Alexandra Bramsen
Govt 42
Professor Jeremy Horowitz
April 23rd, 2020
Zimbabwe – Pre-1990
To understand how Zimbabwe conducted itself after independence in 1980, it is important to investigate its colonial history. Formerly Southern Rhodesia, a British colony since the late 1800s as a result of the mining conquests of Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company (Wikipedia 2020). It was eventually able to mostly self-govern, but was always under British rule, until a perceived act of rebellion by Ian Smith’s white-minority government claiming the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 (Wikipedia 2020, Cownie 1984). This independence was not recognized internationally and sparked a civil war in what was then in 1970 the Republic of Rhodesia (Wikipedia 2020). Joshua Nkomo of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union party (ZAPU) and Robert Mugabe of the Zimbabwe African National Union party (ZANU) were at the forefront of civil war movement (Wikipedia 2020). It came to be known as the Rhodesian Bush War or Second Chimurenga and even the Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle that lasted from 1964 until 1979 and was a war of the nationalists seeking to overthrow the white minority government and dominating land possession (New World Encyclopedia n.d.). Of course, there was the background interference of Cold War players, as was often the case in countries wrestling for independence at the time (New World Encyclopedia n.d.). ZANU, when it was formed in 1963 it established a militant wing, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) who sparked the war with assassination of Rhodesian Front official (New World Encyclopedia n.d.). There was also an armed wing of ZAPU, the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA), meaning that politics literally became a battlefield (New World Encyclopedia n.d.). What ensued was an all-out guerrilla war of militant nationalists with support and bases in both Zambia and Mozambique against Rhodesian soldiers under the directives of Ian Smiths white minority government (New World Encyclopedia n.d.). Britain only tried to step in to negotiate peace, which was never considered an option by Rhodesia until a successful attack by militants on important Rhodesian fuel reserves (New World Encyclopedia n.d., Cownie 1984).
The Lancaster House Agreement was the settlement made that ended the Rhodesian war and marked the independence of Zimbabwe. This agreement was headed by Lord Carrington on behalf of the British government in 1980 but had a lot of support from other foreign players (Cownie 1984). There were US delegates present and a lot of push from other African leaders, like Kaunda and Nyerere to get the negotiation to happen (Cownie 1984). This agreement settled that for land redistribution to occur, the newly established government was going to have to buy the land from white settlers at the market prices, when they were willing to sell (Cownie 1984). It also stipulated that there should be white representation on the new government in parliament, but this ratio was not representative of the demographic and led to some serious obstructions in development of the country (Cownie 1984). A multiparty system was established, and the first elections saw that Robert Mugabe’s ZANU won the elections, placing him as prime minister and Canaan Banana as the president (Wikipedia 2020, Jackson 2011).
In truth, Robert Mugabe was the major political figure throughout Zimbabwe’s history. Whether it was in leading ZANU, being a part of the militant rebellion, or acting as the prime minister and eventually the president, although not always the most popular player, he always had some part to play in the major events of the country. An interesting individual, as a self-proclaimed Marxist, he was lenient in the Lancaster settlement, civil in his interactions with British delegation during the conference, took on a mixed economy and made no association with Soviets after independence (Smiley 1980). In 1987 Mugabe took over as president for Banana, who resigned, and evolved ZANU into the ZANU- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) which came to be a more exclusive ruling party (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2008). There were many political actors in the movement for liberation of Zimbabwe, but Mugabe and ZANU-PF have ridden off the backs of them claiming most of the victory for themselves and have drowned out the importance of other players (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2008). Mugabe initially had little control in the Patriotic Front of the war days, but by the end had surpassed and succeeded Bishop Abel Muzorewa, who had initiated the call to arms in Mozambique and started with the majority allegiance, as well as consequent leadership alongside Sithole (Smiley 1980). His guerillas had borne the brunt of the fighting in the war, and in comparison, to Muzorewa was considered a more successful leader, resulting in his prominent position both at the Lancaster Conference and through to independence (Smiley 1980). After independence, it became clear that his party was fractured and had groupings of loyalists, but all in the party despite these divides were loyal to him (Smiley 1980). He became the ideological and political head of Zimbabwe post-independence and could use that power to substantiate it further (Smiley 1980).
With independence and the shift in power to black majority rule, the country’s political, social, and economic direction naturally shifted too. Firstly, there was a focus diversion from the south to the north, as Zimbabwe sought to break the economic hold that South Africa had on it (Smiley 1980). It wished to not only be free of that but to become an economic and political power of the region, meaning that it would have to contest South Africa’s considerable superiority of the time (Smiley 1980). It was understood that Zimbabwe’s independence and success of liberation movement would be a motivating and supportive factor in its neighbors’ affairs, showing its centrality and significance in the context of southern Africa (Smiley 1980). However, it soon became apparent that is this was a movement born in violence, it could only breed violence. The ruling party, ZANU continued to act as an armed liberation movement (Bratton & Masunungure 2008). It meant that the government itself became to take just as violent and rash paths. One of the first and significant occurrences of state violence was demonstrated in 1983 where there was essentially a lock down on women (Hammar 2008). Women were stopped in the streets asked to produce proof of a husband, father or employer otherwise were considered a prostitute, arrested, and sent to rural re-education camps (Hammar 2008). The state’s convictions of violence did not stop there.
Racism continued to run rampant throughout Zimbabwe and eventually so did ethnic mistrust. Colonialism left in place whites who still maintained significant positions in society, and the new government even kept on some from the regime before independence, like General Wall (Jackson 2011). Wall was kept on for the purpose of integrating the many militant factions into the existing old Rhodesian force, to create one strong stable army (Jackson 2011). This reconciliation tactic led to problems between Mugabe and Walls after several assassination attempts on Mugabe’s life (Wikipedia 2020). Walls also revealed in an interview that he had tried to have Mugabe’s election annulled by reaching out the prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, and as a result he was exiled from Zimbabwe (Wikipedia 2020). As much as assimilation would have benefitted both sides, it is hard to forget the trial that white minority rule incurred upon the Zimbabwean population. Is it surprising then that studies found that after independence race tensions were still very high on both sides (Kinloch 2003)? This came to be known as the ‘Zimbabwe problem’ where imperialistic rule was essentially maintained by the preservation of white minority presence in government and military, and many do not believe it can be solved by simple compromise only in utter defeat of one group or another (Mandaza 1980). However, the major atrocity of the new government is how it turned upon its former allies, denouncing Nkomo and ZAPU, huge players in the liberation of the country, but all of a sudden did not matter, because they were now the competitors (Hammar 2008). It turned into a racial and political cleansing of Matabeleland and Midlands, essential becoming an ethnic genocide as thousands of Ndebele villagers were killed, but it was not just the Ndebele, it was a cleansing of the entire ZAPU party (Bratton & Masunungure 2008).
It is clear from Zimbabwe’s state after independence that it was severely affected by its colonial past and civil war for liberation. The ruling party and President Mugabe carried on a legacy of state violence and persecution. Zimbabwe was riddled with tensions and divisions even prevalent only in the first decade of its independence. Colonialism left scars that were deep, but to make matters worse control of the country by ZANU-PF and Mugabe was asserted mostly through their understanding and propagandic message that as the true liberators of the country, they held the sole and executive right to rule it and decide its future. This did not indicate that Zimbabwe’s path after independence would be one of brutal and persecuting violence.
Works Cited
Bratton, M., & Masunungure, E. (2008). Zimbabwe’s Long Agony. Journal of Democracy 19(4), 41-55. Doi:10.1353/jod.0.0024.
Cownie, D. (1984). The Transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe: The 1979 Lancaster House Conference. Africa Today, 31(4), 39-41. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4186264
Hammar, A. (2008) In the name of sovereignty: Displacement and state making in post-independence Zimbabwe, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 26:4, 417-434, DOI: 10.1080/02589000802481999
History of Zimbabwe. Wikipedia (2020, March 17). Retrieved April 18, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zimbabwe
Jackson, P. (2011). The Civil War Roots of Military Domination in Zimbabwe: The Integration Process Following the Rhodesian War and the Road to ZANLA Dominance. Civil Wars, 13(4), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2011.629865
Kinloch, G. C. (2003). Changing Racial Attitudes in Zimbabwe: Colonial/Post-Colonial Dynamics. Journal of Black Studies, 34(2), 250–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934703255972
Mandaza, I. (1980). Imperialism, the ‘Frontline’ States and the Zimbabwe Problem. UTAFITI: Journal of the Faculty of Art and Social Sciences University of Dar Es Salaam, 5(1), 129–164. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/africanjournals/html/itemdetail.cfm?recordID=2594
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2008). Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review 24(1), 81-108. Doi:10.1353/eas.2008.0003.
Rhodesian Bush War. New World Encyclopedia (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rhodesian_Bush_War
Smiley, X. (1980). Zimbabwe, Southern Africa and the Rise of Robert Mugabe. Foreign Affairs, 58(5), 1060-1083.