[This is the truth. I have said the same thing many times. Mbeki and the ANC are just watering at the mouth to give the Whites in S.Africa the same kick-up-the-bum Mugabe gave in Zim. They are PATIENTLY WAITING for the right moment to sock it to us. Jan]

WHY SA SUPPORTS MUGABE

Could it be the ANC sees Zimbabwe as a source of vicarious satisfaction, as the way it would like to act against whites?

Prof Schrire is a former University of Zimbabwe external examiner

Robert Schrire

Any observer who has not been asleep for the past decade knows the state of contemporary Zimbabwe. The facts should be beyond dispute: Zimbabwe is an authoritarian state where the police an(194)Â(163)£ judiciary have been politicised to serve the ruling parry’s interests. Political freedoms, including the right to organise, and fair access to the media, are largely absent.

Though Zanu-PF has tinkered at the margins by reducing the levels of political violence and making a few technical electoral reforms, the reality remains that free elections are not possible in an unfree society – period.

Indeed, the only reason that elections are being held at all is because of global insistence on democracy and good governance. President Robert Mugabe is paying lip service to this but, by refusing to accept the very legitimacy of any opposition, has made it plain that he is no democrat. The churches, trade unions and civil society in Zimbabwe know this, as do the governments of the US, the EU and most democratic states. In SA, Cosatu, the SA Communist Party and most opposition parties also know it.

But for inexplicable reasons the ANC and government pretend not only that free elections in Zimbabwe are possible, but that they are probable. Given the realities there, SA’s national interests would be best served by a policy which took a clear, moral stand against Harare’s core policies. They would do well to emulate Nelson Mandela’s and Desmond Tutu’s stances on Zimbabwe. We should be using our political and economic leverage to try to reverse the direction in which Zimbabwe is going.

The debate in SA should be over tactics but government has bilaterally and globally supported the Mugabe regime. To most this position is inexplicable.

So why is government not following policies that are clearly in the national interest? Many have tried to make sense of SA’s position; most end in confusion: it simply doesn’t make sense.

But perhaps it does and there-seem to be only three possible explanations: government is mad, bad, or simply dumb.

Mad. Some have argued in all seriousness that President Thabo Mbeki has shown that he is mad by his HIV/Aids utterances. A similar argument could be made about his Zimbabwe policy, except for one critical factor: Mbeki is not a lone voice in government – his views on Zimbabwe are enthusiastically shared by many cabinet members, including our minister of foreign affairs. Though it may be possible for a head of state to be mad, it is unlikely that an entire government can suffer a similar malady.

Dumb. Government has its fair share of ignorant and unintelligent leaders (as do many other political parties). However, even the most cursory reading of the public media must have provided our leaders with the facts.

And if our intelligence agencies are doing even a fraction of their mandated tasks, government must be reasonably well informed. And whatever criticisms can be made against Mbeki, crass stupidity cannot be one of them. Government as an entity cannot be either dumb or ill-informed.

Bad. The final possible explanation is that government actually supports and approves of the actions of Mugabe. On the face of it, this conclusion is surprising because it would seem to violate all the values government has pledged to uphold. Therefore, it would seem improbable. However, if the other options are impossible, the improbable must be the correct explanation.

How is this possible? One explanation would be that the ANC, unable to express its genuine views on race because of the global pressures stemming from US hegemony and the power of the markets, sees Zimbabwe as a source of vicarious satisfaction. A government that would love to see its own privileged and critical white population punished for their historical role in the creation of poverty and discrimination can applaud a neighbour that acts in a way it itself would like to. Its reading of developments in Zimbabwe, where blacks are the greatest victims of the Mugabe regime, may be a complete distortion of reality, but it fulfils the emotional needs of many in the ANC.

This line of reasoning is too horrible to contemplate. However, in the absence of any more credible explanation we must take it seriously. It is the only one which explains why a government that professes respect for democratic values supports a repressive neighbour. It also explains why a policy is followed despite the damage it does to the broader national interest. Let us hope that there is an alternative explanation.