Leaders of the South African Development Community recently convened in Zambia to hold one of their regular summits; this time with the objective of placing special emphasis on the crisis in Zimbabwe. Conditions in the country have continued to deteriorate as President Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party dominate Zimbabwean politics and impose impossibly harsh economic regulations that are resulting in widespread poverty and hunger.

At the summit, South African President Thabo Mbeki presented findings from his mediation efforts in Zimbabwe, but, to the dismay of many Zimbabweans, his report included no encouragement for the country to change its political course. Citizens of the country were further disappointed when SADC Executive Secretary Tomaz Salomao publicly attributed most of the country’s woes to sanctions, giving no blame or responsibility to any specific sources or parties [1]. Both politicians underemphasized the severity of the state of Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) recognize Zimbabwe’s current turmoil as possibly “the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis” [2]. Lawyer and MDC senior member David Coltart reports that “Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world: 34 for women and 37 for men,” and he believes that the extent to which people in the country are starving qualifies as genocide [3]. Coltart blames Mugabe’s mismanagement for Zimbabwe’s economic deterioration, but is not hopeful for immediate change, as Mugabe’s hold over the country remains strong and the people continue to struggle without control over their lives, jobs, and property.

In 2000 Mugabe and his Zanu-PF government triggered the country’s most recent economic crisis by initiating a land-reform program that replaced white ownership of commercial farmland with black Zimbabwean ownership and possession [4]. However, instead of the land going to the general population, the land was given to military leaders and other friends of the government, most of whom had no skills or interest in farming. Consequently, the land has since stood still, inflation rates have peaked at as high as 13,000 percent, unemployment has reached 80 percent, and four million people will need food aid by the end of this year [5, 6].

These startling statistics were corroborated by two Zimbabweans who are active in their community and offered their personal experiences and opinions in an interview for the purposes of this article. Speaking with these people emphasized the reality of the situation in Zimbabwe. They explained that they do not have fundamental commodities like food or water. Parents walk from shop to shop in an effort to find milk for their babies. Many resort to searching the black market to obtain their basic necessities.

With regards as to who is to blame for the situation, one source explained that he is disappointed with Mbeki, because although the world has high expectations of the South African president, his actions have taught this individual not to expect much at all. Prior to independence from Great Britain, the territories that are now Zimbabwe and Zambia were called Rhodesia, and the aforementioned source provides the example that, during Ian Smith’s reign over Rhodesia, the South African government closed the borders between South Africa and Rhodesia, forcing Smith to change his corrupt ways [7]. President Mbeki has the power to do the same, or more, he could close the borders and shut off Zimbabwe’s electricity. Nevertheless, he has made a conscious choice not to take advantage of these opportunities to use his authority to change the situation in Zimbabwe.

The interview respondents worry that Mugabe will stay in power simply in order to protect himself. After a career filled with violence and corruption, Zimbabwe’s president has made many enemies, and although “in the seat of presidency, no one can question him,” he will lose his protection when he loses his position of power [8]. This concern is legitimate not only in Zimbabwe but elsewhere too: “In many African countries presidential-power is a zero-sum game. This state of affairs encourages some heads of state to cling on to power indefinitely. They have everything to lose by giving up State House.” In response to this issue, organizations such as the African Union have attempted to create conditions that “honour African presidents who bow out of power” [9]. Such efforts could be significantly influential in changing patterns of corrupt and prolonged leadership in African countries. This topic was discussed at the 2006 International Conference on the State of Affairs in Africa, but no resolution was drawn. Until the issue is resolved, many citizens continue to live in fear of their presidents.

Zimbabwe’s economic and political prospects have been worsening for years and seem more dismal now than ever before. Nevertheless, the Zimbabweans quoted above are full of inspiration and hope for the future of their country. They recognize that their people are tired of hating their government and are ready for change. The IIJD encourages Africans in the Diaspora to take the lead in providing international support for people in places like Zimbabwe. Eventually through this support Zimbabweans might work to change the institutions that are in place and create better and fairer lives for themselves. Creating and maintaining hope in the face of the atrocities that currently plague Zimbabwe is one essential step toward improving the state of the country. Acting upon this optimism is the goal of the IIJD, with the ultimate purpose to implement justice where it does not yet fully exist.