Mugabe’s Dilemma

As a compromise for independence in 1980, Robert Mugabe signed the Lancaster Agreement which among other things said the pre-independence arrangements in Zimbabwe must not be disturbed. And so it was that Mugabe led his country into independence presiding over a country in which resources especially land, where disproportionately owned by the white minority in the country. The minority white people therefore controlled the commanding heights of the Zimbabwean economy and by the 1990s had succeeded in using their vast agricultural lands into turning Zimbabwe into the bread basket of Eastern and Southern Africa. However, in spite of the successes of the white farmers in Zimbabwe, the majority blacks had never forgiven the white farmers and their ancestors for forcefully and ‘illegally’ taking their most prized possession, their land from them. Mugabe faced two very important issues. First, should he allow the white farmers to keep the land and continue to provide food and much needed foreign exchange for the Zimbabwe economy? or second, should he take the land from the white farmers and give it to the majority black people and risk disruption in agricultural production? As you may rightly know, Mugabe chose the latter and with it brought serious consequences to his country. Both of the choices Mugabe faced can be defended depending on one’s moral decision making compass.
Faced with this dilemma, the Kantian will ask, do I wish to make it a universal rule that when a group of people have systematically disenfranchised another group of their priced possession is it right to let them keep the property even when the original owners want it back? Expressed in another way, is it right and just to keep another person’s dispossessed heritage and blame it on your ancestors. If you do not want to make this a universal law, then the Kantian will say that in spite of the consequences to the Zimbabwean economy Mugabe should choose to return the land to the rightful owners.
The utilitarian on the other hand will have a different set of reasoning. To the utilitarian, when faced with alternatives, one must choose the choice which gives the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Thus, the question is, will giving the land back to the original owners ensure the greatest good to the greatest number of people. What do the people of Zimbabwe need the most? Is it land they have to expertise to till or is it food, jobs and foreign exchange to modernize their economy. Taking the land from the whites will disrupt agricultural production, decrease investor confidence and eventually put the economy in trouble. However, the majority black people will continue to agitate for fairness for as long as the minority whites control the land.
As events in Zimbabwe have shown, Mugabe took the Kantian approach and is in the process of correcting all the wrongs that his people have faced over the years. However, in the process the economy collapsed and it is only now beginning to pick up. Nevertheless, it is not likely that the Zimbabwean economy will get to the 1980s and 1990s level anytime soon. Perhaps it is only the demise of Mugabe and the weakening of his ZANU PF party that will increase the pace of economic development.
There may have been a third choice that Mugabe could have taken: a pragmatist approach to resolve his dilemma. There is no doubt that the white colonialist had a bigger foot print in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa than the rest of Africa. The white minority stayed and continues to hold vast resources to the detriments of the natives. It is also obvious that white owned businesses make up a significant size of the economy of Zimbabwe. In addition, the white minority, although claim Zimbabwean citizenship continues to hold ties with their western ancestors. Thus any attempt at targeting their businesses which has the impression of a witch hunt will incur the wrath of their western allies. Furthermore once the western countries who control most of the world’s resources declare your country unfriendly to business you might as well close shop and go home. This is because nobody will be coming to do business with you. This is a scenario that confronts most of the countries in Southern Africa. However, instead of being ideological, countries like South Africa and Namibia decided to take a middle of the road approach – a pragmatic approach that has restored land to the blacks without dispossessing and disrupting the white businesses in the country. With this policy, South Africa set up a plan that will gradually transfer land and other resources to black families and tribes. Although both sides did not get all they wanted, at least there is some order in the process of land redistribution as oppose to the gangster-style redistribution policy being pursued in Zimbabwe. It is therefore refreshing to see success stories in South Africa and Namibia where families and tribes have negotiated with the white ‘land owners’ to keep the land and work on it while paying the black families and tribes a percentage of the profits from the land.