Zimbabwe: Is There Hope for Stability?

With the upcoming elections, Zimbabwe is in for a drastic change. The current president, Robert Mugabe, shown to the right, is now serving his sixth term, and hoping to serve one more. At the age of 83 and a reputation as a nationalistic fanatic who has driven the nation into unheard of poverty, many are hoping for change. Opposing parties like the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), led my Morgan Tsvangirai, and nationalistic Mugabe supporters, ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front), have moved the country into violence and vulnerability. The elections are set to take place on March 29th, 2008, and without a change in political party, Zimbabwe will continue to suffer dramatically.

With independence from British colonialism in 1980, Zimbabwe was one of the latest African colonies to have an African president. Robert Mugabe changed the face of Zimbabwe in the eighties by promoting nationalism, African pride and forming a sense of the Zimbabwe identity. He was very popular among Zimbabweans and seen as the hero of the black liberation struggle. Furthermore, he provided hope that Zimbabwe, a nation rich with resources, could self sustain and lead Africa out of poverty. However, one of Mugabe's major controversial moves was seizing the land of white settlers and redistributing it to African farmers, claiming it was a re-capture of their country from the west. Unfortunately this took a significant toll on Zimbabwe's economy because the African farmers were untrained in farming techniques, so agriculture, Zimbabwe's most influential drive to a successful economy, was gone. With Mugabe printing too much money for personal expenditures, inflation has taken over. In 1985, Zimbabwe's inflation rate was at 38%, and as of June 2007, has risen to a staggering 11,000%. Mugabe's popularity has drastically decreased but rigged elections keep him in office. Mugabe's corrupt leadership has stalled production in Zimbabwe and led his people to poverty stricken lives. The World Bank stated that in 2006, life expectancy in Zimbabwe averaged around 37 years old, while the prevalence of HIV was a staggering 20% between the ages of 15 and 49. If Zimbabwe continues at this rate of decline, it may reach a point where re-development will not be an option.

March 29th poses as an opportunity for either positive change or a downfall in the future of Zimbabwe's recovery. Morgan Tsvangirai, Mugabe's leading opposition, has suffered interrogations and physical beatings by Mugabe supporters, but his dream for a change in Zimbabwe keeps him driven. He preaches about reviving Zimbabwe's economy, and focusing on its development and the individual rather than its revenge on its previous white colonialists. However, many Zimbabweans remain skeptical. This speech seems all too repeated. With starvation affecting children most, as illustrated below, and lack of an economy, unemployment has skyrocketed and the spread of diseases like AIDS has been ignored.

Many question the responsibility of the international community to assist in Zimbabwe's political stability. A key player has been Thabo Mbeki, South Africa's president. As president of Africa's most stable country, Mbeki was

pressured to interfere in Zimbabwe's affairs. He became the mediator between the ZANU-PF and the opposing MDC. After Mbeki helped unite the MDC, Mugabe declared the election date in March, angering many that thought it was too soon and mediation talks should continue. Mbeki has been given the responsibility that requires a much higher power that can more constructively pressure Mugabe into stabilizing his economy and cooperating with the MDC. As power shortages and the spread of AIDS confront South Africans, Mbeki does not have the political capacity to take on a task as problematic as Zimbabwe. A popular question then arises: who should engage their time and energy into Zimbabwe?

Some impulsively expect the United States, a nation that has the resources to improve Zimbabwe's situation, to take charge. Others argue that it is undemocratic and challenges state sovereignty to intervene in another country's affairs. However, the United States has positioned itself as the "world police" by claiming its intervention in Iraq was to alleviate its people from their tyrant leader. If these are the grounds the United States functions by, then morally it should have intervened in Zimbabwe long ago. Mugabe has not only violated human rights in his own country but taken Zimbabwe out of the international realm as a key trading partner. Some suggest that President Bush, who has voiced concern over Zimbabwe's situation, should meet with Morgan Tsvangirai to provide him international recognition as a possible hope for change in Zimbabwe.

Although there is no way to assure that Tsvangirai will effectively improve Zimbabwe's situation, a change from Robert Mugabe will nonetheless be positive. Almost thirty years of corruption has taken a toll on Zimbabweans and unless Tsvangirai proves to be even more corrupt, there is hope for Zimbabwe's recovery. With a change in regime, more outsiders will likely trust to invest in the reconstruction of Zimbabwe's economy and its rich resources. This will in turn improve employment rates, allowing people to afford vaccinations, contraceptives, and other mere but lifesaving luxuries. The March 29th verdict will hopefully provide a glimpse of light into the future of Zimbabwe's people.