Our experience in the African National Congress tells us unequivocally that no lasting solution to the challenges that face Zimbabwe will be found unless that solution comes from the people of Zimbabwe themselves. It tells us that no self-respecting Zimbabwean with any pride in his country will accept that another should determine his destiny.
In the heated atmosphere that surrounds the issue of Zimbabwe, the tendency to pose as high priests at the inquisition, hungry for the blood of the accused, has taken root -- as though to demonize and punish is the way to solve the most difficult problems. In this situation, as in war, the truth soon becomes a casualty.
From its very beginning as an independent country, Zimbabwe understood that it had to address the domination of the socio-economic sphere by the white minority -- a legacy of colonialism.
However, because of agreements reached during the independence negotiations in London, which counterbalanced the principle of black liberation with the protection of white property, the issue of land distribution was virtually quarantined. London inserted into the political settlement the racist notions of black majority rule and white minority rights.
Beyond this, the new democratic state worked to advance the socio-economic interests of the liberated majority. It focused on meeting the needs of the people, changing the state machinery to reflect the new political reality, and encouraging black participation in the economy and society in general, so that the majority joined their white compatriots as actors for development, rather than mere consumers and employees.
To advance these objectives, the government ploughed considerable resources into education, with dramatic success. Significant state expenditure went into health, too, resulting in an increase in life expectancy from 55 to 59 years. Spending on rural development resulted in the small farmers' share of marketed maize rising from zero in 1980 to 70 percent in 1989.
By 1991, the civil service wage bill accounted for 16.5 percent of GDP, a burden on the economy caused by the rapid expansion of state services and the drive to achieve equal pay for black civil servants. Spending on the social sectors during the same year amounted to 13 percent of GDP.
To alleviate poverty, the state decided to adopt measures that would keep the cost of living low. This was done through a system of subsidies financed through the state budget, which has been maintained for two decades. By 1990, such subsidies absorbed a staggering 3.7 percent of GDP.
These extraordinary expenditures could only be sustained by running a large budget deficit and through foreign borrowing. In other words, live now, pay later. By the end of the first decade of independence, public sector debt stood at 90 percent of GDP. The capital needed to finance economic growth began to dry up. Contrary to the false assertions about the socialist Mugabe government, Zimbabwe remains an overwhelmingly capitalist economy, but by 1987 private investment had dropped to less than 8 percent of GDP, compared to an already low 12 percent in 1985.
As early as 1984, when the government had to appeal to the IMF for assistance, it was clear that the path chosen by the government of Zimbabwe was unsustainable. But, contrary to what some now claim, the economic crisis currently affecting Zimbabwe did not originate from the desperate actions of a reckless political leadership, or from corruption. It arose from a genuine concern to meet the needs of the black poor, without taking into account the harsh economic reality that we must pay for what we consume.
The longer the problems of Zimbabwe remain unresolved, the more entrenched poverty will become. The longer this persists, the greater will be the degree of social instability, as the poor respond to the pains of hunger. The more protracted this instability, the greater will be the degree of polarization and social and political conflict.
To respond to this, the state will have to emphasize law and order. As it responds in this way, the less will it be able to address anything else other than law and order. The more it does this, the greater the absence of order and stability.
None of this will happen because there are demonic people in Harare. The internal logic of society compels all of us to be carried along by events, to destinations we may not have sought. As has happened with us at various times, Zimbabweans, too, will have to break the vicious cycle.
As neighbors, we will encourage Zanu-Patriotic Front and the Movement for Democratic Change to sit down together to agree on a common response to the challenges their country faces. As patriots who occupied the same trench of struggle with Zimbabwe when we, together, battled to end white minority rule in our region, we will do what we can to enable Zimbabweans to enjoy the fruits of their hard-won liberation. Righteous and self-serving indignation will achieve nothing.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS