How we became a totalitarian State

By Charles Matope

“The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.

“Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual.  Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems to themselves, than by compelling, each to live as seems good to the rest”. John Stuart Mill

The quotation above from John Stuart Mill’s political classic, On Liberty, describes or prescribes one of the most fundamental definitions of freedom.

It is a kind of freedom which in some countries, remains just an abstract idea and for most libertarians like myself a dream and ideal to struggle and ever reach for.

In this article I am going to make a bold assessment and elucidation of the factors that contributed to Zimbabwe becoming a totalitarian State.

History often affords us a sense of hindsight which assists us to trace the social evolution that led us to our contemporary society.  Armed with this hindsight I will attempt to bring to the fore, factors that were and are still inherent in Zimbabwean society, and which have exarcebated the evolution of totalitarianism.

It is the nature of humankind under the vagaries of our fragile memory to trace causal factors just as far as our antecedent past without considering our distant history.

However if we cast our glance much further into our distant past, we will notice that there is an evolutionary path that runs in our history and a careful assessment of this path leads to some illuminating causal factors that led us to our current position. These factors are:

• Pre colonial power and authority and how this power was exercised by the rulers and perceived by the subjects
• Social structure and its emphasis on hierarchy and paternalism
• The development of a Western system of government which did not develop in sync with an unhindered natural evolution of our society.
• Arbitrary State coercion on the black majority in the Colonial State.
• The unfair educational structure and the creation of political elitism.
• Poverty and the individual’s dependence on the State’s benevolence.
• The political decay of Constitutionalism.
• The social emphasis on collective thinking and the shrinkage of individual liberty

Zimbabwe held its first democratic elections in 1980 after the cessation of hostilities and a brutal war that pitted a racist white, settler minority on one side, and the black majority, on the other.

What followed next was a period of great expectation and optimism among the citizens, here at last,i t seemed, was freedom itself, to experience and enjoy and bequeath to the next generations.

Here was a country, well endowed with beauty and all that nature could provide above and below ground. What could actually go wrong? In Mugabe and his leading team the country certainly had some of the most brightest and well educated minds a people can ever produce, or so it seemed.

Yet, I contend, appearances can be very deceiving, something was not right, even from the beginning.

The leaders of Zapu, the opposition party which had also played a huge role in the fight for freedom were the first to discover and then immediately their supporters who happened to be largely of the Ndebele tribe residing in the Midlands and Western regions of the country bore the full ruthlessness of a system that was gradually morphing into a fully fledged totalitarian State.

What followed is well documented and I will not attempt to repeat it here.

I will attempt however, in my own way to give an explanatory account of the historic, cultural, systemic and structural causes that drove a young nation full of promise to become one of the poorest and un-free nations in the world.

It is my view that a careful analysis can lead to an expose of historical, systemic and structural factors that the politicians took advantage of, factors which at the same time created a somewhat docile, dis-empowered and pliant citizenry.

The political structure of pre colonial Zimbabwe.

Prior to British colonization in 1880, the country that we call Zimbabwe today was not a unified State and neither was it a federation of any sort. It was a place run by largely dynastic Chiefdoms and Kingdoms spread in different geographical areas.

I would like to refer the reader to the Zimbabwean government website www.gta.gov.zw for a slightly detailed account of pre colonial Zimbabwean history. Nonetheless I take the liberty of quoting a little here:

“Pre colonial Zimbabwe was a multi-ethnic society inhabited by the Shangani/Tsonga in the Southeastern parts of the Zimbabwe plateau,the Venda in the South,the Tonga in the North,the Kalanga and the Ndebele in the South-west,the Karanga in the Southern parts of the plateau,the Zezuru and the Korekore in the northern and central parts,and finally,the Manyika and Ndau in the East……………… These groups were complex,dynamic,fluid and always changing. They were characterized by both conflict and cooperation”.

In these Chiefdoms and Kingdoms rulers truly ruled. (Compare with current Zimbabwe) The political economic structure was largely feudal and paternalistic. Although the Zimbabwe website states that there was cooperation in these dominions, it does not clearly elaborate on how this cooperation was gained and how power was exercised and experienced by both the governors and their subjects.

The King or Chief ruled by divine authority and public affairs were controlled through decrees. It was often believed by the common person that the King had two hearts, one to rule by and the other to communicate with the god. Democracy in any Athenean sense did not exist.

However it is fair to say this was not a static society and as the Zimbabwean government website states, these societies were fluid, complex and dynamic. It is also fair to say, however, that the kind of government that was present in most of the regions was largely authoritarian.

The individual was perhaps free to exercise his natural talent and decide on what he could plant in his field as long as his plans were not a threat to the Kingdom. Arbitrary coercive authority rested with the rulers to extend into the individual’s private spheres, prescriptions and inhibitions that curtailed the full expression of individual liberty.

The rules upon which society and indeed the individual functioned on were decided mostly by the Chief or King with his coterie of well chosen individuals.  How does this relate to the current totalitarian State that we find ourselves in?

It is my view that these historical facts and events helped shape the political psyche of the individual and the collective consciousness of our people. We see clearly in this epoch, beginning to emerge and take shape, the dichotomy of the governing few, with unbridled arbitrary power over the hapless many.

Colonial Zimbabwe. State and power.

The country that we now call Zimbabwe was colonized by white settlers of British origin from 1880, and by 1898, this group of fortune seekers and colonial conquerors renamed the country Rhodesia with the full blessings of the British government.

Here was the beginning of a very bitter period in the lives of individual citizens, such that the ruthlessness and authoritarianism of the Mutapas, Changamires and all those who had ruled the people simply paled in comparison. I again quote:

”In the early years of colonial rule, urban settlements developed and soon became ‘sites of struggles’ as they were characterized by the colonial politics of domination, control, segregation and exploitation” ( Source: www.gta.gov.zw )

Education is the most central and key element in the evolution of knowledge for both the individual and society. Now for a society to have fairly developed political insights, each individual within that society should be fairly educated and knowledgeable about the general function of a civilized and free society.

Liberty and freedom can only exist when the individual’s knowledge and capacity to navigate through the vicissitudes of life is no longer under the arbitrary control of the State. A Republican democracy can not be fully functional as long as the ordinary citizen does not fully understand his power and influence in the affairs of the State.

That power and influence does not cease in merely electing the leaders but it extends to the capacity to bring those leaders to account for their actions or inactions. It is my contention that both the pre colonial powers and the Rhodesian regimes were inimical to individual freedom and their systems of government hindered any chance of an evolution towards individual liberty.

The Rhodesian government made sure that only white citizens would get the best education opportunities. The majority of the black population languished in designed poverty with few or no opportunities to developed themselves. Bottle necks were put in place to ensure that only a few blacks could become educated.

Those that had the opportunity went to mission schools were an advanced education could be available without much State interference. There began to emerge from these conditions an educated black class or elite who had the political consciousness and the wherewithal to challenge the oppressive regime.

A cursory look at the personalities of those that formed the City youth league of 1955 and eventually went on to pave the way for the first nationalist party in 1957, which was called the Southern Rhodesia African national congress, can attest to their educational level and sophistication. George Nyandoro, Thomson Gonese, James Chikerema, Edson Sithole and Duduza Chisiza.

These were man of modest to advanced education. Edson Furatizayi Sithole was only the second black lawyer to be admitted to the Rhodesian bar association in 1963 after Herbert Chitepo who had been admitted earlier.

It became the task of this educated ‘elite’, not only to become the vanguard of the struggle for freedom but to also be shapers of the ideological core of this struggle for a democratic society, and not only that, but to also clearly enunciate that ideology and spread it to the masses.

It must be borne in mind that the racist government did not relent in its policies of ensuring that only a few blacks could get educated and when Smith finally declared UDI (Unilateral declaration of independence) in 1965 the screws were tightened further.

So the majority of the people continued to lag behind in terms of their educational development and by default began to depend more and more on the educated black minority for leadership and a clearer articulation of their need for liberty and freedom.

In true Platonic sense, as illustrated in his allegory of the cave, this black educated clique soon coalesced into Philosopher kings with the rest of the masses remaining as the perplexed cave dwellers. I shall not seek to bore the reader with a detailed account of the impact of the cold war and ideological influence that countries in what was known as the Eastern block, began to exert on this leading group and how that exarcebated the growth of the knowledge gap between them and the masses.

Russia, China, Poland, the former Yugoslavia became training grounds for most of these leaders, a process that perhaps unintentionally concretised the separation of this group from the masses. They came back with the zeal of Marxism and the principles of Mao to conscientise the masses who were now fittingly called ‘the povo’.

Such was their knowledge of what had to be done in the pursuit of freedom that the povo simply followed, although, I think, they did not deeply understand these ideologies. One can accurately state that in most cases the povo was simply mesmerized by the oratory sophistication of their would be leaders than by the actual meaning of what was being said! I

t is one thing to want to be independent and free from segregation and purely another to be free from unnecessary State interference in one’s private sphere. It is one thing to want to reposses your land but it is also purely another thing to fully understand what a constitutional democracy is, especially when its institutions did not emerge naturally from the unhindered evolution of your society.

It is one thing to want majority rule but it is purely another thing to understand how individual liberties and freedom are to be safe guarded in such a society. So by virtue of these educational disparities, and as a natural progression, the definition of what our freedom ought to be and eventually became came from the educated few, and so perhaps as an unintended consequence, the cult of hero worshiping and the elevation of the leader(s) to a pedestal also began to take root.

Robert Gabriel Mugabe who was to become the first Prime Minister and eventually first executive State President came to the first election convinced in setting a collective, marxist State. The stage had now been set for the removal of one form of totalitarian government and its replacement by another, albeit a black one. The emergence of true freedom and individual liberty was certainly going to be postponed.

Let’s now turn our attention to the post colonial State.

Post Colonial State And The Abolition Of The Freedom Project.

I shall begin my examination of how all these historical, structural and systemic factors stated above culminated in the creation of a political cult which has an obscene disdain for the rule of law, by borrowing from the libertarian economist Fredrick Hayek:

“A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom”. The Constitution Of Liberty Page 141

It is clear that Zimbabweans, together with those who live in North Korea, China, Russia and some Islamic States of the middle east, are now some of the extremely governed people in the world. It would also be fair to state, on the basis of the historical account given here and relative to a truly libertarian definition of liberty that our people have never known true freedom and liberty.

Our history of the past thirty three years shows clearly that we are governed by a totalitarian Leviathan. A kind of monster government that chokes and stifles our individual liberties whilst at the same time pretending to preserve our collective order and independence from former colonizers.

The root of this can be traced back to the historical causal factors outlined here and to the manner in which we allowed the cult of the dear leader to grow. The conditions at 1980 allowed Mugabe and his coterie to define or rather ill define individual freedom and liberty.

Independence from colonialism, sovereignty and freedom from racism were all terms that were lumped and thrown on us as if they were the very definitions of true individual liberty itself. From the outset Mugabe undertook to establish a State built on collectivism and marxist principles, although it was quite clear that most countries under such State ideologies were crumbling economically.

Marxism with its exhortation for class consciousness and the collective ownership of the means of production was never going to be the vehicle through which individual liberty and prosperity would be consolidated. The year Zimbabwe gained its independence, 1980 ,was promptly named “gore regutsa ruzhinji” which is the shona equivalent to “the year of socialism”.

Pursuant to that a raft of other Marxist influenced five yearly developmental goals were proclaimed but never fully implemented. Now due to the political knowledge gap that was now so entrenched between the leaders and the general populace and together with the cult of the dear leader(s) that had evolved, the people failed to stand up, challenge and demand accountability from government as to the success or failure of these programs.

I have heard it mentioned in some quarters that Robert Mugabe is very intelligent but I have never believed it fully myself. By the late 1980s he was still proclaiming that he was an ardent Marxist Leninist, whilst all evidence in the Soviet Union, the rest of the eastern block was that this social ideology had failed. He was still publicly proclaiming that he would favor a one party state system of government despite the overwhelming evidence that such systems of government totally failed to enhance individual liberty.

Deng Xiaoping had already started a capitalistic revolution in China since 1978 with his policies of ‘the four modernisations’. Yet amid all this Mugabe continued dabbling in socialist principles. This period marked a fatal conceit, an uncanny, perhaps unconscious diversion from the imperative natural transformation of our society, which would have resulted in a deeper sense of individual liberty and the attendant economic prosperity that would follow.

It also served to widen the economic gap between the rich leaders, a few connected elites on one hand and the impoverished masses on the other. The half hearted socialist policies that Mugabe followed in the first ten years of his rule also became a hamstring injury on the general economy. Most of the co-operatives that were formed in those days simply folded under poor capitalization and a lack of proper capitalistic driven entrepreneurial skills.

These policies also became a diversion from what constitutes true prosperity in a nation, which is, the individual resourcefulness and the spirit of capitalism. How did all this deepen the entrenchment of totalitarianism. The answer lies in the dependence of the individual on the State. As the majority of the people failed to prosper Mugabe realized the opportunity to become a benevolent dictator.

By the year 1989, hope for Zimbabwe becoming a democratic republic, at least under Mugabe’s watch, had fully been vanquished. I would like to categorically state that even the seeming popularity that Mugabe still enjoys in the rural areas is a natural corollary of this social structure. The mere fact that you have a country where the majority of the citizens rely on subsidies and hand outs for their livelihood is not only a threat to individual liberty but the very erosion of it.

Having stated all this, it would be fair to say that Zimbabwe never fully became a socialist State. Global historical factors which I shall not delve into here necessitated a change of course. This change of course meant embracing economic liberalization policies under the supervision of the IMF and the World bank. The economic prescriptions put forward by these organizations had a dire effect on the workers.

Mass retrenchments that were part and parcel of the structural adjustments became a direct threat to the Totalitarian state. Mugabe then resorted to both overt and covert force to keep the people subservient. This was easy to do, because during the years in which everyone was in a mode of uncritical adulation of Mugabe, he had managed, without any challenge, to amend the Constitution and arogate unto himself executive powers that firmly established him as dictator of Zimbabwe.

Many other acts of parliament later followed like AIPPA and POSA which served to make State coercion a fashion and individual liberty a pipe dream. As I write this, it is clear that Zimbabwe is now a military totalitarian State with a pseudo civilian government that has pretenses of democracy.

The citizens have become so poor and powerless to effect any meaningful change aimed at better political and economic outcomes.  Currently Mugabe has gone full circle in his policies and is again dabbling with some strange socialistic policies under the guise of indigenizing the economy.

The results of these actions will become clear in the near future even to those who ululate for him while he dishes out this poisoned chalice. It does not have to get to that if WE do something about it.

From Totalitarianism to ultimate Liberty and Prosperity: The long road ahead.

I have often listened to politicians from the whole political spectrum of Zimbabwean society trumpeting some quick fix promises that will magically transform our country into a prosperous Utopia and I have always doubted the sincerity of these individuals.

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimbabwe will one day become a prosperous and competitive society that offers true liberty to its citizens and a high quality of life, however I would like to take a pragmatist’s approach and state that some of the changes that will be required will not only take time but will be very painful to undertake.

This will require a bold, strong, dynamic and visionary leadership and a population that is not only informed about the direction of these changes but one that is also willing to participate and challenge leaders when intended outcomes are not reached.

Towards a Renaissance and Enlightenment.

” The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character-that is the goal of true education”. Martin Luther King, Jr

One critical aspect that will require immediate change will be in the area of education. If we are to create a highly functional and competitive society, our education should change and engender within our citizens, from a young age, an empirical philosophical and scientific approach to understanding the world.

We will need to foster an education that encourages diversity of ideas and celebrates difference and non conformity.  Our education should be transformative enough to dispel the high levels of superstition that exist in our society today and which at times forms the basis for our description of ourselves and our place in the  cosmos.

It is not possible to breed highly developed philosophical and scientific minds in a society riddled with superstition. Zimbabwe will need young minds that are willing to explore our mountains, rivers and our dense forests without the baggage of superstition that we carry from the past. We need to allow an educational system based on research, open mindedness and an evidence driven approach.

Our people are full of intellectual capacity so as to generate breakthrough ideas that will lead to new inventions and discoveries. There is no limit to what we can do with a correct approach to our education. In doing this , we will be answering a great insightful call that was put forward by President Thabo Mbeki, that Africa needs a Renaissance and enlightenment of its own.

A new thinking in government will be required, one that promotes a vibrant well informed citizenry that has access to diverse sources of information and perspectives including those a current government would consider critical or contradictory to its own views. Society evolves better and individual minds thrive where the State allows a free flow of information.

The role of civil society in the future education of our citizens can not be overemphasized. The future State should not only create an environment conducive for civil society activities but should endevour to promote a vibrant and robust civil society that will form a bedrock for the cross pollination of ideas and the elevation of individual insights.

I have no doubt that these ideas are not so loft as to be unachievable if we surmount enough positive political will power. I dream of a better Zimbabwe where citizens will not only be empowered but informed enough to know that their leaders can be challenged and be brought to account for the direction in which they will be taking the country.

It is not enough to have a country where people are only free to think but their freedom should be guaranteed when they express their thoughts. We must therefore ensure that there is a strong legal framework that guards and protects the liberty of our people and coupled with that a transformation oriented leadership that has the political will power to uphold these virtues.

If we do not act now to facilitate a sea change in the philosophical and political mindset of our people we will have guaranteed the continued failure of our country.

A New And Better Way Of Thinking: State Craft

Perhaps the biggest factor that will ensure that our society flourishes is how we approach matters of the State or what could be considered as State craft. Zimbabwe is a small country both geographically and by population and it is unnecessary to have the size of government as exists now. Any future government that truly has the interests of the people has to be limited in size.

The current size of the Zimbabwean government is a heavy burden on the finite resources of the country and this bloated size is perhaps a manifestation of self interest in those that run it. Therefore the future State must be small and together with that its use of coercive forces on the individual must be limited by law.

Our country will not prosper as long as the State continues to occupy such high levels of unbridled influence in individual lives. Individual citizens will remain un free as long as they have to ask for State permission for such basic civil liberties like holding political meetings. Leadership is urgently needed to ensure that matters of State are separated from parochial party interests.

Institutions of the State will outlive any individual leaders and must therefore be strengthened and be guided by enduring just and well thought out laws and policies. Indeed the current political thinking, which glorifies and elevates individuals in leadership positions to demi gods status must cease.

No pictures of current serving Presidents should be allowed to hang unnecessarily all over private and public spheres. Citizens should not be required by some mischievous rules to park their cars on the side of the road when the Presidential motorcade is passing. All tyranny must come to a stop and the country should be allowed to become a true republic with a leader who will only be referred to simply as President rather than the long chain of titles that precede the name of the Mugabe whenever it is mentioned.

The all important principle that must guide the relationship of those that lead and the citizens on the other hand should be, ALL individuals are equal before the law. The military should be reformed and allowed to carry the duties of State security without meddling in party politics.

Zimbabwe should be allowed to become a true constitutional Republic and democracy in its full force and spirit must be exercised. History has always informed us that countries that  guarantee the civil liberties of their citizens will, by default have guaranteed an enduring economic prosperity. Despite all the hardships that our citizens have and are currently facing, I believe all is not lost, if we change course.

There are many things that can be written about what needs to happen for Zimbabwe to regain its prosperity once again, but I am fully convinced that all will fail without these two. Firstly, the elevation of our people’s mindset, through a secular education that sharpens their political insights and elevates the quality of their contributions their country.

Secondly, a new, servant, transformative leadership that revers the civil liberties of its people, while religiously upholding the principles of the rule of law,t he separation of party and State and the humility to know that democracy is about the will of the people.

Charles Matope is a patriotic Zimbabwean who currently resides in Sydney, Australia. He can be contacted on [email protected]