Mugabe and the White African: movie review
During Zimbabwe鈥檚 struggle for democracy, Robert Mugabe may have seemed 鈥� may in fact have been 鈥� a genuine freedom fighter. In his 30 years of rule (as either president or prime minister), his public image has become more than a little tarnished. He has maintained his power through a series of elections whose illegitimacy has become increasingly apparent. He is charged with continual human rights abuses. And 鈥� perhaps most damning 鈥� he has destroyed his nation鈥檚 economy and infrastructure. In other words, he can鈥檛 even claim that his moral lapses were necessary for the good of his people.
While the catastrophes he has brought upon Zimbabwe are, in general terms, covered by international news outlets 鈥� who have not been exempt from his attempts to control all press coverage 鈥� the new documentary 鈥淢ugabe and the White African鈥� ups the emotional ante by putting a human face on his victims. As the title suggests, it鈥檚 primarily a white face 鈥� a fact that, given the country鈥檚 colonial past, might seem lightly ironic, were the details not so brutal.
In 2007, filmmakers Lucy Bailey and Andrew Thompson decided to document the case of Michael Campbell, whose Mount Carmel Farm had been seized by the Mugabe administration as part 鈥� on paper, at least 鈥� of a 鈥渓and reform鈥� program. The 75-year-old Campbell and son-in-law Ben Freeth decided to fight the confiscation, despite being subject to the threats of violence that had caused other white farmers to flee the country.
The constitutional amendment that created the land reform says nothing about race, but its effect, by design, was to disenfranchise white farmers exclusively. Furthermore, the seized property was transferred to political and military cronies, who often scavenged whatever could be liquidated, rather than to actual farmers, who could cultivate the land.
Their legal challenges rebuffed by the Zimbabwean judiciary, Campbell and Freeth took their case to the international tribunal of SADC (Southern African Development Community), of which Zimbabwe is a member. Mugabe鈥檚 attorneys secured several delays in the hearing, allowing time for further intimidation of the plaintiffs and invasions of the farm by the new designated 鈥渙wners.鈥� Shortly before the final scheduled court date, thugs kidnapped and severely beat Campbell, his wife, and Freeth.
The final hearing is the most extraordinary scene in the film. When the judges find for Campbell and begin to consider a contempt charge against the government for violating a court order to lay off the farmers for the duration, Mugabe鈥檚 lawyers do something straight out of an implausible courtroom drama: They simply get up and walk out. (Mount Carmel Farm was later torched, leaving Campbell, Freeth, and their 500 workers essentially homeless.)
If there鈥檚 anything missing from Bailey and Thompson鈥檚 searing documentary, it鈥檚 a consideration of the possible arguments against Campbell and Freeth. That is, there is a historical context that might deserve redress. A not-crazy argument can be made that, given the history of colonialism and government-sanctioned repression of black rights, the property held by whites 鈥� seen as a group 鈥� was obtained illegitimately. It may be a wrong argument but one worth bringing up, even if only for the purpose of knocking it down.
It may also be irrelevant, since Mugabe鈥檚 鈥渓and reform鈥� is a sham and has had disastrous effects for the economy and hence the majority of black Zimbabweans. The farmers鈥� legal team rightly scores points by showing that this is 鈥渓and reform鈥� in name only. But, if, theoretically, Mugabe really was redistributing 鈥渨hite鈥� land to poor black farmworkers previously shut out of ownership by the ruling whites, would Campbell and Freeth鈥檚 position be less worthy?
I am in no way defending any aspect of Mugabe and his wretched regime. But the broader issue of redressing historical wrongs should at least be addressed. (Indeed, the counterexample of Nelson Mandela and South Africa suggests that policies guided by such notions of 鈥減ayback鈥� are not merely morally questionable, but also tactically inferior.) The Campbell/Freeth family are sympathetic and admirable protagonists, but Bailey and Thompson鈥檚 convincing presentation of their personal courage doesn鈥檛 completely compensate for the absence of that discussion. Grade: B+ (Unrated.)
