfortunately, has not been witnessed in an independent Zimbabwe.
Furthermore, these Prime Ministers were from different political parties, namely the United Party (later known as, the United Rhodesia Party, and then the United Federal Party – when it merged with the Federal Party), and the Rhodesia Front.
On the other hand, in an independent Zimbabwe, only one political party – ZANU PF – has ruled over the country for nearly 40 years.
The question will inevitably arise that, how can the Rhodesia government be said to have been more democratic when the majority Black population was predominantly denied the right to vote – thanks to very rigid and prohibitive electoral laws, which meant a minute number of Blacks were permitted to vote?
The major difference between the two systems of governance is that, whilst the Rhodesians oppressed one segment of the population – the Blacks – nevertheless, it provided all the facets of democracy to the White population.
However, the independent Zimbabwe era of ZANU PF rule has been characterised by the oppression of everyone in the country.
No one in Zimbabwe is afforded the same levels of democracy as was practiced in Rhodesia for White people.
At least, in Rhodesia there was no doubt as whose interests the regime served – the White minority.
However, in Zimbabwe – despite ZANU PF claiming to have fought for Black majority rule – the electoral system and political dispensation only serves the interests of one man.
The current system does not even serve the interests of ZANU PF as a party, as there is clearly no democracy in the party.
This is obvious with the purging that the nation has witnessed in the party ever since Mugabe took over its leadership, but most notably over the past two years, when the race for the party’s leadership intensified.
Anyone who dares criticize Mugabe soon finds themselves expelled from the party – as well as being arrested – being accused of all manner of ‘crimes’, from insubordination, trying to unconstitutionally remove – or even assassinate – the president, insulting the president, the list goes on.
In fact, I believe that ZANU PF members are just as oppressed as the rest of us, as they are just as wary of criticising Mugabe.
The list of people who have been expelled from ZANU PF over the past two years, merely for daring to challenge Mugabe, is endless – most recently, war veterans.
Others, as former Vice President, have been expelled merely based on suspicion of rebellion against Mugabe – accusations that have never been proven.
As for the rest of the country, the brutality and atrocities against those that dare oppose Mugabe are overwhelming and well documented.
Ever since the Gukurahundi genocide of the 1980s – that resulted in the massacre of nearly 50,000 predominantly Ndebele people, in the Midlands and Matabeleland regions of the country – the ZANU PF regime has never tired.
In the 1990s violent repression of any demonstrations was not uncommon- from university students, to workers and ordinary citizens’ protests, were all not spared.
I remember seeing military trucks moving to such areas as Chitungwiza, to crush protests against the government.
With the advent of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the repression continued, resulting in the alleged forced disappearance of several activists, arrests on tramped up charges, and some being killed.
Even as most recently as a few days ago, when peaceful demonstrators in Harare were brutalised by the police for merely expressing their displeasure with the Mugabe régime.
Similarly, the electoral system is very such skewed against the opposition, as the ZANU PF government refuses to align the laws with the country’s Constitution – making it extremely difficult for any truly democratic dispensation.
As such, the question arises: whose interests, besides Mugabe’s, is the Zimbabwean government serving?
If every segment of the Zimbabwean population is oppressed – including those in ZANU PF – then one can safely conclude that there is completely no democracy in this country.
Yet, in Rhodesia, although the majority Black population was oppressed, at least there was a significant segment – the Whites – who enjoyed the fullness of the fruits of democracy.
In Rhodesia, there were never any reports of White people being brutalised for merely daring to criticise any of the Prime Ministers.
The White Rhodesians were not forced to worship any leader – yet were free to say whatever they felt.
Actually, I remember a story my father once told me of a lady who hit Smith with an umbrella, as she was angry with the increasing White casualties during the liberation struggle.
She was merely prevented from any further hitting of the Prime Minister.
However, had it been someone hitting Mugabe, the result would have been very different.
Judging from how the lady who shouted at Mugabe – during this year’s independence celebrations in Harare – that her family was starving and she wanted part of the missing US$15 billion to feed them, then we are far from being democratic.
In fact, Parson Dzamara was allegedly severely beaten up by suspected state security agents after he went in front of Mugabe with a placard demanding to know the whereabouts of his abducted brother Itai.
The media in Rhodesia was very free in its coverage of all the White political parties of the day, and there was seldom any stifling of any of their opposition voices.
However, soon after independence, the ZANU PF government obtained money from the government of Nigeria to buy what came to be known as Zimbabwe Newspapers (Zimpapers), which had been previously privately owned, so as to control the media for the benefit of only one party.
The electoral playing field in White Rhodesia was even, just and fair to the satisfaction of all the White political parties, such that there was frequent smooth change of leadership.
If the ZANU PF government had implemented the type of democracy that Rhodesia had for its White population, for the entire population of an independent Zimbabwe, then our democracy would have being one of the best in the world.
As such, judging the two systems, it can be concluded that Rhodesia was relatively more democratic than the ZANU PF-led independent Zimbabwe, in which the system does not serve anyone, except the one man.
