Observations on a Tyranny

Another missed opportunity for Mugabe to do the right thing for Zimbabwe.

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, I was frustrated to see that the opposition leader in the Zimbabwe elections was considering stepping down. Today he did that, and I have to rant a rave a bit in order to get it out of my system. While certainly no expert, I have been watching this election process with heightened interest, as my own travels in Africa have brought the travails of this continent close to my heart. But this is not the only cause for my interest, as this Zimbabwean election farce is an enlightening political education for those of us who are too young to have witnessed the fall of dictators and tyrants in the first eighty years of the last century. So, when older Americans around me speak of the near instability of the world, I think they just have a Red Scare hangover, that we live in a new age where, as Marx put it in his fascinating predictions of globalization, "The cheap prices of its (bourgeoisie capitalism's) commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image." Right. And so all of Friedman's followers sit and watch with fascination as business unites and homogenizes the world.

Which, I must say, in light of situations such as that in Zimbabwe, I am in support of, though in a highly qualified sense. In a very simple way, I am a supporter of this "homogenization" because I think we have some things to offer the world, and that the world has some things to offer us. How we bring that "offering" about is a horribly and frustratingly complex question, but I am in no mood to acquiesce to the "euro-centric"-phobes who have surrendered any claims to "right" and "truth" due to their simple education on the lack of blatant absolutes in the world. It is a pragmatic ideology that proposes a solid truth while accepting that it might not stand under the full weight of "absolutist universalism." In other words, we do what we can, when we can, trying to make the best decisions we can. We hold certain truths to be self-evident to most men, but we certainly don't expect any uniform response to them.

In this respect I admit an amount of ignorance, for however much I appreciate the value of my global travels, what I feel to be an understanding of the complexities in the human mosaic and the influence of varying social structures and histories in the development of diverse values and cultures, I still sit staring at the newspaper with my jaw to the floor when I read things like this exchange between a New York Times correspondent and a leader of the ruling party in Zimbabwe:

A member of ZANU-PF’s Politburo, speaking anonymously about its secret deliberations, said in an interview that the party had no intention of giving up power through the ballot box.

“We’re giving the people of Zimbabwe another opportunity to mend their ways, to vote properly,” the Politburo member said. “This is their last chance.”

If voters fail to return Mr. Mugabe to office, the Politburo member told a Zimbabwean journalist working with The New York Times, “Prepare to be a war correspondent."

And what was my Western, liberally-educated response? "What an idiot!" How could somebody so deeply misunderstand the basics of democratic liberalism - even if they only utilize democratic language to save face in front of an interested public? I understand that Zimbabwe has many deep and complex issues to cope with on its road to stability and prosperity, and these might muddy the waters of liberal ideology, but it doesn't have a choice. The American revolution, which in many people's minds stopped being revolutionary decades ago, is still relevant wherever tyranny reigns in the world. And it still reigns in Zimbabwe, where I've read many dismissals of liberalism as we know it as "not practical given the African situation." From my limited readings of American history, it seems clear that political and economic liberalism was a pragmatic and morally informed response to the complexities of ruling a diverse society. The American experiment is a quest to balance the demands of liberty and order, which appears to be the exact issue that many other nations are dealing with - including Zimbabwe. Which isn't to say that the American system will work everywhere: I am well aware of the unique confluence of people and events that brought about the success of America. But there are principles which can be gleaned from the experiment, especially as these nations are laying the foundation for their future.

I must say this makes me grateful for George Washington, who firmly established the principal importance of a consistent transition in executive power. I can't begin to list the things that have gone wrong in Zimbabwe, but the most obvious one to a non-expert is the lack of diversity and restraint in the executive role. Perhaps, ultimately, this election was a step in the right direction, as the voice of the people clearly called for change. What they got was violence and oppression. Mugabe has reinforced his legacy as a dictator who arrogantly believes he knows better than the people do, but whose last eight years in power have proven that almost anyone, including an enraged mob, has a high probability of ruling better than he has. And he has left one young American more firmly entrenched in his opinion that liberalism and democracy, applied with strict restrictions on power, is the only practical means of governing men both morally and effectively. Hopefully, the day will come soon and I can say with all Zimbabweans, "The king is dead. Long live...Zimbabwe."