Pressure on Mutambara to prove policy intentions
The Flip Side with Kuthula Matshazi
issue date: 2006-Mar-31
THE President of the other faction of the main opposition party the Movement for Democratic Change Arthur Mutambara continues to preach ideals identified with nationalist convictions. He is on a campaign to spell out his credo. His main message is anchored on his supposedly unwavering support for the land reform and of course the acknowledgement of our precious past. It is
interesting to see whether his message would appeal to the voters.
Apparently, it could appeal if Mutambara sticks to it and then demonstrates through his policies and deeds that he truly desires land to be redistributed equitably among all Zimbabweans both black and white. As for the liberation war rhetoric, Mutambara could easily get away with it by singing along slogans and then attending functions that commemorate these august events. This is not to suggest that Mutambara is not patriotic and that patriotism is only the preserve of nationalists. Rather, this is a suggestion that the ideological inclination that informs his viewpoint undercuts his supposed patriotism.
Mutambara is a confirmed neo-liberal who believes in the myths of the global economy. This position, Mutambara assumes, is very critical for the economics debate that currently dominates Zimbabwe and that in turn informs the citizenry of their viewpoints on these matters and serves to guide us in choosing our developmental strategies.
As this column has always argued, one would be hard pressed to identify a socially progressive land reform programme around the world that was supported by the neo-liberal forces. On the contrary, these forces have marshalled enormous violence to fight against land reforms. On this matter, Mutambara seems to be wearing a turncoat.
Mutambaras turncoat character resembles that of former Brazilian President (1994-2002) Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a highly
respected Marxist sociologist who championed the cause of social justice and yet upon assuming presidency became a champion of expansion of entrepreneurship, free enterprise and the integration of Brazil into the neo-liberal capitalist global economy. He was reported in one of Brazils daily newspaper in 1993 that while still finance minister he told an audience of businessmen that they should forget that he ever wrote as a sociologist.
Likewise, Mutambara is going to say all the right things to the people about social justice in order to win their confidence not because he wants to achieve social justice on their behalf. Rather, his ultimate aim seems to be wrestling the country and integrating it fully into the global economy for the benefit of neo-liberal capitalists as outlined in his economic policy statement.
The mistaken arguments that people like Mutambara and Cordoso always put forward is that the global economy would bring prosperity. However, this kind of development has produced monumental crises after crises and continues to do so at alarming levels. Another interesting observation is that the so-called leftists, and mostly those who profess to be educated and dynamic are the ones who buy into this hoax of neo-liberal economics.
Mutambara has a history of pushing the agenda of the left forces while he was still a student at the University of Zimbabwe. The greatest tragedy of such leftists like Mutambara and Cardoso is that they become incorporated into the neo-liberal system. And once in it they feel good about themselves!
It is arguable that the mere fact that Mutambara was a Rhodes
Scholarship recipient and a National Aeronautics and Space Administration insider makes him part of the neo-imperialist cohort. However, it is his belief in neo-liberal economics after his attachment to these institutions that is of great concern. It is like the still-puzzling relationship that was pursued by a so-called workers party, the MDC when they went to bed with capitalists to advance their (capitalists) interests of reversing the land reforms. The moment that happened, we have seen non capitalists being socially progressive but workers assuming the colours of capitalists. It is upon these weaknesses that we have seen labour movements across the world hopelessly neutralised by the capitalists and then viciously used against their constituencies to push the agenda of these capitalists.
Mutambara is not alone in this kind of rhetorical
position. British Prime Minister Tony Blair hijacked Labour, a workers party and turned it to a party that fosters the interests of neo-liberals. He renamed it New Labour to reflect its new compromised thrust of pandering to the interests of neo-liberal forces. Upon winning his first elections and still conveniently speaking the workers language, Blair flew to Australia to pledge his commitment to pursuing a neo-liberal agenda to Rupert Murdoch whose largest circulating daily newspaper in Britain, The Sun gave its support to New Labour. Such positions inform Mutambaras current rhetoric.
Granted, he might accuse us of being unfair to him because in earnest he is not one of those turncoats, but this is all up to him to disprove. It would be easy to prove the commitment to socially progressive policy but very difficult if he does not mean it. One
way, Mutambara would have to show his true position on these issues is his detailed policy position statements.
His initial statements were eclipsed by the very basic and prominent contradiction about how he expects to reconcile the fundamental contradiction of initiating land reforms on the one hand the basis of the violence being inflicted on Zimbabwe and the interests of the global economic forces who are opposed to the land reform on the other. Land is the basis upon which capitalism thrives and by equitably redistributing it with landless people, Zimbabwe effectively attacked the very soul of capitalism. This perceived attack combined with white supremacist racism created a backlash for Zimbabweans.
Now because neo-liberal forces could not come out clearly to fight against social justice,
they instead co-opted some elements from the left who would fight their wars.
This scenario is what possibly links Mutambara to neo-liberal forces. However, this is not a definitive label, but that only Mutambara alone could disprove through his programmes.
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list Ugandanet@kym.net http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet % UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
