A Nation in Crisis: The Complexities of Zimbabwe’s Struggle
Fortune Chasi, a prominent Member of Parliament and high-ranking Zanu PF official, recently made a bold statement that shifted the spotlight from external forces to internal governance. He highlighted that poor governance and corruption are the true culprits behind Zimbabwe’s national disaster, rather than external actors like China. This candid admission raises important questions about the nature of political critique and the broader implications for the nation.
Chasi’s remarks echo the warnings of Frantz Fanon, who discussed the pitfalls of national consciousness in his seminal work, The Wretched of the Earth. According to Fanon, the native middle class often inherits power but fails to transform the nation, instead becoming a new form of exploitation. In post-colonial Zimbabwe, this prophecy has tragically come true. The ruling elite have become the gatekeepers of exploitation, perpetuating a system that mirrors the colonial past.
While Chasi’s honesty is a significant step forward, it is crucial to recognize that corruption and maladministration are not the root causes of Zimbabwe’s challenges. They are merely symptoms of a more profound issue: neocolonialism. To attribute the socioeconomic crisis solely to local governance is to inadvertently support a narrative that absolves foreign entities like China from their roles in this complex web of exploitation.
China’s involvement in Zimbabwe is particularly concerning. The relationship between the two nations is often framed as an “all-weather friendship,” but this veneer masks a deeper reality. Chinese entities are not passive players; they actively engage in corrupt deals, leveraging Zimbabwe’s weak governance structure to secure lucrative resource extraction opportunities. This dynamic is reminiscent of the British South Africa Company (BSAC), albeit with a more aggressive approach.
The Look East Policy, adopted by Zimbabwe after Western sanctions in the early 2000s, was a strategic move to counterbalance the effects of these sanctions. However, this policy has resulted in a transactional pact that benefits a small political elite while the nation’s resources are depleted. China’s economic and diplomatic backing provides a shield against Western pressure, but this comes at a cost. Zimbabwe’s mineral and agricultural wealth is exchanged for political protection, creating a cycle of dependency.
This relationship is not one of mutual benefit but rather a classic model of superpower dominance through debt dependency and resource acquisition. Zimbabwe, in its compromised state, has been accused of mortgaging its future on this basis, trading its sovereign material assets for immediate relief that only serves the ruling elite. This exploitative dynamic is akin to the “rider and horse” relationship described by Ngugi wa Thiongo in The Trial of Dedan Kimathi.
The betrayal felt by many Zimbabweans is profound. China, once seen as a staunch ally during the liberation war, now appears to be complicit in the very exploitation that the revolution sought to end. The scars left by open-cast mining in areas like Shurugwi and the environmental degradation in regions such as Muzarabani/Mavuradonha are stark reminders of this betrayal. The working conditions and treatment of laborers in these areas reflect a troubling pattern of colonial-era exploitation.
It is worth questioning whether the Chinese would allow such practices in their own country. The answer is unequivocally no. The Chinese legal apparatus is designed to prevent corporate and official malfeasance, yet their companies engage in such activities in Zimbabwe. This duality—principled at home and predatory abroad—is a betrayal of the revolutionary ideals that once defined the relationship between the two nations.
The cultural and psychological injury inflicted by this betrayal is deep. It has angered even the older generation who remember the sacrifices and camaraderie of the war years. Some have even lamented that the Rhodesian settlers were “better bosses” because they at least developed industry and infrastructure alongside their exploitation. This sentiment is a devastating indictment that no amount of diplomatic rhetoric can erase.
Zimbabweans have a long history of resistance against foreign interference. From the Rozvi state under Changamire Dombo to the Chimurenga wars, the nation has consistently risen to defend its land and resources. This historical memory underscores the importance of sovereignty and self-determination.
For China, the message is clear: You are a world wonder, a beautiful country built on admirable principles of discipline and national development. You should showcase that character in Zimbabwe. Look to the examples of other global partners, like the Russians or even the British and Americans, though for Zimbabwe they cannot be trusted, in their current engagements with their allies, they are building long-term, mutually beneficial partnerships instead of engaging in cynical extraction.
While it may not be necessary to exonerate Zimbabwean leaders, they must face the consequences of their actions. As a true “big brother,” China must refuse to be a conspirator. It must return to the drawing board, honor its bilateral agreements, and apply the same brilliant principles that distinguish its own country. Only then can it reclaim its moral authority, and only then will the next generation not view this once-great ally as just another face of the same old, ugly neocolonial monster.