Mugabe must move off-stage

The Economist suggests the West should remove sanctions on Zimbabwe to call Mugabe’s bluff to reform

An influential British newspaper’s call to lift the international sanctions that so infuriate Robert Mugabe is both fascinating and overdue. In suggesting that the long-endorsed source of the Zimbabwe president’s displeasure be removed provided Mugabe agrees to hold free, fair and suitably-monitored elections next year, The Economist reflects global frustration at the Zimbabwe president’s extraordinary ability to outwit all of his opponents to date.
Mugabe is 86-and-a-half years old but, with a razor-sharp mind and three decades of experience at the helm in Zimbabwe, his self-service record remains unwavering, every effort to topple him having so far failed. Although his mother survived beyond her 100th birthday, Mugabe’s much-rumoured death will eventually come, of course, but how soon - and can it come quickly enough for Zimbabwe?
Indeed, will Mugabe’s death in itself produce better governance, or is an accelerated democratic process in the here-and-now the better goal to shoot for – even if it involves swallowed pride in the West?
Two years ago, the dictator we most love to hate had the entire democratic world on his back. South Africa, as the most affected and powerful member of the regional community, was expected sooner or later to buckle under international pressure to switch off the lights in Zimbabwe. Instead, Mugabe set about warning fellow African states with flawed democracies against hypocritical outbursts orchestrated abroad; played to the hilt his liberation credentials versus what he labelled old-style imperialism posing as democracy; turned ineffectual Western sanctions into self-serving propaganda; and ran circles around South Africa’s half-hearted attempts to get rid of him.
The thought of another decade of Mugabe rule may be unthinkable - but it is nevertheless possible on the basis of longevity (though his younger siblings have already pre-deceased him). It is wise of Mugabe’s staunchest critics  – who have insisted for years that nothing short of his humiliating downfall will do - to now change gear by suggesting they dump their own instinct for vengeance against him and his excesses provided Mugabe steps down once defeated at the polls.
The politics of isolation have not worked in Mugabe’s case. His determination to carry on winning at all costs make it high time to call a truce, which entails Britain talking to him, however reluctantly - he having stated often enough that his grievance lies with the British and no one else. If this seems perilously like giving the bully his own way, so be it in this instance. The gradations between right and wrong are occasionally fathomless.
Back in 2008, when I met Foreign Secretary David Milliband to plead for British dialogue with Mugabe, there was little enthusiasm in Britain’s Labour government for a conciliatory move that would be interpreted by some as weakness from Westminister. I tried hard to convince the Labour minister that Mugabe’s anti-colonial mask conceals a deep love for Britain, but he was not receptive to such complexity. Now that David Cameron is in office, however, there are welcome signs of a rethink based purely on the best-interests of the people of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe’s prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, backs this expedient strategy, having long reassured Mugabe that an MDC government will not in future seek retribution for human rights abuses of the past. Whether the current shift in international thinking represents diplomatic flexibility or just blind faith in Mugabe’s alleged yearning for legacy rehabilitation doesn’t really matter. It is pragmatic, albeit risky, politics, which has at least a chance of success if led by Britain in tandem with SA.
As The Economist has pointed out, Mugabe always preferred the UK’s Conservatives to Labour, partly because Zimbabwe’s tricky tyrant believes the Tories understand the consequences of colonialism better than their predecessors. Although it was Margaret Thatcher who suspended the controversial and ill-defined British funding pledged to Zimbabwe’s land redistribution at the 1979 Lancaster House talks that brought Mugabe to power, he subsequently enjoyed a warm relationship with Thatcher’s fleeting successor, John Major, affectionately calling him “Johnny” and being under the impression that the Tories intended to restore Britain’s disputed financial support.
Then came New Labour led by Tony Blair, with whom Mugabe staged epic clashes. While he insulted the British leader outrageously, the toxicity between the two was mutually driven - a symptom of Britain’s failure to interrogate its colonial past as well as Mugabe’s bitter and twisted Britishness.
According to The Economist, Zimbabwe’s indomitable president has recently made his own peace overtures towards Britain, the symbol not only of southern Africa’s imperialist history but of Mugabe’s sentimental journey from a deprived colonial childhood to a latterly humiliating presidency. In doggedly proving himself right, Mugabe has shown that he will stop at nothing to restore his pride – and we all know by now that he is not to be underestimated as a political strategist.
Mugabe’s latest tactic has been to announce that he might withdraw from the government of national unity (GNU) now that its mandate is up. This is blatantly disingenuous since Mugabe knows that the specified timespan of the GNU was designed to discourage electoral delay. But his aim is to stymie pre-election reforms and avenge Tsvangirai’s criticism of  his unilateral “official” appointments. It is a reminder of Mugabe’s skill at out-manoeuvring his opponents, a tit-for-tattery that we will see again and again if he continues to hold Zimbabwe back so as to remain in office himself while flipping the finger at the West.

South Africa’s sorry attempts to persuade Mugabe to honour his commitments to the inclusive government  are characterized by a fascinating insight from President Zuma’s facilitators. After being asked repeatedly for an appointment to discuss outstanding GNU issues with SADC’s representatives, Mugabe complained of a tight schedule and told them to talk to his prime minister instead. Dutifully calling Tsvangirai, they agreed to a date hence at 11.00am. Within minutes, though, Mugabe’s office had rung Zuma’s team to offer exactly the same appointment, which the South Africans accepted - signaling not only that key phone lines in Harare are tapped, but that nobody other than Robert Mugabe calls the shots in Zimbabwe.