Zimbabwe at the Brink: Famine and Unfair Elections

Author: Carey Goodman
Published on: Mar 28, 2005

WWhen the policy was announced, its dire cost was implied, but on the surface it seemed nothing more than a new quintessential ggesture Robert Mugabe conjured to keep his power.

Months ago Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe (who ruled the country since it gained independence in 1980 and who is recognized as one of the world's most brutal dictators) announced his governing Zanu PF party would take control of food distribution throughout the country. The decision evolved as a result of the seizure of white-owned farms. The land redistribution program caused such havoc in the countryside that no one operated the farms, and crop yields during the last three years were very minimal. The Zanu PF solution: Control the food supply, and control the election results by giving food priority to Zanu PF supporters. In other words, use grain as a political weapon.

Seen from one vantage, Zanu PF finally admits its desperation. Mr. Mugabe wants to win so badly he is willing to starve Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters to do it. For a while Zanu PF denied a food crisis exists. Then the party line changed as the so-called general election to be held 31 March neared. According to a report from the online Mail and Guardian site, last week Mr. Mugabe told a Zanu PF rally there was a lack of food, but the essence of his comments were to the effect that: "Do not worry; we will not let you starve". The answer to which "you" Mr. Mugabe intended is all too obvious.

Months before Mr. Mugabe's admission, villagers across Zimbabwe contributed funds to buy imported wheat. When the villagers queue for the wheat, some of them have a rather unpleasant surprise: Rather than getting wheat, they get their money back. They also get an explanation that they were seen at an MDC rally or they are known to support the MDC, and that makes them ineligible to receive the most basic food aid from the state - the only source for food now available in Zimbabwe.

Desperate times require desperate measures, and Zimbabwe's famine is no exception. MDC (and now some Zanu PF) supporters eat ocra and extracts from roots dug from the abandoned fields. A rather slimy vegetable, many Zimbabweans regard ocra as a weak vegetable which consuming will cause to weaken humans. According to the Mail and Guardian report already cited, a typical day of meals in Zimbabwe is tea for breakfast, tea in the late afternoon, and ocra and boiled weeds or roots and extract and tea for dinner. Yes, that is correct: In some villages in the pro-MDDC areas, people must harvest and boil weeds. Meanwhile Mr. Mugabe continues his very selective food distribution program.

Two curious concepts arise from this situation. With Zimbabwe's 31 March "elections", will Mr. Mugabe end his very selective food distribution scheme after the votes are cast and the foredrrawn conclusion is announced? If not, is this peculiar effort the method by which he intends to to prevent Zanu PF supporters from starving? How long will he be allowed to persist with the forced famine of his political opponents?

MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai continues to encourage his supporters to demonstrate their allegiance by voting for change. An MDC victory would mean an end to Zanu PF and an end to the food distribution scheme. Mr. Tsvanngirai (who less than two years ago narrowly escaped treason charges) presents a stark contrast to Mr. Mugabe. This is true on matters of substance and symbolism. The Zanu PF symbol is a closed fist; the MDC symbol is an open palm. Mr. Mugabe's food scheme validates fully the closed fist's significance: Zanu PF is cliquish, power-clinging, and distinctly not interested in applying democratic principles. The MDC long urged inclusion, but the Zanu PF leaders likely will be held to account for their crimes in the miniscule prospect of an MDC victory.

An MDC victory is not unlikely because of a lack of support. If a fully free and fair election were held in Zimbabwe, and voters did not fear retribution from voting for the main opposition party's candidates, the MDC probably would win by a large margin. An MDC victory is unlikely simply by virtue of who will count the votes. It is quite the case of allowing the "fox to guard the hens". Zanu PF has a solid tradition of using election results as a way to identify and punish MDC members and backers. With very limited external observation of the vote, everyone has only Zany PF's word that Mr. Mugabe won by his typical "98% of the vote" based on "99.5% turnout".

Zimbabwe's people deserve better than the government Mr. Mugabe and Zanu PF gave them during the last twenty-five years. Zanu PF will not rule forever. Perhaps when Mr. Mugabe finally has his demise, the reins of power will swing a bit more freely. Perhaps Zimbabweans will produce such a resounding turnout for the MDC that Zanu PF will find it impossible to conceal the truth. The worst of it is that Zimbabwe squandered its reputation as one of Africa's prize jewels. Its fertile lands should make famine inconceivable. Yes, there was a substantial drought during the last growing season, and a lack of productivity surely is understandable, but it is all traceable straight back to Zanu PF and Robert Mugabe. Perhaps sooner rather than later new sparkle will come to this prize African jewel when it finally is able to shed the heavy layer of tarnish Zanu PF and Mr. Mugabe inflicted on it during the last quarter century.