Showing posts with label LINKS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LINKS. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Germany: Big gains for Die Linke as Social Democrats’ support collapses

via Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal:

By Duroyan Fertl

October 5, 2009 – Germany’s ``centre-right’’ Chancellor Angela Merkel was returned to power in federal elections held on September 27, but with a record low voter turnout and an increased vote for the far-left party, Die Linke (The Left).

The election was a clear success for Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Her preferred coalition partner – the free-market fundamentalist Free Democratic Party (FDP) – increased its support by 4.8 per cent to an all-time high of 14.6 per cent, enough to form a CDU-FDP government. The FDP will now replace the CDU’s main rival – the ``centre-left’’ Social Democratic Party (SPD) – as coalition partner in the government of Europe’s largest economy.

At the same time, the SPD’s support collapsed by more than 6 million votes, dropping a massive11.2 per cent to only 23 per cent – its worst result since World War II. As one leading SPD member pointed out on election night, “We have been bombed back into the Weimar Republic”. SPD leader Walter Steinmeier described the result as “a bitter day” for German social democracy.

However, while the result has been widely characterised as a shift to the right, that view is not really borne out by the results. The total vote for the centre-right parties rose by only 3.4 per cent, while the vote for the neo-Nazi New Democratic Party (NPD) dropped to just over 1 per cent, while the total left vote dropped by only 5.4 per cent.

Voter turnout slumps

The election campaign was one of the dullest ever run, with the two major parties – CDU and SPD – being overly polite to each other, neither wanting to alienate voters or lose their chance of remaining in government.

In a televised “debate”, Steinmeier and Merkel acted like old chums, and the unofficial slogan of the entire campaign became “Yes we gähn” (“Yes we yawn”). As Dietmar Bartsch, Die Linke’s general secretary, explained: "It was a very boring affair. None of them were any good. It was exactly what we had expected."

After 11 years in government, presiding over increasing cuts to social welfare and rising poverty and unemployment, the SPD lost the confidence of many of its traditional supporters, and was barely able to distinguish its own neoliberal policies from those of its main rival during the election campaign.

The SPD’s support was also impacted by its refusal to consider going into coalition with the far-left Die Linke, making a vote for an SPD government essentially a vote for the status quo, and another “grand coalition” with the CDU.

Some disaffected SPD supporters shifted their votes to Die Linke or to the Greens, but millions simply stayed home, enjoying a last warm weekend before winter. In fact, the voter turnout was the worst in 60 years, down to 70.8 per cent from 77.7 per cent four years ago, and most of those voters were once SPD voters.

While the CDU managed to retain government, it also suffered a drop in its vote, down by 1.4 per cent to 33.8 per cent, also a record low. And while the CDU-FDP coalition won a slender majority in the Bundestag – the German parliament’s lower house – various left-wing parties still have a majority in the upper house (the Bundesrat),which is made up of representatives from state governments.

The new CDU-FDP government is expected to introduce widespread cuts to social spending, especially under the influence of the FDP. Although the more conservative CDU will temper the FDP’s neoliberal urges, the new government has promised to introduce tax cuts of up to 20 per cent, reduce public spending, reverse the phase out of nuclear reactors, increase the pension age to 67 and continue Germany’s military involvement in the occupation Afghanistan.

Die Linke

The real success stories of the elections were the minor parties. The big winner was the right-wing FDP, whose increased vote makes them the third-biggest party in parliament. The Greens also entered double figures for the first time in a federal election, with 10.7 per cent, and increasing its presence from 51 to 68 seats.

The far-left Die Linke – the newest party in Germany’s political landscape – won 10.9 per cent of the vote, an increase of 3.2 per cent on 2005. It is the first time in German history that a party to the left of the SPD has scored more than 10 per cent in an election. Die Linke’s representation in the Bundestag has increased from 54 to 76 MPs, 40 of whom are women.

Die Linke was formed in 2007 when the Party of Democratic Socialism (the successor to the former ruling Socialist Unity Party of the German Democratic Republic – ``East Germany’’) merged with the Electoral Alternative for Social Justice and Jobs (WASG) – a group of disillusioned SPD members, trade unionists and socialists formed in 2005 to oppose the right-wing policies of the SPD-Green coalition federal government of the time.

Since then. Die Linke has continued to increase in popularity despite a media scare campaign about the threat of “communism”. Die Linke’s election platform of improved social justice and public welfare, the introduction of a minimum wage, higher taxes for the rich, relaxing harsh unemployment laws and cutting greenhouse gases emissions by 90% by 2050 have resonated with an electorate suffering the effects of the economic crisis.

Unemployment is already more than 8 per cent and will continue to rise as Germany’s export-dependent economy tries to ride out the crisis. Well over 10 per cent of Germany’s population already lives below the poverty line.

While more than 80 per cent of the population is opposed to the war in Afghanistan, Die Linke is the only party calling for the removal of German troops.

In two years, Die Linke has now won seats in 10 of Germany’s 12 state parliaments. In the western state of Saarland, an SPD heartland and home to Die Linke spokesperson Oskar Lafontaine, the Die Linke won more than 21.3 percent of the vote in state elections in September, placing it just behind the SPD. In Bremen, Die Linke scored more than 14 per cent, and even in the conservative state of Bavaria Die Linke’s support more than doubled, reaching 6.5 per cent.

In the states of the former German Democratic Republic, Die Linke fared even better, becoming the second-biggest party in the region after the CDU, and well ahead of the SPD. Die Linke won more than 25 per cent support in a majority of eastern electorates, and leading members Gregor Gysi and Petra Pau won their seats in Berlin with nearly 50 per cent of the vote.

In state elections held on the same day as the federal poll, Die Linke also entered parliament for the first time in Schleswig-Holstein – winning 6 per cent of the vote and five seats in the legislature – while in the eastern state of Brandenburg, it received 27.2 per cent, just behind the SPD on 33 per cent.

Can the SPD move left?

The SPD’s disastrous results, and the increased support for Die Linke, mean the SPD leadership is under significant pressure to move the party to the left and work with Die Linke, or risk losing more support. Adding to that pressure, a recent survey found that more than 50 per cent of Germans think that socialism is a good idea, but had been badly applied.

Die Linke co-leaders Oskar Lafontaine and Gregor Gysi have both called upon the SPD to “re-social-democratise” in order to build a strong left-wing alliance against the new government. According to Die Linke’s deputy leader – and ex-SPD member – Klaus Ernst, if the SPD does not change “the last one out can turn off the light”.

This may not be as easy as time seems, however, as many SPD members still hold a visceral hatred for Lafontaine. As former chairperson of the SPD and former federal finance minister, Lafontaine is considered to be a “traitor” to the SPD. Lafontaine resigned from the SPD in 2005 in protest against anti-social policies of SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He became a central leader of Die Linke, and an outspoken critic of both SPD policy and “finance capitalism” more generally.

So, while Die Linke has eclipsed the SPD in a number of state elections, and has indicated its willingness to enter coalitions with the SPD and the Greens to fight the looming attacks on public spending, in government as well as on the streets, it is unclear if the SPD will cooperate.

Only days after the federal election, the SPD in the eastern state of Thuringia refused to form a coalition with Die Linke – despite indicating it would do so during the election campaign. Although already in coalition with Die Linke in Berlin and Brandenburg, in Thuringia the SPD have chosen instead to work with the right-wing CDU.

There can be no guarantee, then, that the SPD will move quickly to the left or develop a coherent relationship with Die Linke, a situation which means that the social resistance to the new government’s spending cuts and reforms will be weakened.

Despite its significant gains, Die Linke is faced with a new series of challenges. As the clearest opposition voice and defender of social programs and public welfare, Die Linke must now find a way to relate to the millions of disillusioned SPD voters, and to organise the strongest possible response to the economic crisis and the pro-business policies of a right-wing government.

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

India needs a genuine Third Front, not an opportunist alliance

By the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation (via LINKS)

[CPI (ML) Liberation representative Kavita Krishnan will be a featured guest at the World at a Crossroads conference, to be held in Sydney, Australia, on April 10-12, 2009, organised by the Democratic Socialist Perspective, Resistance and Green Left Weekly. Visit http://www.worldATACrossroads.org for full agenda and to book your tickets.]

March 17, 2009 -- On the eve of the Lok Sabha (national lower house of parliament) polls, which will be held in five phases between April 16 and May 13, the launch of a ``Third Front'' spearheaded by the efforts of the Communist Party of India (CPI) and CPI (M) (the Communist Party of India-Marxist) has been announced. The front, it is claimed, is a non-Congress party, non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) front committed to ``alternate policies''.

Most of the non-Left Front* partners -- regional and small parties such as All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Telengana Rashtra Samity (TRS), Janata Dal (Secular) -- have at one point or the other been partners of either the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) or the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) or both. Some parties -- such as Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) -- have maintained a cautious pre-poll distance from the Third Front but are being touted as post-poll partners.

[*The Left Front is the CPI (M)-led alliance that rules the state governments of West Bengal and Tripura. A similar alliance also operates in Kerala.]

The establishment of coalition governments as the norm in India for over a decade reflects the eroded credibility of the main ruling-class formations –- the Congress and BJP -– and the rise of a range of third forces. There is unmistakeable frustration and anger at successive NDA and UPA governments and their anti-poor, pro-imperialist policy orientation. Clearly, there is an objective need for a credible Third Front. The question is: can a rag-tag coalition ever constitute a meaningful Third Front? Isn't a vibrant left movement and a powerful democratic consolidation around a powerful left course a necessary foundation for any viable, serious and durable Third Front?

The ``Third Front'' as it stands today is a highly amorphous formation riddled with paradoxes. It is neither a full-fledged pre-poll alliance nor a well-defined programmatic coalition. Partners like the TDP have been enthusiastic proponents of disastrous neoliberal policies; as for the track record of partners like TDP, AIADMK or Janata Dal (Secular) on secularism and democracy, the less said the better. Potential post-poll partners like the BJD and BSP have an equally dubious and tainted record on both neoliberal policies and secularism (the BJD was the party in power in the state of Orissa, that, leading the state govt in alliance with BJP, has presided over the massacre of Christians at Kandhamal and over the repression and killing of tribal protesters against massive corporate land grab at Kalinganagar, and many other places; while the BSP has the distinction of being the only party without a declared economic policy).

More importantly, the current arrangement ignores the fact that there is a distinct and crucial difference between ``Third Front government'' (or non-NDA, non-UPA government) and a ``Third Front''.

A Third Front in its true sense can be nothing but a left and democratic front that is a powerful voice of a third alternative -– in policies, in vision, in people’s movements -– but which may not necessarily be in a position to form government. Only such a Third Front can be in any way durable, sustainable and credible. What is being called a ``Third Front'' at this juncture is very different: it is merely a potential power-sharing that might emerge in view of the possibility that neither the UPA nor NDA achieve a majority in the impending parliamentary polls -– an eventuality that is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty. Surely a genuine Third Front cannot be a mere exercise in government formation?

The role of the left parties, the CPI and CPI (M), in such a coalition is yet another paradox. On the one hand these parties face major setbacks in their strongholds of Kerala and West Bengal. On the other, CPI (M) leaders have spoken of the possibility of joining a Third Front government at the centre! Answering questions from the press at the release of the party manifesto, CPI (M) general secretary Prakash Karat indicated that the question of joining a Third Front government at the centre is very much open. The CPI (M), since its ``historic blunder'' of 1996, has systematically removed all the programmatic roadblocks to being part of a government at the centre -– it is now free to join any central government which it claims to be in a position to ``influence''.

The CPI (ML) Liberation has made it clear that a role in government formation is not on its agenda or priorities. The party is contesting this election with the agenda of asserting a fighting left opposition within parliament. The seat adjustment [agreement] forged by the CPI (ML) Liberation in Bihar with the CPI and the CPI (M) is quite distinct from any ongoing ``Third Front'' efforts of those parties. This adjustment is based on the CPI (ML)'s consistent efforts in the direction of joint activities and electoral adjustments with left formations. While there has been no let-up in our firm and sustained struggle against the CPI-CPI (M)'s opportunist tactics on the whole and anti-people policies and measures in Left Front-ruled states, the latter have, in the objective conditions of Bihar at this particular juncture (the closing of doors on an alliance with the UPA partners and the impact among left ranks in the state of CPI (ML)'s practice of independent left assertion) responded positively to our appeal for an adjustment in the Lok Sabha polls in Bihar.

We hold that a meaningful Third Front can only be forged on a left basis. The ongoing adjustment achieved by the CPI (ML), CPI and CPI (M) in Bihar is certainly linked in a strategic sense to the efforts and experiments in the direction of such a genuine Third Front -– efforts and experiments marked by a consistent and principled element of struggle as well as of unity of purpose.

The ruling-class design to subject the polity to a duopoly of the UPA and NDA must be frustrated. But a rag-tag ``Third Front'' that offers no policy alternative and is crowded by forces with dubious track records cannot face this challenge. Only a powerful left and democratic camp drawing its strength from the struggles and aspirations of the Indian people for a better tomorrow can be the most effective bulwark against the ruling class's attempt to regiment the polity, and can be the basis for a principled and consistent third alternative and Third Front.

[This article first appeared in the CPI (ML) Update, vol. 12, no. 12, March 17-23, 2009.]

Monday, 9 March 2009

Lessons from the past: The Great Depression and the Communist Party of Australia

A section of the Wharfie's Mural, the large-scale work of art from the walls of the CPA-led Waterside Workers Federation (WWF) canteen in Sussex Street, Sydney, in the 1950s and '60s.

By Dave Holmes

[This is an excerpt from the new pamphlet, Meltdown! A socialist view of the capitalist crisis, by Resistance Books. Meltdown! features essays by John Bellamy Foster, Phil Hearse, Adam Hanieh, Lee Sustar and others. Purchase a copy from Resistance Books.] Reprinted from Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

The current economic crisis is a fundamental crisis of the world capitalist system. British socialist Phil Hearse calls it the “third slump” in the history of the capitalism (the other two being the Great Depression of the 1930s and the 1974-75 sharp downturn). And the levels of mass distress may yet come to rival the 1930s.

We certainly already have the anti-human irrationality of that period. Some time ago I came across a TV program about Las Vegas and the crisis. Casino business was down, it said. But Las Vegas also has normal suburbs, full of struggling, financially stressed homeowners. Across the city the sheriff’s department was conducting 3500-4000 home evictions each month! And the US has dozens of cities the size of Las Vegas.

But it is not the desperate homeowners who are being bailed out, but the very bankers and speculators whose insatiable greed caused the crisis. In a November 26 article on counterpunch.org Kevin Zeese wrote:

$7.6 trillion.

That is what [financial information agency] Bloomberg reports has been committed on behalf of the American taxpayer to bail out America’s finance system. This includes spending by the Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC.

  • The amount is equal to half the value of everything produced in the United States last year.
  • It is $24,000 for every man, woman and child in America, that is, nearly $100,000 for a family of four.
  • It’s nine times what the US has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • It is enough money to pay off more than half the country’s mortgages, but bankruptcies have continued despite the bailout.

We do not even know where all of those funds have gone. The taxpayer is putting up a king’s ransom and not being told who is receiving it. We guarantee the debts of banks and are not being told what collateral is provided or who is receiving the funds. Before receiving the bailout funds, Treasury Secretary Paulson promised transparency. But Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke says that such transparency would be “counterproductive”.

All of this money and yet foreclosures, bankruptcy and unemployment are all up; the stock market, consumer spending and housing prices are down. Pouring tax dollars into banks is not working …

You’d think for $7.7 trillion we’d get health care for all, tax relief or free college education! But Americans got none of that.

And, of course, no matter how hard the crisis hits ordinary people in the West it will be massively worse in the Third World.

What does all this mean for us? We are entering into a new period. Unemployment is likely to rise significantly and there will be further deep cuts to welfare and social spending — all against the backdrop of the looming threat of climate catastrophe. Along with the growing social dislocation we can expect increasing political turmoil. The last time this happened in Australia was in the Great Depression of the 1930s. And while we shouldn’t expect a carbon copy of that period, we can learn a lot from the experience of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) in those turbulent years.

Much of the factual material in this talk is drawn from the 1983 book The People Stand Up by longtime CPA activist and leader Ralph Gibson.1 While this work is firmly in a Stalinist framework, it nevertheless provides a very interesting picture of the 1930s crisis in Australia and the work of the CPA. Gibson gives a vivid sense of the depth of the suffering of the masses, the rottenness of the ALP leaderships, and the passionate struggle of the communists fighting for something better.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s began with the October 1929 crash of the US sharemarket. This rapidly developed into a crisis of world capitalism — the most severe in its entire history. From the end of 1929 to the end of 1932, industrial output fell 46% in the USA, 47% in Germany, 31% in France and 16.5% in Britain (already in a severe slump). Agricultural production dropped by a third over 1929-33. International trade contracted to one-third of its previous level. Unemployment reached at least 35 million (12 million in the US). In the US, only the mobilisation of World War II really put an end to the decade-long slump.

Workers, means of production, people’s needs — everything was still there but due to capitalist ownership of the economy the whole mechanism had seized up. To keep up prices, milk was poured down coal mines, oranges and coffee were dumped in the ocean, livestock were slaughtered, cotton fields were ploughed under. Mass misery reigned amid plenty. In the Soviet Union, however, Stalinism notwithstanding, the economy was forging ahead under the first Five-Year Plan. The contrast could not have been clearer to millions of people suffering in the capitalist world.

In Australia the impact of the crisis was extremely severe. The economy was heavily dependent on exports of primary products and world prices of these fell by over half. In the 1920s large-scale federal and state government public works had been financed by loans from Britain. With the crash, these stopped but the banks (the “British bondholders”) still demanded payment of the interest. In the years 1930 to 1934, an average of nearly a quarter of the workforce was unemployed, existing on a miserable pittance. Misery, hunger, homelessness and dire distress gripped the country.

ALP helpless in face of crisis

Some basic facts of political history are necessary here.

Australia went to the polls in October 1929. The hated anti-worker Nationalist government of PM Stanley Bruce was defeated (Bruce lost his seat to a trade union official) and the ALP under James Scullin took office (but with the Nationalists still controlling the Senate). However, the euphoria was short-lived. A few days later the Great Depression began …

In the two short years it was in office, the Scullin government showed itself to be completely incapable of protecting the interests of working people. It abandoned its modest election promises and was completely subservient to the bosses.

Worried about getting their pound of flesh, the British banks sent out an emissary, Sir Otto Niemeyer, to lay down the law to the Scullin government. Neimeyer demanded drastic cuts in wages and pensions — Australian living standards were too high, he said. At a Premiers’ Conference held in May-June 1931, the notorious Premiers’ Plan was adopted. It called for slashing all adjustable government expenditure by 20% — including all wages, salaries and pensions.

In NSW the ALP under J.T. (Jack) Lang won office in October 1930. Lang had presided over a modestly reformist state government in the mid-twenties. He put forward his own plan for the crisis. It called for a moratorium on interest payments to the British banks and a renegotiation of terms (actually not without precedent in the times). However, this was rejected at the February 1931 Premiers’ Conference. Despite all the demagogy surrounding Lang, the truth is that he later voted for the infamous Premiers’ Plan.

Lang was expelled from the Federal ALP in May 1931. There were then two ALPs in NSW: Lang Labor (by far the larger) and the rump Federal Labor. Five MHRs and two senators in Canberra were Lang supporters. In April 1932 Lang announced that the NSW government would suspend its interest payments to overseas bondholders. In response to this, in May the governor, Sir Philip Game, sacked Lang and he was defeated in the subsequent elections.

When a group of ALP defectors led by former Tasmanian premier Joseph Lyons withdrew support, the Scullin government was forced to the polls in December 1931. It was defeated by the new Lyons-led United Australia Party, a fusion of the Nationalists and ALP turncoats. Labor would remain out of office in Canberra until the Curtin government in 1941.

CPA and the ‘Third Period’

The CPA was formed in 1920, inspired by the victorious Russian Revolution. It took some time before a united communist party was consolidated. Through the twenties the party struggled to find the correct strategic and tactical orientation toward the ALP. Then, in 1929-31, under the pressure of the Comintern, the old leadership around Jack Kavanagh was forced out and a new Stalinist team installed, led by Lance Sharkey and J.B. Miles. Under this leadership the party adopted the policies associated with Stalin’s ultraleft “Third Period” schema and a much more top-down form of party organisation and control was implemented.

According to the Comintern analysis, adopted at its Sixth Congress in 1928, after the crisis of World War I and the immediate turbulent aftermath, and then the stabilisation of the 1920s, world capitalism was now in its third period. This was one of decisive crisis, in which revolutionary situations were on the immediate agenda just about everywhere and the task of the moment was to organise for the socialist revolution. The problem with the “Third Period” line is that it confused real possibilities of development with the actual situation.

And the tactical prescription which flowed from it was disastrous. The Comintern argued that not only were the pro-capitalist social-democratic leaders holding back the masses and preparing the ground for reaction and fascism — which was absolutely true — but their rank-and-file followers were also “social-fascists”. Left social-democrats — “left social-fascists” in the Stalinist categorisation — were even worse because they could more readily mislead the masses. When the Great Depression came and capitalism did enter a period of tremendous dislocation and political turbulence, the Comintern’s ultra-sectarian “Third Period” line prevented the communist parties from being able to correctly relate to the situation.

For example, in Germany in the later 1920s and early thirties, this sectarian line prevented the potentially formidable labour movement from uniting its forces to check Hitler’s rise to power. Instead, the working class remained divided between social-democracy and communism. As Trotsky tirelessly stressed, whatever their differences it was necessary for the workers’ movement to unite for self-defence against the growing fascist menace. If it did not do this it would suffer a catastrophic defeat. Trotsky also pointed out that a successful campaign against the Hitlerite threat would open the way to a socialist revolution in Germany. The social-democratic leaders certainly didn’t want to fight but the sectarian CP line made it easy for them to avoid the struggle. How different would world history have been had the Marxist-Leninist policy advocated by Trotsky been followed!

In Australia, the Third Period schema meant a crazy sectarianism toward the ALP and its mass base. At a time when the faith in the system of large numbers of workers was being shaken as never before, when they were groping for a way out of their misery, the CPA line made it so much harder for them to cross over to the revolutionary camp.

Of course, the ALP leadership was loyal to the capitalist system, just as they are today. But the most fruitful way to expose them in the eyes of their followers was not just through general propaganda but by constantly trying to achieve unity in action in fighting for the interests of the masses. Only in the struggle will the masses lose their illusions. Criticism is certainly not excluded but it must be relevant to the issues at hand and formulated in relation to the struggle as it unfolds.

In his book Ralph Gibson is critical of the CPA’s tactics toward Langism. Yes, Lang was a capitalist demagogue but he had attracted a mass following precisely because he appeared to offer an alternative to the Premiers’ Plan. The CPA called for a repudiation of the overseas debts. OK. But the actual struggle was developing around Lang’s proposal to suspend interest payments and renegotiate the terms of the loans.

When Game sacked him (probably an unconstitutional act) an enormous meeting was held in Sydney’s Moore Park in June 1932 under the slogan “Lang is right”. The place of revolutionaries was to be part of that movement, demanding that Lang be reinstated — and then actually carry out his plan. But the CPA’s Third Period schema closed off this possibility and this whole promising development passed them by.

Similarly, the CPA played a negative role in regard to the Socialisation Units which arose in the NSW Lang Labor Party in 1930-33. The outlook of the leaders of the units was utopian and they were unclear in their understanding of the nature of the Labor leadership around Lang but here was a movement embracing scores of thousands of workers looking to “socialisation” as the answer to the misery of the depression. The CPA denounced the leaders and supporters of the units (as “left social-facists”). And when a few communists did operate inside the units, they sought to commit the movement to an abstract revolutionary program.

Work among unemployed

Ralph Gibson explains that when he joined the CPA in the early thirties it was largely a party of the unemployed: “Its members were not just talking about poverty. They were among the multitude who were deep in it.”2

When the Great Depression first hit Australia and a great wave of unemployment engulfed the country, there was no unemployment insurance for eight months.

A national Unemployed Workers Movement (UWM) was set up in Sydney in July 1930. CPA members played the key role in setting it up in Sydney and Melbourne. In the big cities there were repeated demonstrations of the unemployed. These actions won the dole and the first payments were made in June 1930. The CPA played the decisive role in leading these struggles.

In mid-1931 the UWM claimed 31,000 members, in 1934 the figure was 68,000 and the organisation continued to grow until 1936. In response to the success of the UWM, the ALP and trades hall councils formed their own unemployed organisations but the CPA-led UWM outstripped them in numbers and militancy. Not surprisingly, the UWM was a major source of recruits for the CPA.

The UWM often spearheaded struggles against evictions. Some of these actions were veritable battles against the police attempting to evict people from their homes and throw them onto the street. The UWM also fought for improved conditions for the unemployed. These struggles were successful in winning higher dole payments and in gaining a rent allowance for the unemployed to stop people being evicted from their homes.

In 1932 the government tried to introduce “work for the dole”. Previously there had been short-term relief work for which wages were paid. But work for the dole made the unemployed work for their pittance. In Melbourne, the Shrine of Remembrance (that icon of bourgeois patriotism and militarism) and the Yarra Boulevard were the two main projects. The unemployed organisations were unable to prevent the introduction of this scheme, but in mid-1933 an heroic eight-week strike of the jobless in Melbourne succeeded in winning a substantial increase in the amounts paid.

Growing influence in trade unions

Alongside the Unemployed Workers Movement, the other key organisation through which the CPA attempted to lead the working class in the first part of the 1930s was the Militant Minority Movement (MMM). It was first established in 1928 with CPA leader Jack Kavanagh as its first secretary.

Ralph Gibson points out that: “The economic crisis, while it stimulated struggle among the unemployed, on the whole dampened it among employed workers.” Strike activity declined as did trade union membership (due to loss of faith in unions along with an inability to pay union dues). “… there was no real strike movement till the ice broke with the Wonthaggi mining strike of 1934”3 (depicted so well in the movie Strikebound).

However, the CPA was able to advance its industrial work, especially in traditionally militant sectors like the miners. This was despite its overall Third Period sectarian line. In his 1969 history of the CPA, Alastair Davidson summarises its gains in the first years of the Great Depression:

In early 1933 the MMM usually captured only low positions in militant unions, gains which were basic successes, but did not become news. In late 1933 and 1934 it started to capture militant unions at the state level. It also spread its activity throughout the entire Australian union movement. In 1933, through good organisation as well as essentially “pork chop” policies, the MMM captured the presidency of the Victorian Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association as well as several positions on the Victorian Tramways Union executive. It also consolidated its hold on positions in the WWF and was only narrowly defeated in the Amalgamated Engineering Union elections.

In [January] 1934 it captured its first union at the federal level, [when Bill Orr became secretary of] the Miners’ Federation, and throughout 1934 and 1935 it captured positions at the state level. By 1935 it decisively influenced a number of unions in various states: the ARU, the Leather and Tanners’, the Federated Ironworkers’ Association, the Tramways and Engineering unions, and the Miners’ unions.

It also led a militant minority which included about 20% of Australian unionists. It was winning influence in the Victorian, New South Wales, and New South Wales South Coast labor councils once again. Nearly all its successes at this stage were limited to traditionally militant unions, but it was also building its influence in the lower units of unions which were not traditionally militant.
4

The Militant Minority Movement is a very interesting phenomenon. One thing we should be clear about is that this was not just a “rank-and-file” movement. Yes, it aimed to organise the ranks of the unions but it also aimed at winning leadership of unions and as it had success in this regard, the concept of the militant minority became somewhat anachronistic. Whole unions were won by militants and followed a militant line.

Free speech

The CPA engaged in numerous free-speech fights through the 1930s, often through the Unemployed Workers Movement. One hard-fought campaign took place in Brunswick in Melbourne in 1933. A state law banning “subversive” gatherings was used by the police — under the command of the reactionary police commissioner, General Thomas Blamey — to break up meetings of radicals and the unemployed. The struggle was at its fiercest in Brunswick. Dozens of members of the UWM were arrested in repeated protests during Friday late-night shopping.

A celebrated incident took place on May 16 at the corner of Sydney Road and Phoenix Street in Brunswick. CPA member and artist Noel Counihan had himself locked inside an old steel mesh lift cage bolted onto the back of a horse-drawn cart which was securely chained to a verandah post. From the safety of his improvised fortress he spoke to a large and growing crowd — one estimate put it at 10,000 — for 15 or so minutes on the situation of the unemployed, the right to free speech, war and the rise of Hitler. The police were beside themselves. Earlier that evening in Brunswick a free-speech activist had been shot in the leg by the cops. With the police smashing at his cage with an improvised battering ram, Counihan eventually came out and was duly arrested.

After three months, the campaign was finally successful. The Nationalist state government backed off and brought in a new, less restrictive law and street meetings were generally allowed to proceed without police harrassment..

Then there was the famous case of Egon Kisch in late 1934-early 1935. Menzies, the attorney-general in the UAP federal government, banned the Czech communist writer from entering Australia to address a congress of the CPA-led Victorian Council Against War and Fascism. When Kisch courageously jumped from his ship in Melbourne — breaking a leg but briefly touching Australian soil — the whole government effort to exclude him backfired. He eventually made a triumphal tour of Australia, speaking to large crowds and gaining enormous publicity for his message.

New Guard threat

In response to the rise of working-class militancy a semi-fascist New Guard formed in NSW, led by ex-army officer Eric Campbell. Its slogan was “King and Country” and its aim was to break up CPA, Socialisation Unit and Lang Labor meetings. At its height, its numbers reached some 50-100,000. The CPA was forced to set up a defence guard to protect its meetings. But in February 1932 the New Guard met its match in the “Battle of Bankstown” when 200 of its thugs in dozens of cars attacked a workers’ meeting and were driven off in complete disarray. After Lang’s dismissal the New Guard went into sharp decline.

Conclusion

According to Alastair Davidson, at the end of 1928 the Communist Party had 249 members. By April 1931 membership was in excess of 1100. In 1934, the figure was almost 3000 and in 1935 probably greater still.5

What can we conclude from this very brief sketch? In the early 1930s, in the context of a global crisis of capitalism and a consequent profound crisis of Australian society, a small revolutionary party built itself into a formidable force in Australian political life. It remained small compared to the ALP but its influence was much greater than its mere numbers would suggest. All this was achieved despite a fundamentally wrong political line (its Third Period ultraleftism).

Many things are different today. But we can be sure that one thing at least will not be different this time around. Its Stalinist framework notwithstanding, the CPA grew because of the commitment, drive, energy and will to struggle of its membership. This time too success will go to those who are prepared to fight and make sacrifices for their cause.

In the period ahead of us the socialist movement will have increasing opportunities. We can learn a lot from the experience of the CPA during the Great Depression, while hopefully avoiding its mistakes.

[Dave Holmes is a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, an Marxist organisation affiliated to the Socialist Alliance of Australia.]

Notes

1. Gibson, The People Stand Up (Red Rooster Press: Ascot Vale, 1983).

2. ibid., p. 29.

3. ibid., p. 42.

4. Davidson, The Communist Party of Australia: A Short History (Hoover Institution Press: Stanford, 1969), pp. 59-60.

5. ibid., pp. 53, 69.

Friday, 27 February 2009

His Excellency Comrade Robert: How Mugabe's ZANU clique rose to power

From Links:

By Stephen O’Brien

Towards the end of 1975 a movement of young radicals organised in the Zimbabwe People’s Army (ZIPA) took charge of Zimbabwe’s liberation war. ZIPA’s fusion of inclusive politics, transformational vision and military aggression dealt crippling blows to the white supremacist regime of Ian Smith. However, it’s success also paved the way for a faction of conservative nationalists led by Robert Mugabe to wrest control of the liberation movement for themselves.

The fact that Mugabe, a former rural school teacher, and his cronies would become the ruling capitalist elite of Zimbabwe by crushing a movement of young Chavista-style revolutionaries doesn’t sit well with their anti-imperialist self-image.

The ZIPA cadre emerged from the wave of young people who, experiencing oppression and discrimination in Rhodesia, decided to become liberation fighters in early 1970s. Unlike many of the first generation of fighters, they volunteered to join the respective military wings of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU)[i]

In 1975, key nationalist leaders -- such as Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo, Ndabiginini Sithole, Jason Moyo, Herbert Chitepo, Abel Muzorewa, James Chikerema and Josiah Tongogara -- had become entangled in factional rivalry and long-running and fruitless peace talks with the Smith regime. The young recruits who would shortly form ZIPA sought to reinvigorate the struggle as the war stalled and as the old leaders became marginalised.

A group of ZANU officers based at training camps in Tanzania consulted widely among the liberation forces. They approached President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Samora Machel, soon to be president of newly liberated and independent Mozambique, for support to restart the war against Smith. Both Machel and Nyerere had initially supported peace negotiations and the resulting ceasefire with Rhodesia, but by October 1975 had lost patience with the whole process, and listened with sympathy to the ideas of the young officers.

ZIPA formed

The ZANU officers also sought unity with ZAPU, the long-standing rival organisation from which ZANU had split in 1963. ZAPU agreed and in November 1975 ZIPA was formed with a combined High Command composed of equal numbers from both ZAPU and ZANU. The alliance with ZAPU disintegrated after a few months partly because ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo had continued to negotiate with Smith. Nevertheless, it was an important attempt at unity which defied the prevailing trend of division.

ZIPA’s nominal head was Rex Nhongo (later known as Solomon Mujuru he would become head of the Zimbabwe Army under Mugabe), but strategic and tactical leadership came to be held by his young deputy, Wilfred Mhanda.

Wilfred Mhanda

Mhanda had been a typical recruit to ZANU and its military wing, the Zimbabwe National Liberation Army (ZANLA). He had been involved in school protests and on leaving his studies helped form a ZANU support group. Like many who were to become part of ZIPA, Mhanda had been influenced by the youth radicalisation of the 1960s. In 1971, with the special branch in pursuit, Mhanda’s group skipped the border into Botswana and joined ZANLA. He took the war name of Dzinashe Machingura. He was later sent for training in China and progressed through the ranks to became a military instructor, political commissar, commander of the Mgagao camp in Tanzania and then member of the High Command.[ii]

ZIPA theory, tactics

Theory influenced ZIPA’s tactics. Its fighters were not regarded as cannon fodder, lines of retreat and supply were secured, counter-offensives anticipated and strategic reserves made ready. Senior ZIPA commanders visited the front. ZIPA’s aims went beyond winning democracy, to the revolutionary transformation of Rhodesia’s social and economic relations. The previous conception of the old-guard nationalists had tended to regard armed struggle as a means to apply pressure for external intervention to end White minority rule.

The Zimbabwe People’s Army relocated its troops from Tanzania to Mozambique and in January 1976, 1000 guerrillas crossed into Rhodesia. The entire eastern border of Rhodesia became a war zone as the guerillas launched coordinated and well-planned attacks on mines, farms and communication routes, such as the new railway line to South Africa.

ZIPA established Wampoa College to help institute its vision and ran Marxist-inspired courses in military instruction and mass mobilisation for its fighters. It educated its cadre against the sexual abuse of women and sought to win the support of the Zimbabwean peasantry through persuasion rather than coercion.

Historian David Moore’s study of ZIPA notes: ``The students made their political education directly relevant to the struggle, so that Marxism could better direct the war of liberation.’’[iii] ZIPA’s political approach lead to it becoming known as the Vashandi, a word which means worker in the Shona language, but which, according to Mhanda, took on a broader meaning as the revolutionary front of workers, students and peasants.

Smith’s regime reeled under the offensive. Repression was intensified, ``psychopathic’’ counter-insurgency units such as the Selous Scouts were deployed, so called ``protected villages’’ intensified control over the population and raids were launched against refugee camps in neighbouring countries. Rhodesia was forced to borrow 26 helicopters from apartheid South Africa, and in order to deploy 60% more troops, increased the military call-up for whites. In his memoirs, Ken Flower, head of the Central Intelligence Organisation under Smith (and later under Mugabe), recalls that by July 1976 ``Rhodesia was beginning to lose the war.[iv]

Geneva talks

Concerned about the growing influence of the young Marxists in Zimbabwe, Henry Kissinger, the United States’ Secretary of State, sought to resume the dormant negotiations by organising a round of talks in Geneva in October 1976.

The legal basis for the talks centred around Rhodesia’s technical status as a British colony. Rhodesia had made a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965, partly to quell the nascent nationalist movement and to forestall any British demand that ``legal’’ independence include guarantees for equal rights for the black majority.

Kissinger’s proposals centered around a supposed timetable for a transition to black majority rule (these days they say ``road map’’) with the intention that the talks would provide an opportunity to sideline or eliminate the radicals.

ZIPA was opposed to negotiations. On numerous occasions, especially after Portuguese colonialism collapsed in 1974 and Frelimo started to take control of Mozambique, Smith had used talks to exploit divisions and ideological confusion in the nationalists’ ranks.

ZIPA leaders were also wary of the old leadership. When Samora Machel pressed them to nominate the political leader with whom they most closely identified, in a decision which was to have fateful consequences, they nominated Robert Mugabe. In his struggle to depose the ZANU president Ndanbiginini Sithole, Mugabe was careful to identify with the guerillas, unlike Sithole who unsuccessfully attempted to place them under his control. This influenced the ZIPA leaders and they thought that, although they did not support Mugabe, they could work with him.

Disunity had long plagued the nationalist movement. When ZANU had split from ZAPU in 1963 the acrimony turned violent in the townships at a certain point and Smith’s police stood by while it took its course. Since then, guerilla revolts against what were perceived to be incompetent leaders, such as ZAPU’s March 11 Movement (1971) and ZANU’s Nhari Rebellion (1974-1975), had been brutally suppressed.

It was during the fallout from the Nhari rebellion that Herbert Chitepo, the ZANU chair, was assassinated in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia. In response, Kenneth Kaunda, the Zambian president, who had hosted the liberation forces in Zambia, banned Zimbabwean nationalist organisations and detained hundred of their leaders and supporters, including Josiah Tongogara, the ZANU military commander.

However, so that they could attend the Geneva talks, these leaders were subsequently released along with Mugabe, who had also been in detention. Mugabe had fled from Rhodesia to Mozambique in April 1975 after his release from ten years in Smith’s jails to participate in an earlier round of talks. Mozambique, along with other pro-liberation states, had initially regarded Mugabe with suspicion because of his opposition to Sithole and had placed him in open detention.

Other nationalist delegates to Geneva included Nkomo and Bishop Abel Muzorewa of the Rhodesian based United African National Congress. The ZIPA commanders treated the whole Geneva negotiations with suspicion and issued a statement which declared: ``None of the Zimbabwe delegations there represents ZIPA’’.[v]

Mhanda, who was in effect the central ZIPA figure, explains that ZIPA members regarded many of the old leaders as being out of touch. They thought that leaders such as Mugabe and Nkomo, having been in jail for many years, did not fully understand changes brought about by the youth radicalisation and the Vietnam War. Where the older generation was motivated by a desire to force negotiations that would usher in ``one man one vote’’, the ZIPA comrades were ``fighting for the total transformation of the Zimbabwean society’’.[vi]

Marxist ideas

Some of the young radicals had experienced and even sought out Marxist ideas during their training. Mhanda describes the delight he and a group of comrades felt when they discovered Marxist classics in the library at their training camp in Tanzania.[vii] Making the most of the opportunity they ran study classes on Marxist-Leninist philosophy, polemics and historical materialism. In contrast, while a few of the old guard had encountered communists, and even Trotskyists in South Africa,[viii] many of them had little direct experience with Marxism. The socialist tradition in Rhodesia was fleeting. During its brief existence, the Rhodesian Communist Party had been a tiny white enclave.

Britain was anxious that the ZIPA commanders attend Geneva, and thus be away from their troops. Recent research in British archives has revealed that Britain offered an interest-free loan of £15 million to Machel’s government to ensure that the ```young men’ controlling Mugabe attended Geneva’’.[ix]

Heavily dependent on the support of Machel for access to the supply lines and infiltration routes through Mozambique, the ZIPA leadership had little choice but to attend.

In Geneva, ZIPA unsuccessfully tried to unite the various nationalist delegations. They sought to create a united front against Smith and demand that the racists unconditionally surrender power. However, the various nationalist delegations were incapable of uniting and rejected this proposal.

* * * *

Finding this article thought-provoking and useful?

Please subscribe free at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

Help Links stay afloat. Donate what you can by clicking here.

* * * *

Mugabe, for his part, allied with the recently released military chief Tongogara, and Solomon Mujuru. The nominal head of ZIPA, Mujuru had never really shared the strategic vision of his deputy political commissar Mhanda. He also blocked with ZAPU’s Joshua Nkomo and his deputy Jason Moyo to create the Patriotic Front. This helped strengthen Mugabe against the right (Abel Muzorewa and Ndanbiginini Sithole) and against the left, the increasingly politically independent ZIPA.

Historian David Moore has suggested that Mugabe was not really committed to the talks at Geneva as he first needed to deal with ZIPA and gain control the army before he entered serious negotiations. The talks adjourned indefinitely just before Christmas 1976.[x]

ZIPA suppressed

After the collapse of the talks, the ZIPA leaders were sidelined into undertaking solidarity duties in Europe. Mugabe, Tongogara and Mujuru rushed back to Mozambique. In January 1977, with Machel's support they started to impose their control. The radio and print media were taken over, Wampoa closed and ZIPA officers placed under arrest. When Mhanda and the rest of the ZIPA delegation returned from Geneva they were faced with a changed reality. Mhanda and other leaders who refused to be co-opted joined their comrades in prison.

Prosecution of the war took second place while Mugabe continued to impose control. Pawns, a novel about the war by Charles Samupindi, describes the new atmosphere:

The Vashandi, the young kids as …[Tongogara] …calls them, are now all safely behind bars in Frelimo prisons in Beira. But, he says, some of them are still among us. Some may be with us here at the parade. He wants to know who they are. Things are never the same again.[xi]

Until at least August 1977, there were mass denunciations, torture and beatings. Three-hundred junior Vashandi were executed.[xii]

When Machel enquired what had happened to the prosecution of the war, Mugabe was evasive and avoided Machel’s suggestion that the jailed leaders be allowed to fight.

With its most experienced commanders out of action, ZANLA failed to learn from previous lessons and Smith launched another devastating attack on the camps in Mozambique. On November 23, 1977, the ZANU base at Chimoio in Mozambique was razed leaving more than 1200 casualties.

After the suppression of the radicals, the old leaders maintained, and even stepped up, the left discourse popularised by ZIPA.

Mugabe `lays the line’

In August 1977, Mugabe felt strong enough to call a special ZANU congress and have himself appointed party president. In his congress speech, later published as ``Comrade Mugabe Lays the Line’’, Mugabe made it clear that henceforth the ``given leadership’’ was in control.[xiii]

The trappings of a personality cult started to emerge. One of his biographers writes that in his Maputo office, Mugabe’s ``subalterns …would click their heels or stamp a foot to attention when they went to see him’’.[xiv] Party documents were now embellished with the slogan ``Forward with Comrade President Robert Mugabe’’.[xv]

Undisciplined habits among ZANU apparatchiks, which had been a factor in the Nhari rebellion, re-emerged. Machel had to complain to Mugabe about the ``heavy drinking and the womanising that some senior ZANU men indulged in at the capital’s nightspots, like the Polana Hotel’’.[xvi]

Discipline weakened as the preoccupation with ``dissidents’’ meant that there was inadequate ideological and military training. Sexual abuse became common and even pro-ZANU historians mention the ``rampant raping’’ carried out by senior commanders.[xvii] During 1977 to 1979 some observers even expressed concerns that the deterioration of the guerillas’ behaviour in certain areas could cause a ``collapse of rural support’’.[xviii]

Astute leadership was especially needed when the political situation became confused. Smith took advantage of the disunity of the nationalists. He cut a deal with the conservative wing of the nationalists, represented by Ndabiginini Sithole, James Chikerema and Bishop Abel Muzorewa, to establish the puppet state of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe under nominal black majority rule.

Known as the ``internal settlement’’, the pact prolonged white domination by two more bloody years. During this time both Sithole and Muzorewa set up their own armies and fought ZANU and ZAPU, while white Rhodesians and mercenaries, especially in the Selous Scouts, massacred at will while masquerading as guerillas.

However, the weight of popular discontent, international presssure and ZANU and ZAPU’s military pressure eventually forced Smith, on behalf of the tiny white minority, to return to the negotiating table.

In December 1979, at the Lancaster House talks in Britain, Smith finally surrendered. In the elections held for the black seats the following February, ZANU won 57 seats, ZAPU 20 and Muzorewa’s United African National Council, three. While the end of white political domination was achieved, the radical transformation as conceived by ZIPA certainly wasn’t.

Origins of ZANU elitism

While ZANU formally adopted ``Marxism-Leninism-Mao TseTung thought’’ at its 1977 Chimoio Congress, this left talk ``was ultimately a disguise for classically authoritarian nationalism’’.[xix]

This orientation can be traced back to the intellectual formation of many members of the 1950s and 1960s generation of nationalists. At this time the vast mass of the people was restricted to the rural areas and had little access to education. A significant number of the first nationalists were educated at church and colonial schools which had been designed to create a tiny educated layer who would ``lead’’ the black masses on behalf of the white minority. They later found work in intellectual occupations such as teachers (Mugabe), preachers (Sithole and Muzorewa), journalists, clerks, social workers and trade union officials (Nkomo).

Many of them adopted the view that their role, and that of the black middle class, ``was to aid the government in its `civilizing’ programmes of development and industrialisation’’.[xx] This was reflected in the fact that trade union officials and the educated elite played an ambivalent role in such popular struggles as the general strike in 1948, the bus boycotts of 1956 and the mass protests which thwarted the undemocratic Anglo-Rhodesian settlement proposals of 1971.

Mugabe himself had been involved in the liberal multi-class and multi-race organisation, the Capricorn Society.[xxi] He only joined a nationalist party in 1960 when he was 36 years old, after having worked and studied abroad. Mugabe maintained his liberal contacts and could call on them to support his wife while in exile in Britain and petition the British government to grant her residency.

Despite its numerical strength, at least half a million by 1948, the organised working class did not play a central role in the later stages of the liberation struggle.[xxii] As a result, there was no significant social counterweight to the educated intellectuals who came to dominate the leadership of the struggle.

Disunity and rivalry was common among the middle-class nationalists. By the time the young ZIPA radicals arrived on the scene the divisions in the nationalist ranks were deep. Divisions existed between those who had been in jail, those who had fled into neighbouring countries to direct the guerilla war, such as Chitepo and Moyo, younger party members who had studied abroad and the generally more conservative Rhodesia-based nationalists, such as Muzorewa, who had remained ``legal’’ and largely out of jail.

Differences were reflected in questions of tactics, such as when and how to apply military pressure and to what extent outside powers be allowed to broker talks. Opposition to white rule was one of the few things that they had in common, and even that was negotiable for some.

ZANU in power

Lacking a complete military victory, and subject to pressure from their war-weary allies, in particular Mozambique and Zambia, the nationalists made significant and arguably generous concessions during the Lancaster House negotiations. Responsibility was accepted for paying the foreign debt the Smith regime had accumulated buying arms and mercenaries in contravention of UN sanctions. Even today Zimbabwe continues to accept and pay debts for which it has no moral obligation.

After independence, rather than being dismantled and transformed, the white state was merely taken over as it was. The first government included former supporters of Smith who were willing to help apply many of the same economic policies.

One of their first acts was to demobilise the ZANU committees and support groups, which had helped the party organise the rural population. The new government suppressed a spontaneous strike wave unleashed by an increasingly confident working class.

Mugabe broke the Patriotic Front, his nominal alliance with Nkomo, shortly before the 1980 election and both ZANU and ZAPU went to the vote separately. The split with ZAPU was to have dire consequences.

Ex-ZAPU members were increasingly purged from senior positions in the army and from government ministries. The army, having been retrained by British military officers, ``embraced the ideas, training, organisation and forms of force of the Rhodesian settler army’’.[xxiii] It had absolute loyalty to Mugabe above all and regardless of any constitutional and democratic considerations.

A separate brigade, the Fifth, composed exclusively of Shona speakers and ZANU veterans, was established and trained by North Korea. The Fifth Brigade was to unleash a brutal war of terror on Ndebele people, who were assumed to be ZAPU supporters and therefore dissidents. In what became known as Gukurahundi, between 1983 and 1985, at least 5000 people died in the Matabeleland and Midlands regions of Zimbabwe. At Nkomo’s funeral in 1999, Mugabe himself was to refer to the experience as a ``moment of madness’’.

A paternalistic and authoritarian state kept the popular classes in their place. Significant spending on education and health in the early years of the government was matched by corporatist trade union structures. The cities were also kept under control and thousands of urban dwellers and squatters were regularly evicted from black townships. In the rural areas land reform was forever promised but not delivered, while rural wages were kept low to subsidise cheap food, and therefore lower wages, for the cities. As one commentator observed ``poverty was structural; all the post-independence state did was ‘humanise’ it’’.[xxiv]

By 1987, with the popular classes under control, ZAPU severely weakened, the old-time allies conveniently dead or purged (Tongogara had died in an accident on the eve of independence)[xxv] and with the armed forces and police under his control, Mugabe changed the constitution and appointed himself executive president.

With an increasing orientation to international capital, the country slipped further into corruption and debt. Nonetheless, ZANU continued to pretend that it sought ``to establish a socialist society in Zimbabwe on the guidance of Marxist-Leninist principles’’.[xxvi]

People started to realise that the fruits of the liberation struggle had been appropriated. In Echoing Silences, by Alexander Kanengoni, a war veteran suffering post-traumatic stress disorder has a dream in which Chitepo and Jason Moyo are discussing how the struggle has lost its way and wondering ``how the politics, wealth and the economy of the entire country was slowly becoming synonymous with the names of less than a dozen people’’.[xxvii]

Exhausted nationalism?

The Vashandi, according to Moore, had ``hoped that full electoral freedom would enable them to mount a radical challenge to Mugabe's empty nationalism’’.[xxviii] However, the patterns and tools of political repression, established with the suppression of ZIPA, were too well entrenched to make this a possibility.

The detained ZIPA members were only released from detention in Mozambique, and allowed to return to Zimbabwe, after independence. When former ZIPAs publicly advocated unity with ZAPU, they were promptly arrested again, and only freed on the intervention of Nkomo.

Mhanda was warned that his presence in Zimbabwe was dangerous and he was obliged to spend several years studying in Europe. The ZIPA movement was effectively dispersed. In 2000, along with other ex-combatants, Mhanda helped form the Zimbabwe Liberators’ Platform to organise and fight for the rights of the country’s genuine war veterans.

Mugabe had proven to be apt in suppressing the threat from the left and employing the language of people such as Mhanda's ``to practice the worst of Third World socialism – and then the worst of Third World neo-liberalism’’[xxix] essentially to allow his cronies to enrich themselves with the ``privileges and subsidies that white exploiters had enjoyed’’.[xxx]

However, even before the end of the first decade of independence, it was clear that Mugabe’s version of patriarchal nationalism had exhausted any progressive content and the first steps towards a political break between the people and the ZANU elite were developing.

Once again it was young people, university students who had grown up under independence, supported by a new general secretary of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, Morgan Tsvangirai, who began to challenge the dominant system of inequality and repression and open up a new phase in Zimbabwe’s still unresolved struggle for national libereation.

[Stephen O'Brien is a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist tendency within the Socialist Alliance of Australia. He writes on Zimbawean politics for Green Left Weekly.]


Notes

[i] Up until the early 1970s nationalists had to forcibly conscript Zimbabwean youth to fight against Smith. See Chung, F. (2006) Re-living the second Chirumenga. Memories from Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle. Stockholm: The Nordic Africa Institute in cooperation with Weaver Press, p. 77

[ii] Mhanda, W. (2007) Interview with Wilfred Mhanda by Stephen O’Brien August 2007. Harare

[iii] Moore, D. (1990) The Contradictory construction of hegemony in Zimbabwe: Politics, ideology and class in the formation of a new African State. PhD dissertation York University, Toronto. p. 335.

[iv] Flower, K. (1987) Serving secretly. An intelligence chief on record: Rhodesia into Zimbabwe 1964-1981. London: John Murray. p. 131. Flower also admits that the Selous Scouts attracted ``psychopathic killers’’, p. 124.

[v] Moore, D. (1990) p. 359

[vi] Moore, D. (1990) p. 309

[vii] Julius Nyerere, the then leader of Tanzania, had close ties to China and pursued a Tanzanian version of socialism.

[viii] For example See Nyagumbo, M. (1980) With the people. Salisbury: The Graham Company. p. 78-86 and Bhebe, N. (2004) Simon Vengai Muzenda and the struggle for and liberation of Zimbabwe. Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press, p. 49-68

[ix] Moore, D. (2008) ``Todays' imperialists were those who nurtured Mugabe’’, Sunday Independent, 20 January.

[x] Moore (1990) p. 361 suggests that Mugabe deliberately stalled as Geneva as he needed to deal with ZIPA and gain control the army before he entered serious negotiations with Smith.

[xi] Samupindi, C. (1992) Pawns. Harare: Baobab Books, p. 97.

[xii] The figure of 300 executions is cited by Astrow, A. (1983) Zimbabwe, a revolution that lost its way? London; Totowa, N.J.: Zed Press, p. 107. For more information on the suppression of ZIPA see Moore (1990) p. 367 and Nhongo-Simbanegavi (2000) For Better or Worse: Women and Zanla in Zimbabwe’s Liberation Struggle. Harare : Weaver Press, p. 102.

[xiii] Moore, D. (1990) p. 400

[xiv] Smith, D., Simpson, C., & Davies, I. (1981) Mugabe. Salisbury: Pioneer Head, p. 99

[xv] Nhongo-Simbanegavi, J. (2000) p. 202

[xvi] Smith, D., Simpson, C., & Davies, I. (1981) p. 106

[xvii] See Bhebe, N. (2004) p. 224, Chung, (2006) p. 125-128. For women’s testimonies see Musengezi, C. (Ed.) (2000) Women of resilience. The voices of women ex-combatants. Harare: Zimbabwe Women Writers and Nhongo-Simbanegavi, (2000) and Tekere, E. (2007) A lifetime of struggle. Harare: SAPES Trust, p. 94.

[xviii] Kriger, N. J. (2002) Zimbabwe’s guerilla war peasant voices. Harare : Baobab Books. p. 128.

[xix] Bond, P. (1998) Uneven Zimbabwe A study of finance, development and underdevelopment (PDF version) Trenton: Africa World Press, p. 339.

[xx] Moore, D. (1990) p. 124

[xxi] Smith, D., Simpson, C., & Davies, I. (1981) p. 18

[xxii] Low wages, import substitution industries and sanctions busting during UDI helped further develop railways, mines, light manufacturing and agricultural processing and contribute to the growth of the working class.

[xxiii] Campbell, H. (2003) Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The exhaustion of the patriarchal model of liberation. Trenton, NJ. Asmara, Eritrea: Africa World Press. p. 273

[xxiv] Tandon, Y. (2001) Trade unions and labour in the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe. In B. Raftopolous & L. Sachikonye (Eds.) Striking back: The labour movement and the post-colonial state in Zimbabwe 1980-2000 (pp. 221-249) Harare: Weaver Press, p. 229.

[xxv] Maurice Nyagumbo, Enos Nkala and Edgar Tekere, who had supported Mugabe in deposing Sithole, all fell out with Mugabe. Tekere (2007) p. 84, a key Mugabe henchman, was to later admit that ZIPA was ``absolutely correct’’. In 1978 a group of ZANU ``radicals’’, lead by Henry Hamadziripi and Rugare Gumbo, appearing to have had second thoughts about ZIPA, unsuccessfully tried to challenge the ZANU leadership. After being sentenced to death by ZANU they were detained by Mozambique.

[xxvi] The ZANU (PF) and PF ZAPU Agreement. Appendix 1. Cited in Sibanda, E. M. (2005) The Zimbabwe African People’s Union 1961-1987. A political history of insurgency in Southern Rhodesia. Trenton: Africa World Press.

[xxvii] Kanengoni, A. (2001) Echoing silences. Harare: Boabab Books. p. 87

[xxviii] Moore, D. (2001) How Mugabe came to power. London Review of Books, 5 April, p. 23.

[xxix] Moore, D. (2001) p. 23.

[xxx] Campbell, H. (2003) p. 272.