On Liberators Who Fail To Govern After Independence

NELSON Mandela is unique in many respects.

One certain aspect of his uniqueness is that he could combine the two talents of leading a liberation movement and leading a post-independence country. Other liberation leaders who have taken up presidency in Africa could probably have done better if they instead had retired after the liberation and lived on as honoured citizens and handed the presidency to some more civil-minded person.The article ‘Samora Machel stills casts a long shadow’ by Phyllis Johnson (The Namibian, October 19, 2006) was a long panegyric praise of the Mozambican liberation hero where his roles as liberation leader and post-independence president are confused.Freedom of his country from colonial minority rule was not at all coupled to any freedom for the individuals there.I lived in Mozambique from 1990 to 1996 after the Samora period.In the very first month there, I went to a rally where Nelson Mandela was to speak.I waited hours to listen to him while President Chissano praised himself.I finally gave up and decided to leave, but soldiers with AK47s would not allow it, as that would insult the President.No water, no food, no toilets, no shade from the sun and everybody held hostage for a whole day.What Chissano meant by his repeated mantra “liberdade” was definitely not what is normally meant by “freedom”.During my first years in the country, everybody spoke well about Samora as they spoke well about everything that had to do with the State.Mozambicans have learnt, both from the colonial rule and from Samora’s rule, that it is very dangerous to talk critically about public affairs.Only after many years when I knew people well, did they dare to confess how horrified they were under Samora’s reign.The first time after independence everybody was euphoric and happy but it did not take long until the euphoria faded and was replaced by horror and despair.One reason was the civil war.Renamo was formed to destabilise the independent state.But Samora’s tactics made things worse.The way of recruiting soldiers Frelimo was to raid places where young men were gathered.A common way to get out was to desert to Renamo that fed them better.Many Renamo attacks against civilians were cover for robberies by starving Frelimo soldiers.Samora, and later Chissano, escalated the civil war by feeding Renamo with deserting soldiers.It was unpatriotic to criticise the ‘People’s Police’ so they could harass people as much as they wanted.They accused people of not having their documents in order and “confiscated” what they could take.When Samora’s escort of cars and motorbike police came running in high speed, people who could not find an escape route for their cars were sometimes dragged from the vehicles and beaten up.Large parts of Maputo were security areas where the public had no right to enter.All this served a purpose: to make people live in fear of the state and so secure the president’s power.Moreover, the economy was so badly run under Samora so there was finally nothing to buy in shops, and the state went bankrupt.After that, the state had to turn to the IMF and the conditions for loans were, among others, to ease the hard grip on people, which began slowly under Chissano.Now, since both Samora and his successor Chissano’s eras are over, the country is doing better economically and people learn bit by bit that they have the right to have and express opinions on how the state is doing.Every Mozambican old enough has talked about the shock they felt at Samora’s death.They had to, but in their closed circles this death case was talked about in very different terms.So please, Phyllis Johnson, there are leaders who deserve praise for achievements in liberation struggles but it does not mean that the same persons deserve any praise for their post-independence leadership.I think many African countries would be better places if we discern more clearly between freedom for a country from colonial rule and freedom for individuals in their pursuit of happiness and to live without fear.It is two valuable but very different things.Liberal Windhoek Note: Name and address provided EdOther liberation leaders who have taken up presidency in Africa could probably have done better if they instead had retired after the liberation and lived on as honoured citizens and handed the presidency to some more civil-minded person.The article ‘Samora Machel stills casts a long shadow’ by Phyllis Johnson (The Namibian, October 19, 2006) was a long panegyric praise of the Mozambican liberation hero where his roles as liberation leader and post-independence president are confused.Freedom of his country from colonial minority rule was not at all coupled to any freedom for the individuals there.I lived in Mozambique from 1990 to 1996 after the Samora period.In the very first month there, I went to a rally where Nelson Mandela was to speak.I waited hours to listen to him while President Chissano praised himself.I finally gave up and decided to leave, but soldiers with AK47s would not allow it, as that would insult the President.No water, no food, no toilets, no shade from the sun and everybody held hostage for a whole day.What Chissano meant by his repeated mantra “liberdade” was definitely not what is normally meant by “freedom”.During my first years in the country, everybody spoke well about Samora as they spoke well about everything that had to do with the State.Mozambicans have learnt, both from the colonial rule and from Samora’s rule, that it is very dangerous to talk critically about public affairs.Only after many years when I knew people well, did they dare to confess how horrified they were under Samora’s reign.The first time after independence everybody was euphoric and happy but it did not take long until the euphoria faded and was replaced by horror and despair.One reason was the civil war.Renamo was formed to destabilise the independent state.But Samora’s tactics made things worse.The way of recruiting soldiers Frelimo was to raid places where young men were gathered.A common way to get out was to desert to Renamo that fed them better.Many Renamo attacks against civilians were cover for robberies by starving Frelimo soldiers.Samora, and later Chissano, escalated the civil war by feeding Renamo with deserting soldiers.It was unpatriotic to criticise the ‘People’s Police’ so they could harass people as much as they wanted.They accused people of not having their documents in order and “confiscated” what they could take.When Samora’s escort of cars and motorbike police came running in high speed, people who could not find an escape route for their cars were sometimes dragged from the vehicles and beaten up.Large parts of Maputo were security areas where the public had no right to enter.All this served a purpose: to make people live in fear of the state and so secure the president’s power.Moreover, the economy was so badly run under Samora so there was finally nothing to buy in shops, and the state went bankrupt.After that, the state had to turn to the IMF and the conditions for loans were, among others, to ease the hard grip on people, which began slowly under Chissano.Now, since both Samora and his successor Chissano’s eras are over, the country is doing better economically and people learn bit by bit that they have the right to have and express opinions on how the state is doing.Every Mozambican old enough has talked about the shock they felt at Samora’s death.They had to, but in their closed circles this death case was talked about in very different terms.So please, Phyllis Johnson, there are leaders who deserve praise for achievements in liberation struggles but it does not mean that the same persons deserve any praise for their post-independence leadership.I think many African countries would be better places if we discern more clearly between freedom for a country from colonial rule and freedom for individuals in their pursuit of happiness and to live without fear.It is two valuable but very different things.Liberal Windhoek Note: Name and address provided Ed