West will try talk Mugabe out of madness

Published Apr 11, 2008

Share

By Heidi Holland

I left State House after a rare interview with Zimbabwe's president last December with the impression that Robert Mugabe lives in a personal reality bubble, a world in which he is a selfless, successful leader who can do no wrong because, paradoxically, he cannot bear to acknowledge the mess he has made of Zimbabwe.

Mugabe's own confirmation of his deluded state came after I had pointed out that Zimbabwe's imploding economy reflected the ill effects of a lack of Western development aid, which he had trivialised during the interview.

He sat up straight, his eyes flashing with anger at my scepticism. "Our economy shows it but it's far better, a hundred times better, than the average African economy. Outside South Africa, what country is (as good as) Zimbabwe?"

"Is that true even now," I asked.

"Even now," he said. "What is lacking now are goods on the shelves. That's all. But the infrastructure is there. We have our mines, you see. We have our enterprises."

The reason he distorted reality by saying dismissively that all Zimbabwe lacked was goods for sale was probably to avoid sober recognition of how little he has to show for his "sacrifice and suffering": the years he spent in prison and the harsh times he endured in guerrilla camps. A more honest appraisal would be devastating for him.

This is why he has such a strong drive to keep talking up Zimbabwe's viability as the country collapses around him and to keep blaming others for his failure. He would be left staring into an abyss otherwise.

The messianic things he believed about himself and what he thought his "sacrifices" would achieve have come to nothing.

To admit at the end of a largely well-intentioned life that what he set out to do has turned to dust would be unbearable for Mugabe.

His catastrophic scorched-earth policy is a reflection not only of his indifference to the plight of Zimbabweans, but also of his denial.

Such delusion will make it extremely difficult for Mugabe to accept a defeat at the polls, or even the indignity of a run-off except on his own terms.

His instinct will be to fight back angrily, although there may come a time when even his closest supporters openly desert him and he has no choice but to concede that his presidency has come to an end.

A close look at Mugabe's long history in politics shows it is the humiliation of disillusionment and rejection that trigger his rage.

Time and again, he has resorted to revenge in response to what he sees as betrayal, albeit often biding his time against Zimbabwe's white citizens, the British government and his own African people, all of whom have rejected him in various ways at different times over the last 30 years.

Mugabe is nothing if not strategic. I imagine he will talk nicely even to Zanu-PF independent presidential candidate Simba Makoni, apologising if necessary for the mean things he has said in recent weeks about his former finance minister if it suits him.

With almost any deal suiting Mugabe better than surrendering his kingdom to Morgan Tsvangirai, he will plot feverishly to thwart the Movement for Democratic Change.

People who have served over the years in his cabinet say he schemes relentlessly at the best of times, thoroughly enjoying the challenge of outwitting his enemies because scoring points against opponents feeds his voracious ego.

Even as a child he played tennis to win, throwing tantrums when defeated. While it is much too late to jet Super Nanny into State House for a back-to-basics encounter with Robert in the naughty corner, there is still time for a change of course in Western diplomacy.

Among the thoughts I took with me from State House was the futility of the West's punitive diplomacy towards him to date.

It is absolutely clear that he has failed to respond favourably to the stick approach: indeed, it plays straight into his weaknesses.

A more creative plan to coax him out of office might be more successful if he survives the current electoral showdown.

With no evidence that he recognises limitations of any kind, it is Zimbabwe's future rather than Mugabe's past that should inform international responses towards the beleaguered country now.

Although he insists that his quarrel is with Britain, the former colonial power appears to have no intention of engaging directly with its post-colonial legacy, Robert Mugabe being the personification of it.

Perhaps the wider international community might therefore be willing to explore the scope for an exit strategy.

If Mugabe remains Zimbabwe's leader, he will stop at nothing to continue to prove he has been wronged by the current British government.

Whatever the merit of his claims in respect of pledges made and rescinded over Zimbabwe's land redistribution issue, leaving Mu-gabe to pursue his vendetta is too risky an option for Zimbabweans.

When I asked if he was prepared to sacrifice the welfare of his country in order to prove his case against Britain, he replied: "Yes, we have already sacrificed our welfare..."

Add to this disquieting picture Mugabe's assertion that despite the massacre of thousands of opposition supporters in the early years of his rule, he believes he is given insufficient credit for not having "slaughtered" more people in Zimbabwe and you have a convincing humanitarian reason for the West to talk to Mugabe, at least to find out if there is any diplomatic leeway.

That a precariously balanced individual is in charge of a country and willing to destroy it to score points against an enemy is a tragedy in itself.

That the man in question has an arguably justifiable complaint namely the repudiation of a promise made by an earlier British administration is embarrassing.

But that the former colonial power chooses to ignore and humiliate Mugabe rather than attempting to settle their differences may well prove reckless if Mugabe remains in power for another term.

The West needs to change its approach to Mugabe. Years of isolation and sanctions, with which he powers his propaganda machine, have only driven him downward and made him more aggrieved.

While there remains the possibility of talking him out of office, every effort should be made internationally to set up such a conversation.

The belief that the situation in Zimbabwe cannot get worse has proved an inadequate strategy for ending the country's torment under Mugabe's leadership.

Indeed, the current Western standoff might in itself imperil Zimbabwe as things go from bad to worse and its president becomes even nastier.

- Heidi Holland is the author of Dinner with Mugabe: The Untold Story of a Freedom Fighter who Became a Tyrant (Penguin)

Related Topics: