Recolonisation of Africa? Choose South Africa first

Kenya and Zimbabwe have refocused the minds of Africans, and those further afield, on how vulnerable the countries of this continent are to political opportunism. What tribal divisions in the north and a lack of willingness to intervene in the south have shown is that unless countries are based on something more substantial than mere loyalty to a single party, or even a man, they run the risk of being attacked by interest groups with a big cheque book.

Times of London columnist Matthew Parris, in an article titled “The new scramble for Africa begins“, suggests: “Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonised. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren’t interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”

If we regard the way that SADC has handled the issue of Mugabe and Zanu-PF, can we honestly fault this proposition? Indeed the leaders of this region have clearly shown that they would rather sell out the people of Zimbabwe than disturb the old boys’ club.

Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, has become so bemused by all of this that he even went on record to ask where the African leaders in the region are. Answer: there came none, the kings were in the counting house, counting out their money.

It must therefore be suggested that leaders like Robert Mugabe, long held as a liberator of his people, are in fact the biggest danger when it comes to recolonisation. His failure to build Zimbabwe into a multicultural unit, primed to defend the state against all comers, has left it defenceless to foreign powers or even local interest groups.

How many Zimbabweans would lay down their lives to defend their country against foreign intervention right now? Not many. And while Mugabe is calling Morgan Tsvangirai a puppet, he is the one taking arms from China to slaughter his own people, while there are reports of Chinese troops on the ground in Zimbabwe.

Isn’t this the picture that Parris is painting? Isn’t Mugabe showing us that, as the great non-liberator that he truly is, it’s really all about self-interest and power? Stuff Zimbabweans — who cares about their plight as long as he is in power? Unless there are those who would suggest that a Chinese-backed Mugabe is better than the people elected by the Zimbabwean voters.

Of course the SADC leaders, by their refusal to act, must be complicit in all this. They are aware of what is taking place in Zimbabwe — and by their assisting Mugabe to stand his ground, they confirm that it’s not about people, but about power.

Obviously when their sell-by date arrives, they too will expect their fellow SADC leaders to support their attacks on their own countrymen. What other inference can be drawn from the events that are unfolding?

How can this be avoided?

The answer lies in recognising and fostering our South Africanness — building loyalty to our country as opposed to individuals.

In the United States, by way of example, when the troops go off to war, it is irrelevant whether they vote Republican, Democrat or independent; they are defending the US Constitution. (I appreciate that this could be debated with regard to Iraq and so forth, but that is not the issue here.)

South Africans need to unite in the same way. It is irrelevant whether you vote ANC, IFP or FF+ — this is your country. The government must promote unity and concern itself with the questions that trouble all South Africans rather than just the party. The party must deal with those issues that pertain specifically to it.

Democracy, like we witnessed at Polokwane, must go from strength to strength. The ANC must be ruthless with those of its members who disgrace the party and thereby the country. People need to respect their government, which is difficult if the government does not earn that respect. JZ and Julius Malema slamming errant ANCYL delegates is along the lines of what needs to be done.

Opposition parties together with labour must keep the government honest and on its toes. It not only avoids a Zimbabwe, but also gives people real hope that people with similar concerns to our own are at the forefront of the fight to improve our country.

A free press is the one non-negotiable in all of this. As long as the world and your fellow citizens are aware of what is going on, then you have a measure of real security. If you believe some media slant issues, then you are able to select those which report fairly and accurately. That said, you need to know what is going on if you are to play your part.

The danger of choosing a party or individual above the country is there for all to see — in Zimbabwe, Mugabe rid himself of his press, bribed people to support him and armed his police and military to stamp out any dissent.

Right now Zimbabwe’s options lie between military rule, Chinese rule by proxy or Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC.

In other words, if the “liberator” is in power, it means the people have to be in chains.

As Parris points out, there are vast African treasure troves of natural resources that are soon going to attract the interest of those abroad (one area that he appears to have overlooked is the land itself). If interest groups do come calling, then continued liberation lies in the hands of Africans themselves.

In uniting as a single country, strengthened by its multicultural components — as opposed to killing each other over differences — we will attract investors, not invaders. Foreign powers will not be able to exploit divisions for their own interests; they will have to negotiate with the government of a country where differences over policies exist but loyalty to that country remains unchallenged.

That is why you must always choose South Africa first.