We know that the state represents a national tradition, which is higher than the claims of a strong minority or a weak majority. Social justice is not egalitarianism and a reverence for power. It is an organic hierarchy, where the humble themselves will to power and the element mass, and approved by the will to truth. But the situation inZimbabwehas another character that lead to further crisis. Robert Mugabe was a warlike leader and his statements were directed on wars and conflicts, but not on creation and development. According to Chung (2006), we see that Mugabe said that “countries like theU.S.andBritaindecided that they will decide for us in the developing world, to interfere in our internal affairs and do what they call regime change… Our party must continue to drive fear into the hearts of white people, our real enemies!.. Our votes must go together with our arms. In the end, every vote that we get must be the result of arms. Weapons, which make the vote, should remain its security guard, its guarantor. The voices of men and people’s arms are always inseparable twins.”
According to Mbiba (2001) we see that in 1987, Mugabe changed the constitution – he abolished the post of prime minister and appointed himself president of the country (although the power he had, and before that was in excess). Simultaneously, inZimbabwebegan to unwind the flywheel of repression against the opposition and everybody who expressed dissatisfaction with the rapid deterioration in living standards. This applies both to ordinary peasants, and prominent figures.
Zimbabwe’s economy gradually began to fade. Inflation grew, the local currency rapidly devalued, and the number of unemployed – has increased. Once upon a time when Smith was powerful, a Rhodesian dollar was equal to one British pound, but then situation greatly changed and a scale denomination had a place. Perpetrators of economic turmoil, of course, had been named the white settlers, allegedly appropriated the wealth of the country. Under the guise of land reform campaign began “redistribution.” Dozens of white farmers were killed on their land, many had to drop everything and run away. Special activity was shown by the so-called “veterans of the war of liberation”, most of whom was not yet 20 years old.
Half a million Zimbabweans were suffering from malnutrition, and the white farmers have stopped production because of land grabs. Mabasa (2007) stated that in 1990 more than 65 percent of all agricultural products and 78 percent of grain were produced in the white farms. At the beginning of the XXI century, these figures have fallen sharply. As a result of continuous attacks by Zimbabweans white population began to emigrate abroad. According to Davies (1991) we see that in 1970, inRhodesialived about 275,000 whites and in 2006, there were less than 60000.
As a result,Zimbabwefrom a country that once fed half of Africa, has become the secondEthiopia, which depends on foreign food aid. Farms were abandoned, the land ceased to be processed. Splitting of large farms into smaller plots that were processed by the primitive tools, has led to rapid depletion of soil and, as a consequence – to famine.
It is necessary to say that there were many reasons of crisis in the past and there are also many of them now. It seems to me that exactly Mugabe lead the country to decline, but at the same time I agree with a statement that he could be considered a good leader in conflict situations. In to the acknowledgment of the first statement is necessary to say that Mugabe has systematically destroyed the opposition, take the law into own hands. The Constitution of Zimbabwe was rewritten again to allow Mugabe to remain president for life in fact.
Even sympathetic to Mugabe’s neighbors have had to pay attention to his arbitrariness. Meredith (2007) shoved that even former Zambian president, who assisted Mugabe’s militants during the war of liberation, advised the president ofZimbabwe, “to bury the hatchet and address economic problems rather than fight with the ghosts of colonialism.” In addition to this,Zimbabwewas subjected to boycott by the Commonwealth countries. Mugabe and his entourage banned from entering the state – members of the EU.
Mugabe is an old president of the country and few expected that he will reign for so long – he gave the impression of the person familiar with democratic procedures, and who agrees to obey them. Clemens and Moss (2005) demonstrated that over the past quarter century, he repeated the typical path of all the African dictators – had become a tyrant with unlimited power and completely destroy the country which was once called “the Switzerland of Africa”.
Summarizing information presented in this paper we could say that Mugabe is frequently blaming colonization for the current state of his country’s economy and he is right in this claim, because colonization really impact on the economic situation in the country, but at the same time Mugabe forgot about the fact that he destroyed it by his own hands and he didn’t want to share a guilt for this situation.
Why reach such life a country with enormous reserves of palladium and chromites, a country that has large deposits of other minerals, including gold, diamonds and precious stones? What was the reason?
I think that, primarily, this resulted in the actions of President Robert Mugabe, who tried to abandon a market economy and to build African socialism. Local revolutionaries, in this case ran into their own dogma, which they tried to put into practice. We see that first of all Mugabe, who all his life was a partisan against the local “apartheid regime” decided to destroy colonialism in the root. In other words, it was decided to steal property belonging to the colonialists. This is the real racism, but on the other side of this problem.
However, the former guerrillas ignored the fact that it is not enough to be able to shoot a little in order to competently lead the state and avoid dangerous imbalances in the economy. Even such a gem for African standards, which was Zimbabwe need good strategic plan of economic development and maybe it will be the solution of the problem. Historical facts and today’s situation in Zimbabwe show us that the economy has collapsed with the expulsion of the “white”, whose representatives were lined up agriculture and industry and were able to competently manage their property. Indigenous people, not having the necessary knowledge for planning of agriculture and mining, were simply unable to provide even the minimum needs of their own. As a result, many enterprises felt decline and arable land area have diminished greatly.
To sum up, I would like to say that Zimbabwe has perspectives of development. It seems to me that most likely the situation will change for the better only after the dismantling of the Mugabe’s regime. But strangely, despite the enormous pressure from the outside, it showed its resilience. One reason is in fact that it is supported by some foreign powers that have in the region its “raw material” interest. Primarily, this isChinaandLibya. However, the lives of local people has not improved from this support, thus the country need a new leader who will be able to take care of own people and be in contact with foreign partners in equal rights.