Bishop Muzorewa dies at age 85

[amadeus]

From the BBC.

Zimbabwe's Bishop Abel Muzorewa dies

One of the most prominent political figures in the turbulent years before the independence of Zimbabwe, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, has died, aged 85.

He was seen by many as a moderate black leader at a time of extreme political change. But black militants saw him as a puppet of white politicians.

Bishop Muzorewa entered politics in the 1970s when nationalist politicians were either imprisoned or in exile.

He opposed the armed struggle that was ultimately to lead to independence.

For a brief period in 1979, as white rule ended, he was the prime minister of an interim government when his country became known as Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

But the administration was short-lived.

And when inclusive elections were held in 1980 after the Lancaster House Agreement, which led to independence, it was Robert Mugabe who swept to power.

Bishop Muzorewa's party only managed to win three of the 100 seats in parliament.

His moment in the political limelight was over.

It's sad to think what could have been had the communists and the international community not made so much trouble for a country that had peacefully resolved its differences.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/africa/11muzorewa.html

Bishop Abel T. Muzorewa, once a central player in white minority plans to blunt black majority rule in what is now Zimbabwe, died on Thursday in Harare, the capital, the state-controlled newspaper The Herald said Friday. He was 85.

Bishop Muzorewa enjoyed brief renown as prime minister of an unrecognized white-dominated government before history, war and diplomacy moved on without him.

In a career as a cleric and political activist in what was then called Rhodesia, Bishop Muzorewa initially attracted a following as a nationalist leader, thwarting British plans to strike a deal in the 1970s with former Prime Minister Ian D. Smith.

But the nationalist struggle splintered into many factions. A fundamental divide opened between those black politicians, like Bishop Muzorewa, who chose to remain inside the country to pursue a political settlement, and those, like Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe — now president of independent Zimbabwe — who went on to conduct a guerrilla campaign from exile.

The war began in 1972, and as it intensified and international economic sanctions deepened, Mr. Smith came under pressure from neighboring, apartheid-ruled South Africa to seek black leaders for what was called an “internal settlement.”

The deal, struck in 1978, offered the first all-race elections — albeit under white supervision — since Britain’s arch-colonialist, Cecil John Rhodes, carved out a land from the savannas of central Africa and named it for himself in 1890.

Among those black leaders was Bishop Muzorewa, head of the United African National Council. He campaigned in the 1979 elections under the slogan “The Winner,” and T-shirts handed out to supporters showed him clutching a ceremonial baton.

Bishop Muzorewa’s victory made him prime minister of a nation then called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia — and brought enduring condemnation from more radical nationalists, who labeled him a puppet of Mr. Smith’s South African-backed machinations.

With the bush war still raging, Bishop Muzorewa’s government was shielded by those same white-led security forces that were fighting the exiled guerrilla movements led by his rivals. Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo and their followers boycotted the 1979 vote. The United Nations called Bishop Muzorewa’s government illegal.

As the war continued, Britain used its formal position as the colonial power to convene a peace conference in London in late 1979. Those negotiations led to elections that brought Mr. Mugabe to power as prime minister upon independence in 1980.

Bishop Muzorewa won only 8 percent of that vote. The outcome dashed any last hopes by the white minority, South African leaders or British diplomats that Bishop Muzorewa, a member of the majority Shona people, might act as a bulwark against Mr. Mugabe.

His political career as a minority legislator lasted only four years, but he continued as a declared opponent of Mr. Mugabe for many years, courting arrest on charges of conspiring against the government.

Abel Tendekayi Muzorewa was born in eastern Rhodesia in April 1925, the eldest of eight children. He had been a schoolteacher and a lay preacher before he went on to theological college. As secretary of the Students’ Christian Movement, he established himself as an opponent of the white minority rule that Mr. Smith once vowed would last for 1,000 years.

He was consecrated as Bishop of Rhodesia in the United Methodist Church in 1968.

Mr. Mugabe routinely labeled Bishop Muzorewa a sell-out. Referring to his diminutive stature, the somewhat larger Mr. Nkomo liked to call him “the little bishop.” Bishop Muzorewa retired formally from politics in 2001.

Yeah. What a sweetheart who was obviously adored by all the blacks whites.

 

[Quackers]

What are you on about Forma? He's 10x better than Mugabe. Just because he is backed by white people doesn't mean he's an evil man. Muzorewa would of continued successful Rhodesian government.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Exactly. Who could possibly dislike a black man who sold his own race down the river to appease the white racists who made up less than 10% of the population? Who led a government so corrupt it was considered to be illegal by the UN. A man so liked he got 8% of the vote when legitimate elections were finally held. What's wrong with people these days?

 

[Quackers]

Thats some dangerous langauge your talking there "sold his race down a river". Are you a racist? He in no way "appeased" the white interest he merely conincided with it. If you know anything about Rhodesian politics at the time you'l understand that Mugabe terrified rural voters though violance and he successfully managed to intimate them to vote for him. Only the most starry-eyed utopian could believe that election was free and fair.

Moderator Action: Make your points without questioning (implying) that someone is a racist.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you a racist?

You do realize that when a country is 90+% black that a black man kowtowing to white racists instead of his own people, it is clearly "racism" instead of the other way around?

I'm certainly no fan of Mugabe, but this guy was apparently the world's biggest Uncle Tom who was seems to be quite despised by his own people.

Once again:

With the bush war still raging, Bishop Muzorewa’s government was shielded by those same white-led security forces that were fighting the exiled guerrilla movements led by his rivals. Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo and their followers boycotted the 1979 vote. The United Nations called Bishop Muzorewa’s government illegal.

Bishop Muzorewa won only 8 percent of that vote. The outcome dashed any last hopes by the white minority, South African leaders or British diplomats that Bishop Muzorewa, a member of the majority Shona people, might act as a bulwark against Mr. Mugabe.

Do you have any evidence the UN thought the next election, which wasn't controlled by the white racists and where Muzorewa only received 8% of the vote, was "illegal"?

 

[Tani Coyote]

You do realize that when a country is 90+% black that a black man kowtowing to white racists instead of his own people isn't exactly "racism"? In fact, it is just the opposite...

Affirmative action?



Yes, I know technically that logic doesn't follow, as one would have had to be in the majority AND rule the country to begin with AND have wronged the minority populations, which the blacks obviously didn't do. But I couldn't resist cracking that joke.

All that said, I don't side with either the white racists or black racists. I side with those who don't view it in terms of "black" or "white", but Zimbabwean. Who cares what color everyone is; focus on building a viable nation-state.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Blacks who demand their own rule in a country where they outnumber by 10-1 the white racist colonists, who had been in charge up to that point, are "racists"? Hmm...

 

[plarq]

Not every white colonist is racist.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Blacks who demand their own rule in a country where they outnumber by 10-1 the white racist colonists, who had been in charge up to that point, are "racists"? Hmm...

No, not at all. That's majority rule, a foundation of democracy.

But a liberal democracy needs not only majority rule, but minority rights as well. Just because the whites are the minority doesn't change a thing.

I'm not the most brushed up on Zimbabwe(or Africa as a whole for that matter), but from what I've heard about Mugabe, he's quite fond of repossessing white farmers' lands and redistributing them to blacks. Aren't there anti-white measures as well?

Or, how about that whole issue of being forced to hand over majority control in all companies to blacks? Unless one is a supporter of worker's democracy, I can't really see how one would support that measure.

I can understand redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor(even if I don't always 100% agree), but I highly doubt that as skewed as the numbers were, that all whites were rich; logically, poor whites should receive the benefits of redistribution as well. To deny them that is racism, justified only by those seeking vengeance for whites' past actions.

 

[Quackers]

Blacks who demand their own rule in a country where they outnumber by 10-1 the white racist colonists, who had been in charge up to that point, are "racists"? Hmm...

Well if that is your logic than you are by definition a white colonist racist. Didn't white americans annihilate native Americans and actually enslaved people. At least British settlers in Zimbabwe didn't exterminate the local population...

Also it gives me the right to tell minorities in my own country to "GTFO" this is my country we outnumber you 10 - 1.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But a liberal democracy needs not only majority rule, but minority rights as well. Just because the whites are the minority doesn't change a thing..

I obviously couldn't agree more, so that's a strawman.

I'm not the most brushed up on Zimbabwe(or Africa as a whole for that matter), but from what I've heard about Mugabe, he's quite fond of repossessing white farmers' lands and redistributing them to blacks. Aren't there anti-white measures as well?

Once again, I'm not defending Mugabe and I clearly stated that above. Another strawman.

And the blacks actually outnumbered the whites 22-1:


Link to video.

And Ian Smith was not only a white supremacist and a a racist. He was also a rabid reactionary who eventually created a military dicatatorship:

To Smith and his supporters, it seemed the West was only too willing to overlook military dictatorship, violence and corruption in black Africa while condemning Rhodesian society which, whatever its shortcomings, offered relative security for its citizens.

The West, Smith argued, no longer had the will to stand up to communism; Rhodesia was the front line, and the whites were not engaged merely in a battle for their existence but for civilised values.

To begin with, despite UN-imposed economic sanctions, Rhodesia’s economy actually strengthened under UDI, and Smith appeared to relish his position as an international pariah. Many international companies secretly broke the sanctions and Rhodesian businesses and farmers diversified to fill the gaps.

Smith managed to convince white Rhodesians that they could continue to defy world opinion indefinitely. “I don’t believe in black majority rule over Rhodesia,” he proclaimed, “not in 1000 years.”

The tide of white emigration from Rhodesia was reversed as thousands of whites, mainly from Britain and South Africa, came to enjoy the advantages of white supremacy.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I obviously couldn't agree more, so that's a strawman.

I never said anything about your opinions on the matter, I was merely refining your point about majority rule by the black population, by stating that being in the majority did not give them the right to oppress the white minority. If they wish to be a liberal democracy, anyway.

Once again, I'm not defending Mugabe and I clearly stated that above. Another strawman.

I never said you were defending Mugabe either.

The reason I brought him up was to argue against the current style of democracy practiced in Zimbabwe, which, even if the elections are fraudulent, Mugabe embodies by merit of winning them.

My post was arguing against the democratic system as currently practiced there; it needs minority protections to guarantee a liberal democracy. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, and I apologise if you misinterpreted my post as such.

And Ian Smith was not only a white supremacist and a a racist. He was also a rabid reactionary who eventually created a military dicatatorship:

Well I think we can certainly come to agreement here. I can't defend anybody who outright says they don't want majority rule, no matter what form it takes.

Where exactly are we disagreeing?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I never said anything about your opinions on the matter, I was merely refining your point about majority rule by the black population, by stating that being in the majority did not give them the right to oppress the white minority. If they wish to be a liberal democracy, anyway.

Sorry. I thought you were arguing that I didn't think so.

I never said you were defending Mugabe either.

Ditto.

My post was arguing against the democratic system as currently practiced there; it needs minority protections to guarantee a liberal democracy.

I completely agree. South Africa has clearly shown that not all white colonists are white supremacists. And even if they are, they don't deserve to be annihilated for their opinions. They just shouldn't be the rulers where they are a tiny minority and the majority are vehemently opposed.

Well I think we can certainly come to agreement here. I can't defend anybody who outright says they don't want majority rule, no matter what form it takes.

Indeed. The will of the people should be respected, even if they prefer a government that isn't directly based on capitalism, or which isn't secular.

I really don't see how people can defend white minority rule in Africa. Apartheid was abhorent. It was almost as bad as slavery.

 

[amadeus]

Who could possibly dislike a black man who sold his own race down the river to appease the white racists who made up less than 10% of the population?

Sold his own race down the river by being elected as prime minister in the country's first vote by universal suffrage?

Who led a government so corrupt it was considered to be illegal by the UN.

The opinions of the Soviet Union, red China, communist Czechoslovakia, the absolute monarchy of Kuwait, and President-for-Life Kaunda of Zambia should be duly noted when discussing a free and fair full-suffrage election in Rhodesia.

A man so liked he got 8% of the vote when legitimate elections were finally held. What's wrong with people these days?

The 1980 campaign was rife with tribal factionalism and violence and intimidation brought about by ZANU. Yes, there were also many people that supported Mugabe... and look where their country is now.

 

[Patroklos]

Is anyone here surprised Forma is a Mugabe apologist?

Moderator Action: Do you actually want to discuss anything?

Debate the points, not the person.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tani Coyote]

Indeed. The will of the people should be respected, even if they prefer a government that isn't directly based on capitalism, or which isn't secular.

Looking at the success of several European countries with state churches, I can say that a completely-secular government is indeed not required. Where you and I will part ways in terms of foreign policy is the enforcement of universal values or on self-determination. I mostly favor self-determination, but I cannot bring myself to support any overly-religious government that advocates violence, tortures people, etc.

Though I'm probably just more anti-totalitarian/authoritarian than I am anti-religious rule.

All that said, I certainly won't deny the rise of the theocracy in Iran was helped along by our own actions. I still yearn for the day when they collapse, however, regardless of whether the population supports them or not.

I really don't see how people can defend white minority rule in Africa. Apartheid was abhorent. It was almost as bad as slavery.

As you already know, there are apologists for everything, no matter how morally questionable it might be.

Provided the minority was democratically elected in fair elections, there'd be nothing wrong with it.

However, I'm fairly certain that wasn't the case.

The opinions of the Soviet Union, red China, communist Czechoslovakia, the absolute monarchy of Kuwait, and President-for-Life Kaunda of Zambia should be duly noted when discussing a free and fair full-suffrage election in Rhodesia.

Regardless of whether the election was free and fair... this is correct, I feel. It's like the USA and not signing the Rights of the Child argument all over again... that the US is so horrible for not signing it whereas the great, human rights-respecting nations such as Saudi Arabia have...

There's a thought. What are your thoughts on the United Nations, Form? I've noticed you're fairly anti-interventionist in foreign affairs, so what do you feel about the United Nations' laws? Are they okay because they do it without force of arms, or do they still violate self-determination and sovereignty as much as a CIA-sponsored coup?

(Though the argument can be made that by joining the UN, you bind yourself to listen to its decrees, just as you do when you participate in any democratic structure)

Is anyone here surprised Forma is a Mugabe apologist?

Once again, I'm not defending Mugabe and I clearly stated that above.

While I'm sure Formaldehyde is perfectly capable of defending himself, I just figured I'd repost this.

 

[Patroklos]

There was no crime in what the Bishop did by seriving in an interum government in the midst of a national reformation who yielded to regular democratic elections when held as agreed when voted out peacfully and without incident. Its actaully a model of self control considering what everyone knew Mugabe was about to do. I am not sure if I could stand by and let my nation be turned into the laughing stock it is today like he did.

Moderator Action: Trolling removed. Infraction above.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Formaldehyde]

While I'm sure Formaldehyde is perfectly capable of defending himself, I just figured I'd repost this.

Thank you. It seems clear enough given that I stated it twice in this thread. I really don't see how anybody could have possibly accidently "misinterpreted" it.

You obviously don't have to support Mugabe to be against white supremacists like Ian Smith and others of the same ilk.

 

[Masada]

Who could possibly dislike a black man who sold his own race down the river to appease the white racists who made up less than 10% of the population?

He took what was a realistic course of action at the time, it paid dividends and it was a viable means of achieving black majority rule. You might not like it but at the end of the day have you ever been in a position to choose?

Who led a government so corrupt it was considered to be illegal by the UN.

The UN wasn't really, and never has been, all that concerned with the morality of nations. It recognized the explicit Dutch puppet state: the Republic of the United States of Indonesia as the legitimately constituted government of the Nederlands-Indië instead of the Republic of Indonesia. Who the UN recognizes is wholly dependent on its constituent members and that, as you can imagine and know, causes problems.

A man so liked he got 8% of the vote when legitimate elections were finally held.

In the absence of competitors who were out fighting a guerrilla war in the bush he won the plurality of the votes. It was seen as a means of achieving black rule progressively and peacefully. When events ran out of hand and Mugabe et. al. were allowed to return to contest elections he lost out. That could happen anywhere. Given the choice of voting for a black candidate many did just that where previously they couldn't. Given the choice, at a later date and in wholly changed circumstances, between voting for a number of black candidates they choose the one they preferred out of the group. That's democracy in action: Pick the least worst candidate.

What's wrong with people these days?

Nothing. I'm just willing to accept that demanding the impossible usually doesn't pay off straight away. You usually have to accede to comprimise situations in the short term before pushing forward. That was the experience in Rhodesia, that was the experience in Indonesia, that was the experience in India, Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines and almost every other former colony.