SocialistAction 1983–88

The paper of the Socialist League, formerly the International Marxist Group, 1983–88

Zimbabwe the legacy of Lancaster House By Charlie van Gelderen

Socialist Action No. 4, 8 April 1983 · p. 13 of the scan · 861 words

The scan: 004-apr-08-1983-SA-UK.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 2-6 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 13 of the scan

WHEN the African National swept to power in 1980, Africa's struggle freedom took a big step forward. It was rightly hailed as a great victory and the harbinger for the final liquidation of white minority rule in southern Africa.

But the victory could only be consolidated if the new regime carried out the programme for thousands of Zimbabweans had fought and died: in particular, a thoroughgoing agrarian policy which would give the land to the peasants who had formed the main force in the liberation armies, and the raising of the living standards of the urban and rural workers.

If he had wished to effect his socialist rhetoric, Robert would have had to break House agreement had the specific intention of binding the new Limbabwe regime firmly in the coils of imperialism. The longest section oi ine which was signed by Joshua Nkomo as well as Mugabe, expressly forbids the seizure transferred on a 'willing seller, willing buyer' basis (Section 16). harrier is reinforced by tae british government, which is committed to paying half the cost of resettlement. Should Mugabe defy this clause and seize the land, British funds would be withheld.

When ZANU came to power in April 1980 with a huge majority, it had a clear choice. It could faithfully carry out the neo-colonialist mitments of the Lancaster agreement or it could mobilise the people to take the revolution forward on the road to socialism. This would entail grave risks. It meant seizing the land of the 4600 wealthy white farmers who own 38 per cent of the country and produce 90 per cent of the coun try's agricultural goods, per cent of its foreign currency.

Mugabe with the This Nkomo agreement, must This legal BOTSWANA comHouse earning 47

ZIMBABWE

MOZAM encouraged the layer black farmers who could act as a bufAs in agriculture, we find the same contradictions in the urban areas.

of the assets are owned by multinationa companies. The south Atrican Anglo-American owns almost the entire sugar industry, dominates mining and has interests in six finance which societies and many other industries. So powerful is the influence of Anglo-American that been able to pursue policies terests, and in no way in the interests Thus it was able to persuade the cabinet finance a new power station which exAnglo-American now has an outlet for the low grade coal which it mines at Hwang'e and which is almost unsaleable it other parts of the country | Bernard Chidzero, the Minister in charge of the National Development Plar, is quite frank about the direction of government policies:

'Government recognises the need to stimulate private sector investment by creating & lavourable investment climate fiscal, monetary other financial measures' (Guardian 24.3.83).

To this he could have added that the government would also create a 'favourable' political climate by reit took over from the Smith regime, which restricts unions, bans strikes, and ensures a low-wage labour force.

MOTO, pro-ZANU published in Harare, in what may very well be the last issue in which it is still allowed free expression, gives a very clear picture of the actual situation in Zimbabwe:

'Both the right and the left have ideological reasons for disagreeing with the governel.

There are people on the right both inside and outside Zimbabwe, who would like to reverse achievements of independence, seeing as they do a threat from the government Prime British troops train Zimbabwe army Mugabe present government's because they feel that it does not taking to a socialist transformation people who are frustrated with the pace and quality of the change.

people who are unhappy with the government for purely tribal and regional reasons, which they place above the national interests. such disenchanted people in Zimthe elections. "There reasons for walca are Intriasicany mixed will the political lack of meaningful employment opportunities and unchanging relationships means of production. The years of hardship during the struggle gave way during the election campaign to high expectations society. As the months went by after independence guerillas still found themselves in the assembly points, frustration Minister built up. conditionally The babwe were government.

'Chances OI educallor

achieving skills that they sacrificed struggle have not materialised.' (MOTO, March It is very important to distinguish between those whose dissidence springs from the criticisms and frustration of the combatants, who see the aspirations for which they fought and made sacrifices disappear into some future, anu lie avoweul. counter-revolutionary forces backed by and based in South Africa. Their directed against the sovereignty of the people of Zim.

Revolutionary socialists and the whole labour movement must undefend Zimbabwe elements of counterfrustrations of those who fought in the battles for liberation is quite another matter. These frustrations are by no means confined to the Matabele areas although these have been given greater prominence in the press here and because Matabeland is the political base for Nkomo's ZimAfrican People's (Although it should be remembered that Nkomo was still a member of the government when the armed forces sent into Matabeland to deal with the dissidents.) But the primary responsibility for the diversion of the discontent among the people into tribal lines belongs to the Mugabe

← ExodusFramework →

Something wrong on this page?