fbpx

Becoming Zimbabwe

Editor’s note: Second of a three-post series.

Though I lived in Rhodesia (as it then was) for only seven months, and returned to Zimbabwe (as it had by then become) ten years later for only a couple of weeks, the country has occupied my thoughts since then intermittently but quite often. It raised, at least in my mind, questions of political philosophy which I am still not sure that I can fully answer.

The Rhodesia in which I arrived as an almost untravelled youth was clearly a country with a history of injustice. Half the land – the more fertile half – was reserved to about 4 per cent of the population: black Africans could not buy it, however much money they had. While the current occupants had proper legal title to it, by purchase or inheritance, the law itself was based upon forceful expropriation of the original occupants almost within living memory – perhaps within the actual memory of a few exceptionally long-lived people. The black Africans had a rueful joke: when the white man came, he had the Bible and we had the land. Now he has the land and we have the Bible.

From the point of view of justice, then, restitution, or even restoration, was clearly due. Unfortunately, Man does not live by justice alone: he also has to eat. In the meantime, Rhodesia had become the breadbasket of Southern and Central Africa, not only feeding itself but exporting large quantities of grain to its surrounding countries. Its commercial farming sector, all white, was very productive. It is true that some experts claimed that African peasant farming on redistributed land could produce the same or even greater surplus (I read a book to this effect, if I remember right, by a learned nun and anthropologist, A. K. H. Weinrich), but this seemed to me more like wishful thinking that justice and economic benefit always went hand in hand than realism.

The thirst of the African peasant for land was understandable, all the more so as the population of rural Zimbabwe was among the fastest-growing in the world. But it was doubtful whether, in the long run, land would be any more equitably distributed under the new dispensation than under the old, with gross inefficiency thrown in for good, or rather for bad, measure. This is precisely what happened: under cover of righting injustice and rewarding heroism (that of the guerrilla fighters), land was redistributed by cronyism to people who were not farmers, and not surprisingly production plummeted. I have described elsewhere how I learned during my brief sojourn in Zimbabwe one of the reasons for the extreme or grotesque corruption that overtook post-colonial Africa, of its source in the otherwise commendable social obligation of Africans when they became prosperous to share wealth with their impoverished extended families and other dependents. This meant that for a man to become rich and live luxuriously, if such was his ambition, he had to make ten, twenty, a hundred times as much as a white counterpart, the easiest and often the only way being defalcation of one kind or another. This was not an auspicious beginning. It made the competition for political power all the fiercer, with its attendant cycles of violence, and it made political ruthlessness, not economic prowess, the main, and certainly the quickest, route to wealth.

Liberation

From being a country into which people from surrounding countries sought entry in order to work, Zimbabwe quickly went to being a country that exported a considerable proportion of its population. In what sense, then, was the overthrow of the Smith regime by Mugabe an advance, an improvement, a liberation, as it is often called? A truthful answer, I believe, would be highly disturbing to liberal sensibilities.

One of the first fruits of the change was a massacre on a scale and of a brutality not seen in Smith’s day, putting one in mind of the Vendée massacres. Within a year of taking office, Mugabe, fearing a revolt by the minority Ndebele tribe, allowed North Korean troops to carry out the killing of 20,000 people, 1 or 2 per cent of the civilian population of Ndebeleland. The acknowledged leader of the Ndebele, Joshua Nkomo, a token member of Mugabe’s government, fled to London; he returned years later to Zimbabwe and rejoined Mugabe’s government (though without any power), claiming that this was not a betrayal but an attempt to halt the continuing persecution of his people.

When Mugabe came to power, the Tanzanian president, Julius Nyerere, told him that he was inheriting a jewel and warned him not to ruin it (Nyerere had by then considerable practical experience of wrecking a country, namely his own). Nyerere’s was a curious tribute to a regime that he detested and did all he could to bring down.

Mugabe eventually turned the stable Rhodesian currency into the most depreciated in the history of the world. Framed on my wall is a series of banknotes from various hyper-inflations. Pride (or shame) of place goes to the Zimbabwean note: the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe promises to pay the bearer the sum of fifty trillion dollars – that is to say $50,000,000,000,000. This was worth about US$1: in my day, the Rhodesian dollar was worth more than the US dollar.

No one should underestimate the suffering caused by such hyperinflation, though also the possibilities for enrichment by a corrupt elite which was, in fact, considerably smaller in numerical than the white minority had been.

The Consequences of Mugabe’s Regime

And what of political freedom? Mugabe’s regime was never quite totalitarian: but neither had Smith’s regime been. Both had oppositions, but more for ornament than use. To judge from the publications that I retain from my time in Rhodesia, I should think that Smith’s regime was somewhat superior in freedom of expression.

Judged by various criteria, then, Smith’s regime was superior to Mugabe’s. The population did not flee it; it was economically more efficient; it was at least not inferior from the point of view of freedom of expression; and though of course this is mere speculation, had it per impossibile been allowed to persist, it is likely that Zimbabwe would have been far more prosperous than it is today.

And yet this does not capture everything. Mugabe was wildly popular when he came to power, and I do not think that any but a vanishingly small number of Zimbabweans would want the Smith regime back, even at the cost of having Mugabe in power. Once that regime was gone, there was no possibility on any ground whatever of resuscitating it. If you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, equally you cannot put an egg together again from an omelette.

There are two explanations why people would vote against what might seem to be in their own best interest, if they were given the choice. The first is that, given the age structure of the population, the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans have grown to adult consciousness since Mugabe came to power. They have been fed with great assiduity and with no possibility of contestation a historiography in which what they have experienced in their own, bad as it might be, counts as a liberation by comparison with what went before.

But I do not think this is the main reason why no one would wish the Smith regime back: it was conspicuously the regime of a racial minority, and no one wants to be ruled by people who are so very different from themselves, even if to be so ruled is advantageous to them. Better a bad us than a good them. This may not be rational, but it is a fact of human psychology. Of course, who is one of us is never quite cut and dried, and may even – in fact does – change. But whoever we are, we want to be ruled by us, not by them.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 29, 2017 at 10:48:22 am

"we want to be ruled by us, not by them"

We want to be ruled by people born in our country, who went to the same type of schools as, held the same type of jobs as us, and goes to the same type of churches as us. That's why we accepted Obama even though he wasn't the same skin color as us--he was an everyman/every-american. Smith was a foreigner/alien.

read full comment
Image of Dextra
Dextra
on November 29, 2017 at 11:15:58 am

Ian Smith was not a foreigner. He was born in the country and lived in the country all his life. He was a foreigner only if the definition of nationality depended on race.

read full comment
Image of Theodore Dalrymple
Theodore Dalrymple
on November 29, 2017 at 12:16:55 pm

"Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins."

Smith's parents were from Europe so he was European, not African. Only the United States and Canada are jus philosophicus--nationality by philosophy, citizenship is determined by loyalty to the bill of rights--anyone born within our borders can be a citizen if they want to uphold the bill of rights.

read full comment
Image of Ambidextrous
Ambidextrous
on November 29, 2017 at 12:42:50 pm

"anyone born within our borders can be a citizen if they want to uphold the bill of rights."

The BOR is NOT requirement for citizenship as evidenced by the hordes storming ashore who would prefer Sharia!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 29, 2017 at 13:34:38 pm

It is likely true that human beings prefer to be ruled badly by their own than well by others. If we wish to defer to this preference and/or to have one-man-one-vote democracy, then it would seem we should all segregate ourselves into ethnostates. Lee Kwan Yew had it right: In a multiracial democracy, you don't vote for the candidate who advocates your preferred policies, you vote for the candidate of your race (or tribe, religion, or other identity group, however constructed). Having "our man" in office is a precondition to arguing about any other issue. So, whites out of Zimbabwe and let Mugabe destroy the joint, whites out of Detroit and let Coleman Young wreck it, but conversely, non-Dutch people out of the Netherlands.

Of course it doesn't work that way. In the American and increasingly the European context, it only works to the advantage of nonwhites. Either that will change, or democracy will end, or there will be ethnic cleansing of whites from America and Europe, just as there has been in Zimbabwe and Detroit and there is in South Africa.

read full comment
Image of R.A. Whittaker
R.A. Whittaker
on November 29, 2017 at 13:38:27 pm

Dextra, why subject Dalrymple's instructive reminiscence to nitpicking?

And as for Obama meeting your criteria for those who would best rule Americans:
Obama "went to the same type of schools as us, held the same type of jobs as us, and goes to the same type of churches as us" and Obama" was an everyman/every-American."
That's really funny!
At least you didn't call Obama "The Everlasting Man."

And "Ambidextrous" has a good idea, immigrants should be obliged to demonstrate respect for our constitution (and other things of national reverence and existential importance to our unique culture and country.) Sadly, the "Ted Kennedy Immigration Act" is now operative, and it precludes such rational considerations and, instead, determines qualifications for an immigrant's entry (in effect) on the basis of the likelihood of his or her voting Democrat.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on November 29, 2017 at 18:04:55 pm

It's painful to see someone I admire greatly try to wrestle with an obvious fact, twisting this way and that to find excuses.

The fact is that whites succeeded where blacks failed due to an average IQ of 70 versus 102.

read full comment
Image of C M Jones
C M Jones
on November 30, 2017 at 00:33:23 am

Your nation's high average IQ simply makes democracy possible, it doesn't make it inevitable, see Asia--higher average IQ but fewer/shorter bills of rights. What makes the difference is genuises--more people at the right tail of the bell curve means you go through the industrial revolution and computer revolution before everyone else--and by doing so, you attract the other genuises causing brain drain in the rest of the world.

It's the Lockes, Montesquieus, [Adam] Smiths, and [George] Masons that move the people towards democracy--the people can't do it alone.

read full comment
Image of Jefferson
Jefferson
on September 20, 2018 at 12:54:04 pm

"it was conspicuously the regime of a racial minority, and no one wants to be ruled by people who are so very different from themselves, even if to be so ruled is advantageous to them. Better a bad us than a good them. This may not be rational, but it is a fact of human psychology. "

People in the main do not want to be ruled badly by their own rather than well by others. If they did the rich countries of the world would not have such a huge immigration problem. I believe that what Mr. Dalrymple says is irrational is ex ante quite rational. It is reasonable to believe that your own elites care more about you than do foreign elites due to kinship ties and fellow feeling. This belief may no longer be true as elites become more globalist in orientation, but still a reasonable assumption.

read full comment
Image of Michael Patrono
Michael Patrono

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.