LETTER FROM THE DIASPORA !

Saturday 1st September 2007.

Dear Friends,

Nelson Mandela was in London this week for the unveiling of his statue in Parliament Square. Almost without exception the papers here hailed Madiba for his courageous stand against the forces of repression and racism. Among all the praise heaped on the great man, the comment that most impressed me came from Paul Vallely writing in The Independent. 'Mandela is one of those individuals who, when he enters a room, seems to have about him a golden aura… something which emanates from deep inside. It seems to make those in the room feel somehow blessed by his presence.' And later Vallely adds ' Mandela's moral authority grows from the extraordinary magnanimity he displayed to the white community on his acquisition of power in South Africa in 1994… His gentleness and wisdom were key in preventing that conflict-ridden nation from descending into a post-Apartheid bloodbath of revenge and recrimination.'

Comparisons may be odious but it hard not to compare that picture of Mandela with the outpourings of racist hatred coming from Zimbabwe's president in recent years. 'Gentleness and wisdom' are not qualities we have come to associate with Robert Mugabe. And we know that Mugabe gives the lead while his parasitical followers faithfully echo his views. Now, with the Indigenization of Companies Bill laid before parliament this last week in Harare we see yet another attempt to enshrine Mugabe's racist agenda into law. The Bill defines 'indigenous' as 'any person who was disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of race before independence in 1980'.

No doubt economists and lawyers will expand at great length on the economic and legal implications of this Bill but it is pretty clear, even for a lay person, to see that this is yet another way for the Zanu PF government to get their hands on the country's resources. The truth is that Mugabe is running out of the means of patronage by which he buys the loyalty of his supporters. This Bill is perhaps the last weapon in Mugabe's armoury designed to maintain his grip on power while enriching the few at the expense of the majority. It is for the political analysts to uncover the possible motives for this piece of legislation and its consequences for the country as a whole, what concerns me is the definition of 'Indigenous' that accompanies the Bill and the racist implications.

The subject of race and identity has always dominated politics and society in Southern Africa but in Zimbabwe before and since Independence it has never been openly discussed. It's rather like the elephant in the room; a huge presence but never actually talked about or acknowledged. At Independence, most white people born in the country assumed that they were Zimbabweans; certainly those that stayed in the country after Independence owed their love and loyalty to the country and Mugabe's reconciliatory tone for the first few years reassured them that their contributions as farmers or business people were valued. What this new definition does is to explain what is meant by the term 'indigenous' but without using the label Zimbabwean. Is that an admission that it is possible for non-indigenous people to be considered Zimbabwean by the Mugabe government - or is it simply another move designed to deprive white people of any sense of belonging to the country of their birth? Accurate population figures are hard to come by in Zimbabwe but a recent statistic suggests that there are about twenty two thousand whites left in the country. I suspect that what Mugabe wants is for all whites to leave but he hasn't quite got the courage to issue a blanket Idi Amin-style expulsion which would bring further opprobrium down on his head from the international community. Instead he uses the bullying, intimidatory tactics that we saw during the farm invasions. The illegal march through the city of Harare this week by five thousand so-called war veterans – unchallenged and even supported by the police - simply shows yet again that brute force is Zanu PF's only answer to every problem. The fact is that many of these alleged war veterans were not old enough to fit the definition of 'Indigenous' as stated in the Bill and are thus not eligible to benefit from company seizures in the way they did from the often violent farm invasions. To have 'been disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of race before independence in 1980' cannot in common logic apply to anyone born after 1980 in terms of this nonsensical definition. Implicit in this definition is the notion that anyone discriminated against on grounds of race after Independence, ie. whites and people of mixed race (or any other ethnic group the Zanu PF government wants to exclude from economic enrichment) cannot be allowed to benefit from this latest ploy by the government to carve up the country's resources to their advantage.

According to Robert Mugabe and his cronies, racism is a crime only when it is committed by whites against blacks. In Zanu PF thinking all whites are racists if they disagree with the present government's policies. The accusation of racism is flung at any country which dares to criticise the regime or imposes limited sanctions against Mugabe' top-ranking supporters or questions the regime's governance or human rights record. By definition they are all racists. Only this week Australia came under fire because they have stated that they will expel the children of top officials studying in the country. ' What do we stand to benefit by maintaining diplomatic relations with such a racist country that imposes barbaric sanctions on innocent children and sports people' screamed the state-run Herald newspaper.

Now I see in a Daily Telegraph report today that the Chinese are said to have withdrawn their support for Robert Mugabe. No doubt they too will be accused of racism. To sum it all up, anyone, black or white, who does not agree with Robert Mugabe is a racist. That's the long and short of it!

Ndini shamwari yenyu. PH