The controversy of over the recent presidential elections in Zimbabwe is
> one which has opened a political Pandora's box of historical and
> contemporary relevance, especially with regard to Africa's historically
> lopsided relationship with the West and what some analysts now point out
> as the West's double standards in giving legitimacy to elections held in
> different parts of the world.
>
> The apparent North-South split in the Commonwealth's reaction to
> pre-election violence in Zimbabwe and in the international reaction to the
> 'victory' of Robert Mugabe in the recent elections, indicate changing
> trends in North-South power relations and contemporary international
> relations. Prior to this incident, the South has more or less found it
> more expedient to tow the line of the Northern countries or at least offer
> some pacification in view of much needed aid from the wealthier North.
> However, what is emerging from the ongoing Zimbabwe debacle is a somewhat
> defiant stance by some African leaders towards the North and a kind of
> African solidarity reminiscent of the waves of nationalism and
> Pan-Africanism that bolstered the anti-colonial independence struggles in
> the fifties and sixties.
>
> Several western analysts have been at loss as to why eminent
> democratically elected African leaders would come out in support of a
> government which is deemed to be oppressive, repressive and highly
> undemocratic as that of Robert Mugabe. However, one of the reasons that
> has made a coherent explanation elusive is the inability or refusal of
> some western analysts to put these events in the historical context which
> provides the backdrop to the present scenario. While the Western focus has
> primarily been on the issues of the flawed presidential elections and
> violent seizing of land from white farmers in Zimbabwe, the African
> position can be located mainly in the continuum of historical events such
> as colonialism, apartheid and contemporary fears of neo-colonialism which
> have culminated in the present debacle; as well as the somewhat skewed
> attitude of some Western governments and the media towards issues African.
> Therefore, for a wider understanding of these issues, it is pertinent to
> revisit several questions which haunt the current state of North-South
> relations with particular reference to the recent suspension of Zimbabwe
> from the Commonwealth; obvious double standards in measuring democracy by
> Western governments and the role of the media.
>
> The suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth was inevitable in view of
> the several incidents and occurrences that clearly highlighted the
> detraction of the Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe from the
> democratic values and principles espoused in the Commonwealth's charter.
> The credibility of the recent presidential election was undermined by
> incidents of systematic violence and intimidation mostly against
> opposition members and supporters. This clearly created an environment
> that was not conducive for free and fair elections to take place. This is
> unacceptable by all standards and is clearly undemocratic behaviour.
> However, it is important to highlight the fact that the suspension of
> Zimbabwe was at best symbolic and bears no particular relevance to the
> hungry, landless and unemployed masses of Zimbabwe. The suspension was
> more in favour of saving the credibility and esteem of the Commonwealth in
> the international arena than in favour of alleviating the excruciating
> plight of the Zimbabwean people. The suggestion that this suspension sends
> a resounding message that the Commonwealth will not condone undemocratic
> countries in its fold is perhaps true and was necessary, but this message
> seems more geared towards pacifying political piranhas waiting to tear
> apart the credibility of the Commonwealth had this not been done. What can
> be commended however are the sensible terms and conditions of the
> suspension, which will not see aid towards humanitarian relief dwindle and
> states that the Commonwealth will still assist in seeking solutions to the
> many problems that plague the troubled country. Presidents Mbeki and
> Obasanjo are suspected to be the engineers behind these less severe terms
> which indicate a 'constructive engagement' approach, as opposed to total
> isolation which usually does more harm than good. As for the ordinary
> person in rural Zimbabwe- which is were you will find the majority of
> Zimbabweans- who is asked what the suspension of Zimbabwe from the
> Commonwealth means, a likely answer would be "What wealth? And what is so
> common about it?" The pressing issue for them is poverty and not
> necessarily politics.
>
> The point that needs to be highlighted here is how we allow the media's
> sensationalist antics to push international politicking into centre stage
> while the lives of the needy are either relegated to the back stage or
> totally ignored. In this whole furore about Zimbabwe, Western media focus
> has been more on if, or if not, Zimbabwe will be suspended from the
> Commonwealth, than what can be done for the people of Zimbabwe who face
> harsh economic and social conditions. The real issues of landlessness by
> over sixty per cent of black Zimbabweans; drought induced food shortages;
> high rate of unemployment; towering inflation and most pressing, the
> scourge of the HIV Aids pandemic, have unfortunately taken the back seat
> in this emergence of the 'medialisation of politics' and the
> 'politicisation of the media'. Indeed political leadership matters in
> seeking solutions to these problems, but one should not take precedence
> over the other. The press which represents an essential pillar of
> democracy, needs to be more responsible, apolitical and objective in its
> reporting to safeguard not only its credibility but also that of democracy
> itself. One-sided, selective and agenda-driven reporting and the
> 'demonisation' of unpopular political candidates does more harm than good
> in informing media consumers who assume they are being supplied with
> balanced and objective information and can on this basis make informed
> decisions. Lopsided news reporting itself is undemocratic behaviour and
> undermines the credibility of the institutions of democracy, which the
> free press, otherwise known as the Fourth Estate of democracy, is an
> essential component of.
>
> Other major concerns are how our value judgments now seem to be made based
> on elitist perspectives and debates which are in many instances exercises
> in intellectual acrobatics; how 'international or world opinion' (which
> often forgets that Africa is part of the world and part of the
> international community) sway in favour of countries whose polices are in
> line with the Western agenda; and how standards of democracy (which some
> Western countries have become self-appointed guardians of) if objectively
> analysed smack of self-serving duplicity and hypocrisy.
>
> A few hours before Zimbabwe was suspended, a former Labour cabinet
> minister and myself participated in a panel discussion broadcast by the
> BBC 2 'Westminster Live' TV news program. Having listed the evils of
> Robert Mugabe's government and how the country should be dealt with, he
> was later asked about the duplicity of the Western response in light of
> the new Western partnership with the Pakistani military dictator Gen.
> Musharraf, in the war in Afghanistan. He proceeded to say 'That is
> different'. The question here is if the western view is so fundamentally
> devoted to the principles of democracy, why should one country be
> different from the other? Why should different standards apply? Is this
> duplicity itself not undemocratic? Gen. Musharraf did not only overthrow a
> democratically elected government dangling a death penalty over the
> deposed President's head, but went as far as to test nuclear weapons
> breaking several international conventions. Is this not worse than Mugabe,
> with all his apparent faults? Now US sanctions have been lifted of
> Musharraf's military government, aid money has been injected and Musharraf
> has become the darling of the West. Is this not a clear double-standard?
> Another vestige of this duplicity is the last American presidential
> elections, which raised much controversy. This was a dramatic election
> whereby the son of an ex-president contested for the presidency with
> irregularities erupting mainly in the state where his brother was
> governor, amidst allegations of disenfranchisement of a high number of
> members of a minority racial group. The opposition cried 'foul' and a
> deadlock ensued without a clear winner emerging for weeks. Where was the
> international condemnation then? The 'international community' ( the one
> in the West that is) pronounced that it was up to Americans to chose their
> leaders and resolve their own internal problems. If this had happened in
> Africa the reaction would have been different, resulting in immediate
> condemnation and swift imposition of towering sanctions followed by the
> isolation and the tagging of 'pariah' status. What happened in Zimbabwe is
> wrong and unacceptable, but compared with the events in Pakistan and the
> American election any objective analysis will conclude that the Western
> standards for judging 'freedom and fairness' of elections and the
> legitimacy of governments are selective and prejudiced. These duplicitous
> contradictions in Western reaction to elections and the selective
> conferring of legitimacy on governments bring to mind the Orwellian phrase
> in the book 'Animal Farm': ' All animal are equal but some are more equal
> than others'. If the goal posts of democracy keep shifting to fit the
> design of Western agendas, then this also is undemocratic behaviour and
> will severely undermine the universality of the concept. But then, who
> will impose sanction on Western undemocratic behaviour where it is found?
> Perhaps, that is the question.
>
> In conclusion, the defence here is not for Robert Mugabe, his cohorts or
> ZANU-PF militia whose recent actions undermined credible democratic order
> in Zimbabwe and consequently cast aspersion on the efforts of some
> commendable African leaders to make a positive change on the continent
> through the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) initiative.
> Nor is it a defence for some dictators in Africa or elsewhere ( they do
> exist elsewhere also if one cares to look) who may assume that what
> happened in Zimbabwe should be the norm and can be gotten away with.
>
> The defence is for democracy itself and the universality of the concept.
> The monopolisation of the meaning or standards for democracy is
> antithetical to the letter and spirit of democracy and thereby undermines
> its core principles. The West does not own the patent for democracy, and
> therefore cannot be both judge and jury, nor player and referee at the
> same time. Democracy is a concept that is embedded in the desire of all
> people, irrespective of racial or cultural background, to choose their
> leaders and their destinies without interference, impositions nor
> intimidation, be it internal or external. Though the institutions of
> democracy may not always appear in the formalised processes and structures
> as the Western industrialised countries do have, it does not mean other
> peoples and cultures do not embrace democratic principles as part of their
> heritage or systems of social order. The imperative now, especially in an
> increasingly globalising and inextricably interconnected world is for
> leaders and peoples from diverse cultures and backgrounds to work together
> in arriving at universally acceptable standards of democracy and not one
> prescribed or favourable to one section of the world who can hold the
> other to ransom through sanctions and restriction of much needed aid at
> the cost of human lives and livelihoods. Also, efforts to build an
> independent international body, as idealistic as it may sound, which is
> representative of the world's polities for the monitoring of adherence to
> globally acceptable and applicable standards for democracy would help to
> avoid the schismatic North/South reaction to the Zimbabwean elections and
> the contradictory conclusions of the different election monitoring bodies
> who did or did not monitor the Zimbabwean elections.
>
> If democracy is to be a globally embraced ideology, a fundamental axis of
> the world social order and the basis of viable and sustainable development
> for all the world's peoples, then the standards and principles should be
> applied uniformly in all parts of the world and be determined equally by
> the world's peoples and their polities. This perhaps is a way towards
> 'free and fair' global standards for democracy.
>