Southern Africa: Mbekism, Zumaism and crossroad (3)

People forget! When the genocide against the Tutsi took place in Rwanda in 1994, many of the perpetrators took refuge in Zaire and were at war with the Tutsi government that had taken power in Kigali. The Tutsi had in response launched a military invasion to take power in Zaire, deploying an airborne expeditionary force half a continent away, at Matadi, to the west coast of Zaire, to within striking distance of Kinshasa, the Zairian capital. Most countries in Central, East and Southern Africa had condemned this Tutsi move, terming it a bid to establish an unacceptable Hima empire over the Great Lakes region of Africa. Two nations deployed their armed forces, for years, to counter this move, at very high cost to their economies: Angola and Zimbabwe. Angola with enormous petroleum to sell recovered from the financial shock; Zimbabwe lost what was left of its regular economy and income.

The Zimbabwean economy drowned in the Great Lakes! And Mugabe and his military adventurism are responsible? As leader of Zimbabwe, the responsibility for the collapse of his economy, as a result of his policies, are his; he was not elected to fight foreign wars, albeit pan-Africanist. But his intervention was not such an unreasonable action, even when economically unrealistic. He is morally better-off, here, than Tony Blair, his relentless accuser, in Iraq. But then, what way forward for South Africa; what efficient solution?

What way forward for South Africa?

It is the unclear answer to the last question above that makes Southern African leaders like Thabo Mbeki more understanding of Robert Mugabe than the less-informed world can comprehend. On the other hand Zuma, who saw himself as opposition leader, like Morgan Tsvangirai, is against Mugabe, but is likely to handle the land issue more like Mugabe than Mbeki; his support comes from those who believe in immediate redistribution. So, what way forward for South Africa? How to get the South African economy grow, and at the same time get South African children grow? How to end socio-economic apartheid, as well as save the South African economy from disintegration, like in Zimbabwe?

The lesson from Zimbabwe is that all parties have to face and be guided by truth. The first truth is that black African control of the South African parliament did not end the upside-down justice of economic apartheid. The second truth is that the existing income and land distribution formulae are unsustainable. Therefore, land and incomes in South Africa will have to be redistributed.

The lesson from Zimbabwe is that wishful thinking and perfidy, such as exhibited by Britain, does not help anybody but rather worsens the general situation, for all. From what I heard in South Africa, whites would have been happier if an Mbeki and Xhosa carried out the redistribution rather than a Zuma and Zulu. Whites think that Zulu are physical, act, then think, and are less trustworthy; Xhosa are intellectual, think, then act, and are more trustworthy. This might be just racist notions, not founded on facts, but perception is the reality of the perceiver, informing his action or reaction. The way Zuma dived into the laps of the woman with AIDS, without thinking of the consequences to his own health; the way Mbeki kept thinking about the origin of AIDS, and never got to act decisively on it, do say something about the thesis on their mentalities. Whether this has ethnic basis is something else. In any case, neither mentality can solve the South African problem. Zuma and Zumaism are no better alternatives to Mbeki and Mbekism in South Africa. A thinker-doer, what the Igbo call Ochereomee, is urgently called for to create a genuine post-apartheid South Africa – Azania, we used to call it! High level trust is called for, to avoid catastrophe in South Africa following inevitable change.

A final lesson from Zimbabwe is that a man with broken legs should not insist on playing defensive full-back in a serious soccer tournament. Military adventurism is a luxury nobody can afford in the modern world; not George Bush in Iraq or Robert Mugabe in Zaire. Until South Africa finds a satisfactory solution to the problem of apartheid, it should avoid playing military ‘big brother’ in Africa or anywhere. It already has a big war at hand – the war against upside-down justice, against economic apartheid – to fight and win. And it needs a leader that can think better than Thabo Mbeki and act better than Jacob Zuma to win the battles and the war, with minimum pain.

Conclusion

The recent resignation of Thabo Mbeki as president of South Africa is pregnant; it could result to the birth of a socio-economic monster, worse than Zimbabwe, if care is not taken. He lost power because he failed to realize the depth of the frustration of black Africans over the lopsided nature of income and land distribution in the Republic, which calls for urgent redress. And if he did realize the urgency, he, like the professional economist he is, considered growing the economy more important than wealth and land redistribution.

On the other hand, Jacob Zuma has captured power, on the popular understanding that he will quickly redistribute land and incomes. His capacity to do this without serious crisis is doubtful; the white population whose trust he sorely needs to do what must be done, with minimum friction, do not much trust his judgment. If the African National Congress sought my advice, I would tell them, “Retire Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma from top leadership in your party, to save it from dwarfish vision and divisiveness.”

All people of goodwill, of all colours, must come together, in South Africa, to redesign South Africa as a more just and humane African society and avoid the crisis of Zimbabwe multiplied. The whites in South Africa should borrow a leaf from Barack Obama’s assertion of his Americanness; tell their children the true reasons they left Europe; assert their Africanness and help make Africa a better home for all in Africa.

Truth, whole and entire, must be the guide of all in search of a new and better world! Not the limited ideas of Mbeki and his supporters, or of Zuma and his followers; nor yet that of some white South Africans who would want to, allowing black Africans parliamentary ceremonials, preserve the heart of apartheid – 13 percent for 87 percent, 87 percent for 13 percent! Perhaps the crisis in the world financial system will be to the advantage of objective change in South Africa. The apostles of the ‘god-of-market’ as the author and justifier of social inequity and equilibrium of backwardness might have to shut up for a while and allow truth to prevail and order the world, including the Republic of South Africa. (Concluded)

Postscript: This article was first published in 2010. It is republished here in light of the recent xenophobic attacks in parts of South Africa.

Chidi G. Osuagwu