Zimpapers Logo

Ranga Mataire, Group Political Editor

ATTEMPTS by some social media pseudo-political pundits to draw parallels between Zimbabwe and Botswana following the latter’s election outcome are misleading in that they decontexualise the two countries’ varying historical trajectories that have shaped political developments since the attainment of independence from Britain.  

Although both countries were colonised by Britain, the two countries underwent different independence struggles. Unlike in Zimbabwe where an armed revolution was waged to dislodge colonial hegemony, there was no such struggle in Botswana. Botswana was a British Protectorate until September 30, 1966 when it was granted self-autonomy status.

It was a different story in Zimbabwe where thousands of indigenous black people perished at the hands of a minority regime from around 1964 to 1979 — 15 years, five months, one week and one day. After the failure of civil engagements with the white minority regimes, black nationalists supported by the masses decided to take arms to liberate themselves.

Unlike in Botswana where they waged what Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci would term a passive revolution, in Zimbabwe it was a real combat liberation war, which involved a lot of process in conscientising the masses to join and fight the white oppressive system, which had committed heinous colonial crimes against the indigenous people.

A fair and objective analysis would be one that puts Zimbabwe on the same comparative plate with countries like Mozambique and Angola — the other two countries in the SADC region that attained independence through armed liberation struggles. This is no way an attempt to make the three countries special but simply to illustrate and buttress the fact that the manner in which they attained their independence ultimately shaped their political developments and they are perceived by former colonisers.

In Botswana, the passive revolution that led to independence was spearheaded by indigenous nationalists who led in the formation of the pro-British political party, the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) led by Seretse Khama, who became the country’s founding President in a carefully managed “decolonisation” process. The passive revolution was not just aimed at preserving the British economic interests in the Protectorate but also for the purposes of expanding the capitalist mode of production in the newly- independent state.

The transfer of power took place at the same time with the creation of a legitimate capitalist state that served the interests of both the British and the cattle-owning elites that made up the bulk of the BDP party. This initiated the construction of a hegemony through the creation of an interventionist development state that addressed the narrow interests of other classes and groups constituting the post-independence bloc. Such hegemony has allowed the BDP to retain power for almost six decades until the recent electoral loss.

As the BDP leader, Cde Mokgweetsi Masisi wanted to chart a new path different from all his predecessors. He realised that for a long time, the Batswana have had a raw deal especially in the diamond sector where the bulk of the revenue was not benefitting the country. Not only that. Cde Masisi expressed his exasperation in the global diamond industry architecture in which diamond producing countries were rarely consulted on pertinent decisions.

Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi

Cde Masisi said it was wrong for the G7 countries to decide that all diamonds sold in G7 needed to be certified in Antwerp, Belgium, as part of sanctions on Russia.

“We are the producer countries. Why would we not be trusted,” asked  Masisi when asked by a journalist. Cde Masisi’s premise argument was informed by the fact that Botswana is the world’s top diamond producer by value.

And still on diamonds, Cde Masisi in 2023 challenged a 54-year-old partnership with world-leading diamond producer De Beers, saying his country won’t back down on demands for an improved deal. Under the present arrangement, Botswana gets 25 percent of rough diamonds mined under its partnership with De Beers, and the company gets the rest.

 “It is either we accept the situation as it is and continue getting leftovers, or alternatively we dig in and, no matter how tough it is, demand what is ours, even if we lose through litigation,” Masisi said.

It is clear that these were very unpopular opinions in the Western corridors of power who viewed Cde Masisi as an impediment to the continued status quo.  There are areas in which he sought to upset the status quo, something that his predecessors had not done.

While Botswana is touted for being stable, it appears Cde Masisi could see that a lot was not in favour of his people. He sought to change it but unfortunately the Batswana voters chose to change the national guard.

On the other hand, Zimbabwe’s journey to independence has been marked by a long period of colonial rule, a white minority government’s unilateral declaration of independence, a 15-year guerrilla war and a peace agreement that led to an internationally recognised independence.

As long as Zimbabwe did not threaten white interests, especially on the issue of land, it was in the early days of independence touted as a model of a post-independence democratic state. Things changed when Zimbabwe decided to correct the skewed land ownership in the country, which favoured whites at the expense of the black majority.

At the turn of the millennium, the EU and the United States imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe and subsequently contributed to the formation of an opposition political party called the MDC in 1999. At its, the MDC was widely funded by white commercial farmers. The ruling Zanu-PF party experienced unimaginable onslaught from global superpowers who sought to install a pliable political entity that would safeguard the interests of their kith and kin.

All the attempts at regime change have failed. This can be explained by the fact that the current crop of Zanu-PF leaders are battle-hardened individuals who understand the sanctity of the sacrifices made by the masses of Zimbabwe in liberating the country from colonialism. The level of political consciousness horned during more than two decades of an armed liberation war is at the highest level and impenetrable.

Pundits who disregard the varying historical trajectories of Zimbabwe and Botswana glaringly miss the point. There are things that are taken for granted in Botswana that can never be fathomed to happen in Zimbabwe. As long as the local opposition is still foundationally aligned with Western countries that are keen on rolling back the liberation map in southern Africa, their dreams of assuming power will remain a mirage. The majority of Zimbabweans still identify with the nationalist project embodied by the ruling Zanu-PF party.