For Zimbabwe, this is a great day. Mugabe’s 37-year long rule has ended without adding to the blood and suffering that he has already caused his country’s people. This moment is as much a victory for the people as it is for the army which moved against him.
The next few weeks will be crucial. But if Zimbabwe is to have a positive future, it’s time for Western countries to own up to the role they played in the country’s catastrophe, and put it right.
Six years ago Jubilee Debt Campaign investigated the history of Zimbabwe’s debt. That debt – now thought to be running close to $9billion – is unpayable by a country that remains in economic collapse. But it is also testament to the role that western governments, international institutions and transnational corporations have played in Zimbabwe’s catastrophe.
Zimbabwe’s debt has its origins in loans from European banks which were used to bolster the military power of the white supremacist government of Rhodesia (southern Rhodesia being the colonial name for Zimbabwe) in violation of UN sanctions. These debts were handed down to Mugabe after 1980, who inherited a country with ‘middle income’ economic status but also high levels of poverty and inequality.
The new Zimbabwe ran up further debts simply trying to prevent destabilisation from apartheid South Africa, which was still being supported by governments like Britain well into the 1980s. As early as 1998, my organisation called for the cancellation of these ‘apartheid debts’. But in effect they are still being recycled, with no acknowledgement of the damage wrought by that terrible period in Southern Africa’s history.
Who was recycling these debts? Enter the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, who responded to successive droughts by extending loans to the country, on the condition that Zimbabwe implemented ‘structural adjustment’ reforms. In modern terms, this meant austerity: cut government spending, liberalise trade, freeze wages, remove financial controls.
It seems strange now, but Mugabe was a model student of austerity for a while, praised by the World Bank for the “persistence and determination” with which these reforms were pursued. Too right. During the 1990-91 drought, the most serious since the 1960s, maize was still being exported overseas, as a condition of the structural adjustment programme.
The long-term tensions these policies caused could hardly have been contained even by a well-meaning government, never mind the ruthless regime of Mugabe. The results affected every part of society. Badly needed land redistribution was scaled down, and the country became dependent on food imports. The successful textile industry collapsed. Unemployment rocketed to around 50%. Public spending cuts and the introduction of healthcare fees saw maternal mortality double. Inflation shot up.
Even the IMF and World Bank have since admitted that these reforms didn’t work, with the Bank saying it “under-estimated government concerns about the impacts of reforms on the distribution of income and assets and on the racial divide inherited at independence.”
Zimbabwe was also given a series of loans from European governments – often counted as ‘aid’ – which benefitted big business, with the bill effectively being picked up by Zimbabwe’s poor. For years, British ‘aid’ was conditional on the buying British-made goods.
Between 1989 and 1997, the British government financially supported the sale of Hawk fighter jets, which Mugabe used to intervene in Congo, and 1,000 police land rovers which were used to suppress dissent. Britain joined other countries in supporting the infamous Hwange coal power station, which was great foreign corporations, but which generated so little power that it didn’t even pay the interest on the loans.
Today, Zimbabwe continues to be weighed down by this debt, and by the policies which were promoted by the West. None of this justifies the brutality or looting of Mugabe’s government. And before we get too excited by the events of recent days, let’s remember that Mugabe’s successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is another hard man, who spent decades in Mugabe’s clique, and has been accused of his own brutality and corruption.
Zimbabwe needs change, and that change need to come from the country’s people. It’s vital that the stranglehold of Mugabe’s party, ZANU-PF, is broken, perhaps by a unity government preceding elections.
Western governments can continue to play a detrimental role, or they can play a useful role. If they want to make amends for past crimes, serious debt cancellation will be required as well as genuine aid and investment tied not to free market reforms, but a massive democratic development plan, fully transparent and accountable.
Zimbabwe stands at a crossroads. Western countries and international institutions must apologise for their previous crimes. Rather than seeing this as an opportunity for further economic control, it’s time they put Zimbabwe’s people in the driving seat.
The new faces of the unions ● How Bolsonaro rose to power in Brazil ● Tribune and the Tribune group ● DIY cinema ● Peterloo and Sorry to Bother You reviews ● and much more
And you choose how much to pay for your subscription...
Formerly colonised nations are still suffering the effects of underdevelopment and underinvestment in health infrastructure, writes Jessica Lynne Pearson.
Shehina Fazal reviews 'Kenya’s War of Independence: Mau Mau and its Legacy of Resistance to Colonialism and Imperialism, 1948-1990' by Shiraz Durrani.
Mike Peters explores the legacy of Steve Biko, a radical who spent his life fighting for Black liberation and for the overthrow of the Apartheid government in South Africa.
Nick Dearden looks at the theories of one of Africa's greatest radical thinkers
Lee Wengraf writes that the rush for profits, economic volatility and militarization across Africa promises only instability, rising exploitation and violence.
Jacob Zuma's legacy of corruption and economic mismanagement will not be cured by a simple transfer of leadership. Patrick Bond examines the impact of steering South Africa towards BRICS membership.