 |
|
| Kathmandu Monday April 01, 2002 Chaitra 19, 2058. |
|
Mugabe’s victory, Gandhi’s advice
and Deuba’s visit
By Dr Shreedhar Gautam
Zimbabwe’s long time ruler Robert Mugabe
swept to victory recently in the most bitterly contested presidential election in that
country’s history. The election pitted President Mugabe, the most charismatic leader
the country has known in 22 years of independence, against Morgan Tsvangirai, a former
labour organiser. Though challenger Tsvangirai has accused the government of rigging the
election and thus preventing the supporters of the opposition party from voting, most of
the observers from African countries have declared the poll as fair and free. Of course,
some of the Commonwealth countries, most prominently Britain, have rejected Mugabe’s
victory out of hand. Governments of these countries all but dismissed the outcome even
before state television announced that Mugabe was selected with 1,685,212 votes. The
British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the US State Department spokeswoman, Lynn
Cassel, have expectedly termed the election seriously flawed and stolen for obvious
partisan reason.
In normal circumstances the presidential
election in Zimbabwe would not have received world attention, as it is normal practice in
any democracy. But in the context of British, Australian and United States overt
interference in the internal matters of a sovereign country, the elections received a
different colour. Though it is no longer fashionable to decry the evils of colonialism in
assigning blame for national misfortune in other former colonial countries, Zimbabwe is
the sole exception because of its struggle for land reform for land owned by white
farmers. The colonial land ownership patterns that gave most of the viable farmland to
white settlers lies at the root of the political crisis in Zimbabwe. The western
interference in Zimbabwe’s election has to be traced to the old colonial
administrative habit of divide and rule, which led almost inexorably to the tragedy of
partition in the Indian sub-continent.
The BBC, CNN and major western print media
have been consistently trying to arouse public opinion against Mugabe and project the
image of Tsvangirai as the most democratic leader. The boundaries of Zimbabwe were drawn
in colonial times, and they still create enormous problems of national unity. The colonial
legacy can cause further trouble along ethnic or regional lines in Zimbabwe. The former
colonial mentors are exploiting all these factors to defame Robert Mugabe and ensure
disproportionate land ownership by white farmers. On the one hand the underdevelopment of
Zimbabwean society is itself a cause of conflict, on the other hand, the
ex-colonials’ attempt to divide the country on regional and communal basis is posing
a great threat to Zimbabwe’s stability. In such a situation Mugabe’s political
rhetoric against colonial power cannot be dismissed. Despite the fact that colonialism
seems the least plausible subject for discussion in today’s world, it remains a
relevant factor in understanding the problem and the danger faced by weaker nations.
Unlike the former colonial states like India, we have not had the history of direct
colonial rule, but we should learn a lot from the courageous stand taken by Mugabe.
Robert Mugabe successfully led his country
against the colonial power, and so the people voted him to power for another six years
reposing full faith in his leadership. Today, Mugabe can be a role model for least
developed third world countries like Nepal. In the just held presidential election he
showed exemplary resolve and determination to preserve national pride and sovereignty by
banning the western media, including the BBC, fully aware that they were biased in their
reporting and so a possible source of trouble. >From day one of the election campaign,
western media projected Robert Mugabe as a totalitarian, anti-democratic leader bent upon
destroying the country. This is a familiar trick used by the former colonial powers
elsewhere in the world.
In our national case, we must have been full
of hope and enthusiasm because the twentieth century gave us the valuable gift of
democracy in the form of a multiparty system before it bade farewell. We enjoyed it
immensely while restoring parliamentary democracy taking for granted that Abraham
Lincoln’s famous phrase ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the
people", would be realised in its true spirit. According to Lincoln’s definition
of democracy, government of the people means the people’s government, or government
over the entire people. None of the people are left out. Government by the people means
the people are the governors. In their capacity as rulers they choose executives and
representatives to make and enforce their laws. Government for the people means government
that acts for the general welfare of all the people, not just some, and especially not
just the rulers themselves.
If we observe the present situation of our
country we will see not the democracy as defined by Lincoln and Jefferson but a sheer
mockery of it. We have failed to put the means of democracy into practice. Today, our
nation is passing through the severest crisis in its history. We are not in a mood to
celebrate the triumph of democracy. All the euphoria generated soon after the restoration
of the multiparty system has died down. The country is at the crossroads and confronted
with various kinds of warnings. Of these, the overt and covert interference of foreign
powers on the pretext of helping Nepal fight the Maoists is very serious. The major
culprits behind all these perils are the politicians, who have sold out our national
interest several times under the pressure of foreign masters.
The basic of good governance is judged by the
results in terms of providing basic needs i.e food, job and shelter. But the politicians
entrusted with the responsibility of governance have neither any strategy nor policy to
achieve this goal. They are not affected by the suffering of the people. Had they been
sensitive to their plight, they would have been moved by the news of death every day
either of Maoists rebels or security personnel. In today’s context it is relevant to
remember Mahatma Gandhi who lost all his peace of mind when he saw the suffering of the
people as a result of poverty or the communal violence in various parts of India during
partition days. He said: "Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much
with you, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest of men, whom you may have seen,
and ask yourself if the step you are contemplating is going to be of use to him. Then you
will find your doubts melting away" Our politicians who have been indifferent to the
public’s fate over these years need to draw inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi as well
as Robert Mugabe.
Both the leaders went through trials and tribulation in their
lives. Both fought tirelessly and consistently against the perils of colonialism. We need
Mugabe and Gandhi because on the one hand there is a need of fearless leaders with
fighting spirit against foreign mentors, and on the other hand we must not do anything
just out of hatred and negative feeling. Gandhi and Mugabe represent these two qualities.
While being aware of outside interference in our country, we should not be parochial and
dogmatic in our approach towards other countries. If Gandhi could lead his country with
the power of sacrifice and sincerity, Mugabe has become a role model by exhibiting supreme
courage at a difficult moment of history. We are tired of listening to the outdated
lectures of our worn out politicians. We need leaders of Gandhi and Mugabe’s stature
to steer the country through this difficult time. We have seen how our successive Prime
Ministers failed to raise our concerns with the Indian side during their visits to New
Delhi. This time too Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has come back without resolving any
major issue, including the presence of the Indian army in Kalapani, the Khurdalotan
embankment, Nepal’s concerns about changes in the trade treaty and the need of
greater market access for Nepali goods. There are reasons to worry whether the visit of
our Prime Minister will further undermine our national cause as in the past.
Other Stories
|
