It is safe to say that the racist demonisation and imperial conspiracy against Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe should be a source of great agitation among black African leaders who still cherish the freedom and independence of black African continent. Over the years, commentators of all hue have presented arguments denouncing Mugabe for corruption, oppression, tyranny, brutality, dictatorship, intimidation and pursuing ill-informed vendetta against political opponents and innocent white settlers.

Any sensible analysis of the Zimbabwe’s catastrophe must recognise that it has had two central aspects. The first was Tony Blair’s personal vendetta against Mugabe. The second aspect was the neo-colonialist and racist abhorrence of seeing a group of black  men humiliating and killing whites. The received wisdom had always been the other way round as it so often happened in most western democracies and North America.

Mugabe’s ongoing crisis represented the first round of the many neo-imperialist fights we need to fight in Africa. Simply put, it is the fight between racism and justice for blacks in a polarised world where whites are becoming arrogant, unilateral and using both economic and military clout to submit other races to humiliation, political impotency and economic paralysis. Honourable Tony Blair was ahead of the ravenous wolves who requested for the head of Mugabe on a platter. This call was applauded by both right wing and liberal papers in the UK.

Robert Dowden, a mercenary writer and self-styled Africa expert called Mugabe “the Saddam of south Africa” and made an audacious call for Britain to implement “regime change” by force in sovereign Zimbabwe. The tone of the agenda in British press against Mugabe was overwhelmingly combative, arrogant, disdainful, snobbish and worst of all, racist.     

Leader writers, opinion-formers, columnists and desk editors not used to seeing a former colonial servant trading insults with their Prime Minister rallied to his defence because the white way of life in Africa, with all its odious colonial arrogance, was under attack.

Mythologising the corruption and tyrannical crimes of Mugabe is hypocritical, given the then huge racial inequalities in the distribution of land and wealth.  Black African leaders are famous for tyranny and corruption. To objectify the western argument of tyranny, corruption and bad governance we need to move from the particular to the general. Before the sudden death of Mobutu Sese Seko, he was a pampered local manager of western powers. Then, no western governments saw or heard of his evils.

Idi Amin Dada was tolerated until the mass expulsion of Asians from Uganda in the 70s. Opponents of such policy failed to see the resentment and envy generated by the virtual take over of an African country by a tiny economic-dominant minority from Calcutta, Mumbai and Lahore. Britain had to support the Ugandan rebel movement of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni because of the logistics and financial nightmare in absorbing thousands of expelled Asians.

Daniel Arap Moi, the former dictator and tyrant of Kenya was not demonised by the western press because of one important reason.  He did not, in his 24 years of misrule, caused panic or economic and social shift in the lives of the rich and overfed white gamekeepers scattered across Kenya. When Moi was in power, he was more ferociously tyrannical, more corrupt and forcefully suppressed his opponents more than Mugabe. Among his victims was Robert Ouko, his foreign minister, who died in suspicious circumstances in 1990.

President Thabo Mbeki is left alone to nurse the wounded dream of his African Renaissance that may never see the light of day. Why? He will be committing a political suicide like Mugabe across the border if he dare ruffles the excesses of the economic-dominant white minority in Sandton, Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town. Equitable land and wealth redistribution must stay suspended in South Africa if he wants to complete his second term as South African president. Mandela understood this whiteman’s power play and remained impotent in land and wealth redistribution throughout his governance.

Inevitably, Mbeki had to find Mugabe’s pan-Africanism and belligerence admirable and lofty. Unlike other leaders who view Mugabe with the blinkers of corruption and tyranny, Mbeki knows that racialised falsehood account for most of the cumulative portrait of Mugabe in western media. He was once a victim of vicious campaign of hate in the west due to his stance on the causes of HIV and AIDS.

An historical mission to right the wrongs of colonialism has presented itself for all black Africans to embrace. We should not allow the forces of colonialism that destroyed and divided African society to happen again. If you look at the Mugabe’s stand off with brute, metallic logic, there are good reasons to support him. But rather than back Mugabe who is facing an orchestrated campaign of racially motivated animus, we betray our own and called him ruthless, corrupt and a murderer. It is true that Zimbabweans have been cowed by a violent authoritarian rule just as Nigeria is one of the worst countries for just about everything.

But unlike Mugabe, Yar’ Adua has no white economic-dominant minority to dispossess of their ill-gotten land and machinery. Unlike Mugabe, Yar’ Adua has no Brian Donnelly, the former British High Commissioner in Harare, plotting to overthrow him. Yar’ Adua has no Morgan Tsvangirai who leads an opposition movement funded by white businessmen in the UK.

We have to remember too that John Howard the ex-Prime Minister of Australia, who led a bitter campaign of Commonwealth exclusion against Mugabe is a racist par excellence. He waged a war of attrition against black Aboriginal people, denying them land rights which led to his shaming indictment of racism from the UN committee on discrimination.

Howard, and to some extent Helen Clark of New Zealand, both from white, rich nations had to support Blair in his racialised battle with Mugabe. It is in the tradition of white Anglo-Saxon to ‘stick together’ and force surrender among inferior races, regardless of historical wrong and racial injustice. Wars in Congo, Sudan, Angola and Burundi did not get the coverage Zimbabwe got because they did not involve whites.

Black Africa has to resurrect its classical pre-colonial nationalism and fight the demons of neo-colonialism infesting the minds of western leaders. The legacies of colonialism, apartheid, racism and modern discrimination have all combined to produce an impotent black Africa with shrinking voice in a rabidly racist world. My salute to Robert Mugabe for defending the spirit of Africa’s pride from the trenches of deprivation, hunger and hopelessness.

Tijani, a social and afrocentric scholar lives in London.

Robot  Villager

# 1 Win or lose, Robert Gabriel Mugabe is that lonely voice in the wilderness amidst prowling lions lo...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 31.03.2008 21:16

IgoTalk  Villager

# 2 I have no qualms with Mugabe's spirited efforts on land redistribution or his 'pull-the-wool-over-the-eyes' attempt at 'righting' the wrongs of colonialism. Me thinks however that his approach (distributing land acquired from white land owners to loyalists and cronies who were largely untrained and unprepared for large scale food production) was a recipe for disaster. Zimbabweans would not demonize Mugabe (and he is still highly revered in many quarters) if only he had been able to translate his 'good' intentions to economic stability and wealth for them. Regardless of your noble arguments dear writer, as a fellow African who is tired of seeing our continent ridiculed and torn apart (read Kenya) by leadership that is out-of-touch with the reality on ground (ie, suffering and poverty), it is TIME FOR ROBERT MUGABE TO GO!!! GOODBYE MUGABE! Posted by IgoTalk| 01.04.2008 17:58

philipikita  Villager

# 3 =IgoTalk;4295000927>I have no qualms with Mugabe's spirited efforts on land redistribution or his 'pull-the-wool-over-the-eyes' attempt at 'righting' the wrongs of colonialism. Me thinks however that his approach (distributing land acquired from white land owners to loyalists and cronies who were largely untrained and unprepared for large scale food production) was a recipe for disaster. Zimbabweans would not demonize Mugabe (and he is still highly revered in many quarters) if only he had been able to translate his 'good' intentions to economic stability and wealth for them. Regardless of your noble arguments dear writer, as a fellow African who is tired of seeing our continent ridiculed and torn apart (read Kenya) by leadership that is out-of-touch with the reality on ground (ie, suffering and poverty), it is TIME FOR ROBERT MUGABE TO GO!!! GOODBYE MUGABE! Yes, it is time for Mugabe to go indeed. It's so very unfortunate that Robert did not carry his people along democratically, rather he used coercion and violence. This is Mugabe's only mistake. You need to see how Mugabe is liked by the South Africans. They believe the ANC government should grab the lands and give to blacks right now. But I ask, how can this be done? Mugabe was deceived by white "landlords" more than 100 times, and 90% of a black population lived without lands in their own land! Mugabe was so busy fighting sanctions that there was little time to even train the farmers how to manage the land. My man, Kibaki is the same as Mugabe, he hurt British economic interest in no small ways during his first 5 years as leader. When he stopped using Landrovers for military vehicles, switching over to Toyota and Tata 4 wheel drives, I am not suprised with the ferocity with which the BBC writes against Kibaki. The BBC does not write about PDP government in Nigeria, where they are a political party dictatorship riding rough shod over Nigerian citizens. But I agree, Mugabe should go, but pity Zimbabwe in the hands of Morgan, for the African pride will be hurt and taken back 1000 years. Unfortunate. Posted by philipikita| 01.04.2008 21:17

Rastafida  Villager

# 4 TJ, this is a warped and distorted perspective of the socio-political and economic realities in Zimbabwe. Mugabe, it is true, has singlehandedly transformed Zimbabwe from a bread basket into a basket case. The apocalyptic reality of empty shelves in dingy supermarkets, means the teeming population has to go without food. And the irony of this is that a hungry man is an angry man. It is also a familiar irony of history that the movement of the oppressed against their oppressors is always of the oppressors' own making. Mugabe dug his own grave not because he has succeeded in perpetrating himself in power, but because of his economic policies. It is only a crazy man that would take the land away from mechanized farmers for onward distribution among his party stalwarts and loyalists who have never operated a tractor in their life. See where this redistribution policy has got Zimbabwe today. It is true that Nigeria absorbed a chunk of the dispossessed farmers and the cities they are operating in today have become agriculturally successful. TJ, let us thrust nationalist sentiments away from us. Mugabe is a despot and he cannot claim at 83 to be the best of the pick. Apart from being voted out of office, I suggest he should be assassinated. Posted by Rastafida| 02.04.2008 04:35

SUYA  Villager

# 5 Rastafida God Bless You. With no insult intended to the Author but you are way off line bordering on almost rubbish. There is a reason why the fish rots from the head down Sir. Agreed nobody wants to tell their Father to shut up or sit down, but we Africans unfortunately keep putting ourselves in that position and then do nothing allowing both legacy and a “greater tomorrow” to suffer. Mugabe is at best is a great soldier that has been reduced by his oWn making into a weak ceremonial President who lives in Africa’s most expensive 3 Acres while his neighbors must use a wheel barrow to pay for a simple loaf of bread. He has long used color as a divide or to cloak his ruthless totalitarian behavior and Thank God, most of Africa can no longer be blinded. Even before he used food as a weapon and quashed the voices of circa 70,000 so called squatters by uprooting them, his Korean led 5th brigade had killed thousands of Matabele. If he was white I can just imagine what we Africans would have said and done. This is 2008 and life is not a cartoon anymore. We refuse to slip on any more banana peels. Mugabe has wound his toys to their fullest and must NOW play with them. He should F off and go to the RSA where that other punk of a President awaits him......Enough of the Quiet Diplomacy ! Posted by SUYA| 02.04.2008 12:00

Palamedes  Villager

# 6 This article is to be commended for its true insight into events in Zimbabwe. As always, I mourn at the depth of ignorance and stupidity of some Africans—These people are made for propaganda, just as propaganda is made for them. Lets ask ourselves (shall we), why the undue interest in the Zimbabwe election? Not even the ongoing Democratic presidential contest has aroused so much interest in the UK. And with the usual suspects (Desmond Tutu, President Mbeki's brother etc.,) giving interviews. (Taking about Desmond Tutu, I remember how frequent he and Chief Buthelezi used to appear on BBC. I suppose now that apartheid is over, Chief Buthelezi is redundant but not Tutu as long as Mugabe is President. Just noting how the BBC uses Africans in their propaganda exercises). Those overfeed on propaganda should ask themselves, why the BBC and CNN only invite pro-Western Africans who oppose Mugabe (During the apartheid days, it was those against the ANC)--So much for balance reporting. Mind you, Mugabe was a frequent guest at Number 10 Downing Street** until he started confiscating land from the Settler farmers (By the way, these Settlers “mechanized farmer” farm mainly for export because that is where they made money, not by selling their produce locally—lets get some facts right). The Rhodesians are in the UK in large number; they have the support of the UK government and are well financed. One person wrote about Mugabe's economic policies as his downfall: Someday historians will reveal to us how the Rhodesians in the UK, the UK government and her two and half children (Canada, Australia and little New Zealand) conspired to wreck the Zimbabwean economy. It is difficult (if not impossible ) for Zimbabwe to borrow from the IMF or the World Bank or any other International lending institution. Zimbabwe could not export it's goods to the West after the departure of the Rhodesians. The European market, which was once open to goods imports from Zimbabwe became firmly shut. Further, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Zimbabwean currency was also sabotaged using Hitlerian tactics. The Boers in South Africa threw in the white towel when they faced mild (compare to Zimbabwe) sanctions. In the face of the worst set of sanctions in the history of any African country, how many countries would have survived the onslaught this long? The overfeed on propaganda, who think that the BBC's real name is Saint BBC (of broadcasting) should think again! For instance, how many broadcasting organizations in the world uses taxpayers' money to build a listening post where it listens to all radio stations in the world. One would understand if it were “Reuters” because they are in the news gathering business but why would the BBC want to listen in to all radio stations around the world--Only a spy organization would do that! The BBC and CNN never seize to amaze me: in the same news that the viewer is shown an empty supermarket in Zimbabwe (It is always the same one, isn't), one is also shown another supermarket that is stocked with goods. Did the editor fail to spot this contradiction in their misinformation exercise? Lets not forget that Mugabe didn't turn Zimbabwe into one-party state. He could, but he didn't, and yet BBC and CNN keep calling Mugabe a dictator. What kind of dictator would accommodate an opposition? If he is a dictator, what do we call Assad of Syria, Mubarak of Egypt, Castro of Cuba etc? Even before the final vote was cast, we are told by the BBC and CNN that the opposition has won 60% of the vote. How did they know this? Even CNN with all it's hi-tech (as seen in the USA contest) always wait for the poll to close before announcing it's exit-poll results, but not in the Zimbabwean case. There is ONLY one explanation for the onslaught against Zimbabwe and the Western hatred of Mugabe and that is that it is RACIAL: Here is the Caucasian race supporting their own kind and using every dirty tricks against Zimbabwe and Mugabe. Now you see why it is SO lamentable that so many Africans are ignorant and too stupid to think for themselves? ** The seat of the UK government Posted by Palamedes| 02.04.2008 15:02

SUYA  Villager

# 7 Palamedes abeg forget CNN and BBC jorrrr because as we know they both suck, but with all due respect are the Matabele Caucasians? And who was it that committed the genocide against them? The Queens Army, BBC or their own so called Father? Plain and simple ....the tangled web Mugabe wove when he first eliminated Joshua Mqabuko Nyongolo Nkomo (Another blackman if I may add) is finally coming apart and no force on Earth can stop it. And to that I say a glad Amen. Posted by SUYA| 02.04.2008 16:01

Rastafida  Villager

# 8 If the truth must be said, Mugabe has outlived his usefulness. Maybe, there was a time he used to be the fulcrum of the nationalist struggle, but this man is now 83, a senile geriatric. And Palamedes, even Castro was honorable enough to step aside because he knew age was no longer on his side. If such a tyrant were to spring up in Nigeria, would you tolerate him? Well, I think the Zimbabweans are a little bit docile. If not, they should have given this a.s.s.h.o.l.e the Abacha treatment a long time back. If he doesn't relinquish power, I still stick to my opinion of having him assassinated. Posted by Rastafida| 02.04.2008 18:11

truthsayer33  Villager

# 9 The BBC is banned from Zim but inserts their main man John Timpson into the country to report 'what is really going on ' In my youth this was called espionage. Mugabe got an agreement at Lancaster Hse that the UK and USA governments would finance land reform after 10 or so years of stable governance. Mugabe delivered but when the time came for land reform Tony Blair and co said NO we won't release any funds. Mugabe unleashed the veterans and for that the Brits and Yanks destroyed the economy. Maurice Iwu must be laughing his head off!!!!! Posted by truthsayer33| 02.04.2008 19:34

truthsayer33  Villager

# 10 =truthsayer33;4295001214>The BBC is banned from Zim but inserts their main man John Timpson into the country to report 'what is really going on ' In my youth this was called espionage. Mugabe got an agreement at Lancaster Hse that the UK and USA governments would finance land reform after 10 or so years of stable governance. Mugabe delivered but when the time came for land reform Tony Blair and co said NO we won't release any funds. Mugabe unleashed the veterans and for that the Brits and Yanks destroyed the economy. Maurice Iwu must be laughing his head off!!!!! CORRECTION: The BBC reporter is John Simpson Posted by truthsayer33| 03.04.2008 17:17