On April 18, Zimbabwe celebrated its 45th independence anniversary. Their independence in 1980 came with mixed emotions and resulted in a country still divided racially and economically. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s longest-serving president, breathed his last breath in 2019, and his legacy has been a mixture of admiration for his revolutionary past and disgust for his dictatorial attitude, his racism towards whites, abuse of power, and widespread violations of human rights. The country that proudly declared its independence, leaving behind the past of Rhodesia, finds itself in a labyrinth of constant corruption, human rights violations, and economic downfall. Everybody calls it Zimbabwe now, but no one says the name with pride.
Rhodesia and Zimbabwe share similar mixed reactions on their history. As a result, there is a need to provide a constructed comparison of the ideological stances of both states. Rhodesian realism and Zimbabwean Marxism. These analytical frameworks provide an antithesis whose purpose is to highlight the failures of both states through the lens of their ideologies. In addition, the exploration of Cold War politics allows for a more detailed approach to the differences between the two ideologies. In the end, despite the liberation goals of Zimbabwe, the country has managed to be in a worse state than it was before.
Rhodesia & The Old World
Up until 1965, Rhodesia was a colony of the British Empire. During the 1960s, decolonization was accelerating on the African continent. The process of decolonization in Africa was often fueled by Marxist ideology, which saw the problem of colonization as a class struggle between the white bourgeoisie and the Black proletarians. At that time, many white Rhodesians were deeply disturbed by the post-colonial political transition in neighboring Belgian Congo (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) [1] and decided to maintain absolute political control by declaring independence from the British Empire. On November 11, 1965, Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith issued the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and for the next 14 years, Rhodesia struggled to maintain its independence, relying on a realistic approach throughout all sectors of the country, such as politics, the economy, the military, and foreign relations.
Rhodesia was not a democracy, and although it was not an apartheid state like neighboring South Africa, it did have political regulations that excluded the majority Black population from any reserve of power. An example of this political regulation was the voting system, which required the fulfillment of some financial conditions, such as land ownership [2], which pragmatically excluded a great number of native Black people from the electorate. As a result, political power and wealth were in the hands of an elite few. However, the white population defended this stance by suggesting the notion of personal responsibility rather than egalitarianism, where the elite embodied the concept of the privileged to care for the society in the name of the community. For them, the Black population at that time was simply too inexperienced to participate in the administrative complexities of an industrialized state. [3]
Rhodesia at that time was one of the few developed states on the African continent. An industrialized state with fertile agricultural ground, making it an economic powerhouse in the African continent, earning it the nickname “the breadbasket of Africa. Since its declaration of independence, despite the imposed sanctions by the United Kingdom and later on from the United Nations, Rhodesia saw different sectors of its economy, such as consumer manufacturing, mining, production of sugar, tobacco, and building materials, gaining a temporary economic growth of more than 7% annually during the period of 1968-1972. [4]
The country operated as a typical capitalistic society, with the white rural bourgeoisie playing an important role in almost every sector of the country’s economy. This bourgeoisie consisted largely of both owner-workers of small and medium-sized mines and farmers who were economically committed to the development of the country. [5] This development allowed Rhodesia to be transformed from a basic agrarian society into an industrial one, without the need for foreign aid, since the white settlers managed to achieve all these developments themselves despite their low numbers. To give a perspective, by 1960, five years before the declaration of independence from the United Kingdom, Rhodesian white settlers amounted to just 220,000 (7.30%), while the native Black population amounted to around 2,830,000 (92.70%). [6]
This political and economic euphoria found some obstacles during the civil conflict known as the Rhodesian Bush War. The white-minority Rhodesian government was up against two revolutionary political organizations under the leadership of two prominent revolutionary figures. Robert Mugabe from the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Joshua Nkomo from the Zimbabwe African People’s Union. The conflict was engulfed in Cold War politics. The revolutionaries were supported by the Soviet Union and China, enforcing global communist solidarity. Surprisingly, the U.S. and the Western world did not support Rhodesia’s struggle. The only temporary support that the country received was from South Africa, gaining important military and material aid. [7]
The lack of support for the Rhodesian cause was a backstabbing for the minority white Rhodesians. Prime Minister Ian Smith expressed his dissatisfaction by emphasizing that the conflict was primarily anti-communist in its nature. [8] Smith rejected the accusations of a racial war, emphasizing that whites and blacks were against communism, which wanted to infiltrate Rhodesian society like a Trojan horse behind the essence and promotion of “democracy.”
Despite their best efforts, at the end, after 15 years, the war ended in a stalemate. Rhodesia was unable to continue their struggle due to the embargoes that strangled the country, making it unable to import fuel and weapons while their exports were hauled to the ground. The political compromise that came after the stalemate would have seen the guerrilla forces gaining the upper hand even though they did not achieve total military victory, only a political settlement. [9] In 1980, elections were held in the country, and Robert Mugabe became the new prime minister. The country was officially renamed Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe & The New World
1980 was the beginning of a new era in Zimbabwe. Much of the hope surrounding this new state was laid upon Robert Mugabe, the first prime minister of the country and future president, up until 2017. Mugabe was a revolutionary politician who took part in the Rhodesian Bush War as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union. Mugabe identified himself as a Marxist-Leninist with strong anti-colonial tendencies. He belonged to the first generation of African nationalists in Zimbabwe, managing to create a form of “left-nationalism” whose purpose was to stand firm against imperialism and colonialism. [10]
The Marxist promises of land distribution and social equity resonated well with the majority Black population. Soon, Zimbabwe was swarmed by a new populist movement known as Mugabeism that blended the traditional Marxist views of class struggle with nativism, which focused on the promotion of the indigenous citizens of Zimbabwe. [11] However, this enthusiasm was cut short once it was clear that Mugabe was following the same anti-democratic steps of dictators at that time, masquerading his intentions as liberation goals.
Robert Mugabe was very clear about his political ambitions in Zimbabwe. In 1984, Mugabe aimed at transforming the political system of Zimbabwe from a multi-party state into a one-party state. He famously stated,
“The one-party state is more in keeping with African tradition. It makes for greater unity for the people. It puts all opinions under one umbrella, whether these opinions are radical or reactionary.” [12]
It is not difficult to understand why Mugabe pushed for the creation of a one-party state. Restriction of multiple voices in the administrative structure of Zimbabwe meant easier implementation of radical policies whose sole purpose was the elimination of the enemies of the state, meaning the whites. Mugabe’s rhetoric was a mixture of racism towards whites and claims for a violent takeover of the land that was predominantly owned by the white minority and a reminder of the past, focusing explicitly on the Rhodesian Bush War. The purpose was to hijack and take advantage of the past history of the country in order to fuel ultranationalistic sentiments and hold a firm grip on national security. [13] His political reforms were blended with catastrophic economic reforms that were primarily based on Marxist ideology of land redistribution rather than factual policies.
The economic free ride that Zimbabwe enjoyed as a result of the previous policies implemented by Rhodesia ended in the 1990s. From that point on, economic stagnation and uncertainty for the future of the country were daily headaches for millions of Zimbabweans. The 1990s plunged the country into a recession, which was the result of two uncontrollable factors. The first one was the droughts in 1992 and 1995. The second factor was the global recession of 1991, which reduced raw material prices and export demands. [14] These economic setbacks soon transformed into anger from the general population. With the rise of unemployment, student associations, trade unionists, and medical and civil servants went on national strikes over the increased cost of living and reduced wages. [15]
The nationwide strikes posed a threat to the government of Robert Mugabe. As a result, in an effort to normalize the economy of Zimbabwe and to stop the ongoing unrest, Mugabe introduced one of the most controversial policies in the country’s history. The Fast Track Land Reform. Introduced in 2000, this policy focused on the compulsory land acquisition from the white farmers towards the native Black population. [16] This policy became a pivotal moment for Zimbabwe. The government of Robert Mugabe authorized the violent land invasions organized by armed groups against the white-owned farms. [17] It was clear that Mugabe was acting on a spree of revenge politics against the white population. The justifications behind these vicious attacks resided in Mugabe’s anti-colonial stance and Marxist views of class warfare. In May 2000, Mugabe issued a decree under the Presidential Powers Act, allowing his government to seize farms without any sort of compensation. [18] This resulted in massive human rights violations, with white farmers being assaulted and killed. There were also reports showcasing the lack of police protection for white farmers and the support of those invasions from prominent political and military figures. [19]
The economy of Zimbabwe also took a huge blow. The agricultural development of the country was completely destroyed. To give a perspective: In 2000, Zimbabwe was producing at least 2 million tons of corn. By 2008, that number fell to 450,000 tons. By 2003, food insecurity was spreading throughout the country, and by 2009 at least 75% of the total population of Zimbabwe was relying on humanitarian food aid from third countries. [20] In addition, due to the numerous human rights violations and the reports of election interference, Zimbabwe was put on international sanctions primarily from the U.S. and the EU. [21] Economically, these sanctions strangled Zimbabwe even further, while Mugabe’s anti-West rhetoric intensified, drowning Zimbabwe in a state of “warfare” where anyone who was not supporting Mugabe was pointed out as an enemy of the state and a puppet of Western governments. Robert Mugabe might have passed in 2019, but his failed economic policies and hateful rhetoric still haunt Zimbabwe.
Rhodesia Failures Through the Lens of Realism
The historical background of both Rhodesia and Zimbabwe was characterized by two things. Ideological survival and implementation of Cold War politics. Rhodesia built its foundations on the realistic perspective for its survival by aligning itself with the Western sphere of Cold War politicsthat was wrapped up in a capitalistic and sometimes democratic manner.
The rapid spread of decolonization across the African continent alarmed the white-minority government of Rhodesia, who sought to take drastic measures for the survival of their state, thus relying on a realistic approach in their political structure, economics, and foreign policy.
Since 1965 and its declaration of independence, Rhodesia projected an interplay between national interests and ethical justification for its actions. As a result of this interplay, Rhodesian realism can be examined through the works of one of the most influential realist figures of the 20th century, Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau was a German political scientist whose work has been instrumental in international relations theory. In his book Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, he illustrated several principles of political realism. He argued that politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature. [22] Rhodesia’s independence struggle was fueled by the desire to keep political authority and the economic interests of the white minority. Thus, any actions that reinforced those desires were deemed necessary to protect its society from external destabilizing political changes that were happening in neighboring countries. [23]
Another example that Morgenthau projects is the principle of distinction between morality and political realism. [24] He argues that although realism is not opposed to ethics and morality, leaders of nations often must make pragmatic choices that might not apply to universal moral standards. In that sense, we witness the same principle applied to Ian Smith’s government. By primarily serving the interests of the white minority, Smith disregarded the implementation of a majority rule, which he viewed as catastrophic. His justification was that Rhodesian independence and governance were about preserving Christian standards and values while having a patriotic duty to defend the free world and save Western civilization in Africa. [25]
Nevertheless, holding on to the principles of realism was not enough to prevent the failure of the Rhodesian state. The 1965 United Nations Security Council Resolution 216 called upon all UN members to not recognize the independent state of Rhodesia [26], which was essentially the legal form of global isolation for Ian Smith’s government. In addition, the ongoing heavy resistance towards the discriminatory policies against the majority Black population and the eruption of the Rhodesian Bush War were the final hits for realism in Rhodesia. In the end, the persistence of Rhodesia in its political autonomy was the death of it, since the West had already decided that they had no use for the country in the new globalized world.
Zimbabwe Failures Through the Lens of Marxism
In 1980, Zimbabwe had a chance to be completely transformed under the revolutionary figure of Robert Mugabe. Despite the aspirations and hopes for an end to racial discrimination and an equal distribution of the land, Zimbabwe found itself in the same loop of failure, unable to cope with the consequences of its actions. Since the rise of Robert Mugabe in power, the country operated through a Marxist ideology that was blended with a strong anti-colonial and anti-imperialist essence. Soon after the fall of Rhodesia, Zimbabwe entered into the phase of the Cold War. Instead of a bilateral confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the Cold War on the African continent reflected a global-scale conflict [27] that was fueled by opposed ideologies, primarily capitalism and socialism.
Zimbabwe was caught in between, trying to balance being part of the bilateral world and focusing on national reconciliation. Robert Mugabe was the instrumental figure in this balance. His revolutionary spirit and strong personality projected what millions of natives were waiting for: an equal world. His Marxist ideology fit perfectly with the idea of a new “worldmaking.” This idea focused strongly on self-determination, which included national and economic sovereignty, political equity in the global sphere, the promotion of Pan-Africanism, and finally a reconstruction of international politics. [28]
However, political reality tends to clash with ideological aspirations, and unfortunately, reality gave Zimbabwe ferocious hits. Mugabe operated as a typical African warlord that cultivated a cult of victimization around Zimbabwe, blaming the West for the situation in his country [29], promoting division, and describing the situation in his country and in Africa as a struggle between masters and slaves. Instead of actual solutions, Mugabe and his devoted supporters unleashed a new era of terror and racial division through the spread of anti-white racism, denying white citizens of Zimbabwe fundamental rights and forcefully removing them from their land. [30]
Apart from political failures, Mugabe exhibited a profound talent in creating unfavorable situations for his country through economic measures that reflected his weakness in understanding basic macroeconomic policies. The obsession of Mugabe with consolidating power through a one-party system enabled him to essentially control all of the country’s main governing bodies, including the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. [31] The result? Hyperinflation, international debt, political and economic repression, and a hyper-dependence on humanitarian aid from the West to keep the citizens of Zimbabwe from starving to death. Even the grand plan of land distribution that was inspired by the Marxist ideological frame of returning the land to the hands of the proletariat backfired, as it was an unruly process that did not redistribute land within the judicial framework. Farms were taken by force, and many farmers were given a one-day ultimatum to evacuate their farms without prior warning. [32] In the end, despite the liberation goals and false promises of equity and egalitarianism, Robert Mugabe sunk his country into an unprecedented crisis. His obsession with power consolidation and implementation of Marxism had tremendous negative consequences for his country that are still visible today.
Zimbabwe in the Long Horizon
The ideological obsession of both states resulted in the failure of their treasured system. Rhodesia was unable to cope with the international isolation, and Zimbabwe could not produce results because of its economic stagnation. Both states exhibited authoritarian regimes that were fueled by racial discrimination and implementation of a one-party system. Rhodesia and Zimbabwe did not produce a sustainable democratic environment. Racial inequalities and class disparities were present in both countries, and true equity and national cohesion were never achieved. The differences between realism and Marxism were visible throughout both countries. However, those differences resulted in the same failures, creating rogue states that could not adapt to the new changing world. In the end, Rhodesia was not a democratic country, but the post-colonial goals of Zimbabwe that were never successfully implemented made the country so dependent on foreign aid and their citizens so miserable that the government has managed to create a worse situation than Rhodesia. A country that operates solely on ideological frameworks without consideration for pragmatic solutions is doomed to fail. However, the case of Zimbabwe is one of the many across the African continent. A country that is dependent on others for its survival can never achieve full independence.
[1] Ian Smith: Bitter Harvest: The Great Betrayal
[2] New York Times: Voting Requirements Raised (September 12, 1964)
[3] Ian Smith: Bitter Harvest: The Great Betrayal
[4] CIA: Intelligence Memorandum. Rhodesia: Economic Progress Despite Sanctions.
[5] Giovanni Arrighi: The Political Economy of Rhodesia
[6] Alfred John Wills: An Introduction to the History of Central Africa
[7] J.R.T. Wood: A Matter of Weeks Rather Than Months: The Impasse Between Harold Wilson and Ian Smith, Sanctions, Aborted Settlements, and War, 1965-1969.
[8] Michael Evans: The Wretched of the Empire: Politics, Ideology, and Counterinsurgency in Rhodesia, 1965–80.
[9] Michael Evans: The Making of an African Army: The Case of Zimbabwe 1980-87.
[10] Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni: Mugabeism? History, Politics, and Power in Zimbabwe. Chapter 1: Introduction Mugabeism and Entanglements of History, Politics, and Power in the Making of Zimbabwe, pp. 1-25
[11] Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni: Making Sense of Mugabeism in Local and Global Politics: ‘So Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe,’ pp. 1146-1147
[12] David Blair: Degrees in Violence: Robert Mugabe and the Power Struggle in Zimbabwe, p. 29
[13] Abiodun Alao: Mugabe and the Politics of Security in Zimbabwe
[14] Teddy Brett & Simon Winter: Origins of the Zimbabwe Crisis. Helen Suzman Foundation
[15] Benson Zwizwai, Admore Kambudzi & Bonface Mauwa: Zimbabwe: Economic Policy-Making and Implementation: A Study of Strategic Trade and Selective Industrial Policies, p.225.
[16] Human Rights Watch: Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe, pp. 6-14
[17] Martin Meredith: Our Votes, Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe, p. 167
[18] Martin Meredith: Our Votes, Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe, p. 184
[19] Human Rights Watch: Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe, pp. 18-35
[20] Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann: Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, 2000–2009: Massive Human Rights Violations and the Failure to Protect, pp. 899-901
[21] Musiwaro Ndakaripa: Zimbabwe’s Economic Meltdown: Are Sanctions Really to Blame?
[22] Hans Morgenthau: Politics among nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, pp. 4-15
[23] A.J.A. Peck: Rhodesia Accuses
[24] Hans Morgenthau: Politics among nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, pp. 4-15
[25] Brian Raftopoulos & Alois Mlambo: Becoming Zimbabwe. A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008
[26] United Nations Security Council: Resolution 216, November 12th, 1965
[27] Odd Arne Westad: The Cold War: A World History
[28] Adom Getachew: Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination
[29] Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni: Making Sense of Mugabeism in Local and Global Politics: ‘So Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe,’ pp. 1146-1147
[30] Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni: Making Sense of Mugabeism in Local and Global Politics: ‘So Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe,’ p. 1151
[31] Chidochashe L. Munangagwa: The Economic Decline of Zimbabwe, p. 110
[32] Chidochashe L. Munangagwa: The Economic Decline of Zimbabwe, p. 115
