Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, claims to be a man of faith””and with some reason. He was born to mission-educated parents and, like many Zimbabweans of his generation, he attended a Jesuit school. He reportedly still attends weekly Mass in Harare. Martin Meredith, a former southern Africa correspondent for the London Times and a biographer of Mugabe, asserts that, at least in his younger days, Mugabe’s “mentor had been the Catholic Church.”
Yet in his twenty-seven years of dictatorial rule, Mugabe has shorn himself of anything his religious upbringing might have instilled. His genocide in the 1980s against members of the minority Ndebele tribe; his politically induced starvation of opponents; and the arrest, torture, and sometimes outright murder of those who speak out against his rule have all demonstrated a wanton disregard for what the Church””particularly the Church in Zimbabwe””has taught its flock. “I was brought up by the Jesuits and I’m most grateful,” Mugabe has said. “I benefited from their teaching enormously.” In truth, the only thing Mugabe seems to have kept from his Jesuit education is an austere self-discipline, a virtue that he has ruthlessly distorted to keep himself in power at the expense of his suffering countrymen.
To many African leaders, Mugabe is seen as a hero of the struggle against European dominance of the continent. But, in the end, the Zimbabwe of Robert Mugabe remains remarkably similar to its predecessor, the Rhodesia of Ian Smith. The white authoritarian tyranny of Smith relied on distinct forms of prejudice, and so does the black kleptocratic tyranny of Mugabe””both abjectly refusing to recognize the inviolable rights of man.
Sobering reading, which really makes one wonder about the double-standards that accompanied the struggle against apartheid.
Remember in YES PRIME MINISTER, Sir Humphrey’s description of the ‘unsatisfactory’ episcopal candidate: “He’s against the oppression and prejudice practiced by African governments.” “Well, so are we,” says the prime minister.
“Yes, but he’s against it when practiced by black governments as well as white ones.”
“Oh, you mean he’s a racist!”
Yes, the Church of Nigeria (i.e., the Catholic Church) has been quite stern. Contrast with the Anglican Church,
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2918
where Mugabe has received spiritual solace.
Bishop Norbert Kunonga is still around and still has other Anglicans playing into Mugabe’s hand.
Kirchick’s analysis of Smith’s ideology is overblown and his praise of Bishop Lamont somewhat naif.
The racial oligarchy Smith ran was not, in principle, dedicated to white supremacy (though it operated like that in practice). Rather, it held that black majority rule, given the vast educational and economic divide between white and black, would be ruinous for the country and would introduce a Marxist tyranny. Instead, power-sharing should be very gradually phased in (not in the lifetimes of any of Smith’s government). Of course, this was completely unrealistic given the historical situation and it led to a great deal of repression. But it was not based on a Nazi-like creed, it was the thinking of a racially prejudiced oligarchy.
The opponents of white rule were backed by Chinese communists and the Eastern Bloc. They trained ruthless guerilla fighters and ran a vicious insurgency that killed far more blacks than whites. Bishop Lamont was seen as an open supporter of the insurgency, and some Catholic missionaries were uncritical supporters of the guerillas (even when clergy and nuns were killed by guerillas, Rhodesian forces were blamed).
Current events show that the fears of the white population, and of many of the blacks who fought for the white govt., have been amply realized.
Did I miss it in the article? Mugabe is derided, but can still call himself a Roman Catholic. Why is he not excommunicate?
#2 – clearly, you mean the Church of Zimbabwe (not Nigeria).
The author is dead wrong in comparing Ian Smith’s government to the tyranny of Mugabe. Rhodesians of all colors were vastly better off than the vast majority of Zimbabweans, however politically incorrect that inconvient truth might be. Of course, what can one expect when the terrorists become the government.
The article deftly skewers the hypocrisy of South Africa. One more example, one that had me reaching for the sick bag: recently ANC politicians in South Africa have been saying that the West should butt out of Zimbabwe, since what is happening there is an internal affair. This is exactly what the South African apartheid government used to say about outside criticism of South Africa back in those days: that apartheid was an internal affair for South Africa to handle and not the concern of the rest of the world. The ANC did not agree with that then.
Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that the situation is literally hopeless, although as a Christian I feel that I should always hope. My grounds? Quite simply, the drain of intellectual capital from Zimbabwe. Nearly everybody with training or qualifications has left. They establish themselves elsewhere and will not go back. Looking at the broader picture of Africa as a whole does not give hope either.
Compare and contrast, say, Taiwan and Zimbabwe in 1957 and 2007. Zimbabwe had infinitely better natural resources. Yet every index shows Zimbabwe decline: GDP, mortality, etc. Which, as the article implies, raises awkward questions for us Christians about the social impact of our faith. BTW people on this site ought to remember that the controversial Anglican bishop of Harare, Nolbert Konunga, Mugabe’s bag carrier, has the dubious distinction of joining the Bishop of NH in not being invited to Lambeth 2008.
Terry, so do we have another example of the results of western liberal political correctness? It seems so.