Zimbabwe's Turn to the Dark Side

When I learned this morning that Robert Mugabe's tactics of thuggery and violence had caused his opponent for the Zimbabwean presidency, Morgan Tsvangirai, to withdraw from the run-off election and go into hiding at the Dutch embassy, I was, like many people who have been following the election crisis, dubfounded, and I was even more disturbed when I saw a BBC broadcast showing armies of pro-Mugabe supporters with clubs and machetes walking through fields preparing to kill or maim anyone who did not support his tenuous hold on power.

Mugabe has completed his turn from from a Nelson Mandela-like figure to the African equivalent of Darth Vader. The question is what will happen next. The African leaders who are most able to exert pressure on Zimbabwe—particularly South Africa and Mozambique, because they control Zimbabwe's access to the sea—seem unwilling to do so. The New York Times, for instance, notes that South Africa has consitently opposed action by the United Nations Security Council, perhaps because it is concerned that any pressure on the regime could cause it to collapse completely, creating an even greater humanitarian crisis that would destabilize the entire region.

Yet, Brendan O’Neill, writing in Spiked, suggests the problem may not be the lack of outside involvement in Zimbabwe. Ironically, it may be just the opposite: The ardent support of Morgan Tsvangirai by outside governments has encouraged him to look outside the borders of Zimbabwe for support instead of developing a stronger grassroots network within the country. "The events of the past 24 hours demonstrate that Western governments’ relentless exploitation of the Zimbabwe crisis has helped to disenfranchise the Zimbabwean people," he write. "Literally. The logic of Western pressure has made the MDC reliant on the favour and flattery of external forces, rather than on the grit and the votes of its own mass support base."

In withdrawing from contention, Tsvangirai is trying to avoid further violence and possibly genocide. O'Neill, however, sees his actions as inappropriate. This is a time, he contends, in which the Zimbabwean people need to take matters into their own hands. But what does that mean? Is the opposition prepared for armed insurrection? Do they have enough guns? This is certainly what the Mugabe government is preparing for, as his supporters parade through the streets chanting, "Win or war!"

One of the most interesting and potentially important forces for change lies not with military action but with the country's Christian churches. The Tablet writes of Mugabe's struggles to control Christians in the country by encouraging them to become "truly Zimbabwean" or "patriotic." The Anglican Bishop of Harare has done so, though the Catholic Church, as well as other Protestant groups, have stood firm.

The importance of Zimbabwe's Christian churches should not be discounted. They provide a ready grassroots network as well as a moral vocabulary that can help them critique the ruling regime without descending into violence. Faith, not force, may yet hold the key to finding a solution to Zimbabwe's challenges before the nation's instability engulfs all of southern Africa.