The Commonwealth is Shooting Its Own Foot by Excluding Zimbabwe: The Decision was Made Out of a Tantrum By

By Dr Masimba Mavaza

Zimbabwe’s bid to rejoin the Commonwealth was blocked, with the United Kingdom asserting that the southern African nation must improve its governance and human rights record before being readmitted. This came as a big shock considering that The Commonwealth secretariat had recommended Zimbabwe’s readmission, granting member states time to share their positions. Zimbabwe had done everything on earth to be readmitted but the UK threw a tantrum like a spoiled child.

Although Commonwealth Heads have not set out any re-joining criteria, it is expected that a country would demonstrate that it continues to uphold the principles and values of the Commonwealth that it espoused when it first joined. This open cheque book policy has proven unfair as it is being abused by those powers who are empowered to readmit countries back into the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth has no formal constitution or bylaws. The members have no legal or formal obligation to one another; they are held together by shared traditions, institutions, and experiences as well as by economic self-interest. Commonwealth action is based upon consultation between members, which is conducted through correspondence and through conversations in meetings. Each member country sends an emissary, called a high commissioner, to the capitals of the other members.

The Commonwealth was an evolutionary outgrowth of the British Empire. Contemporaneous with its shedding of mercantilist philosophy, the empire began implementing “responsible government”—i.e., a system under which the governor could act in domestic matters only upon the advice of ministers enjoying the confidence of the elected chamber—in parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland in the mid- to late-19th century. These dependent but self-governing states attained growing measures of sovereignty, and their autonomy was subjected only to a British veto. The Statute of Westminster (1931) implemented the decisions made at both that and a subsequent conference, formally allowing each dominion to control its own domestic and foreign affairs and to establish its own diplomatic corps.
The a commonwealth made it clear that a unanimous decision is required for reentry, but the UK has made it clear that the conditions for Zimbabwe’s return have not yet been met.

Responding to a question in the House of Lords posed by Baroness Kate Hoey, the UK’s Foreign Office emphasised that more progress was needed.
“The UK has always been clear that we would like to see Zimbabwe return to the Commonwealth when the time is right. However, currently we do not share the secretariat’s assessment of Zimbabwe’s progress or readiness in line with the shared values and principles laid out in the Commonwealth Charter,” the Foreign Office said.

While acknowledging some progress, the UK underscored that significant issues regarding democracy, governance, and human rights remain unaddressed. Specifically, it cited Zimbabwe’s failure to act on recommendations made by the Commonwealth Election Observer Mission following the country’s recent elections. It is clear that the UK is punishing Zimbabwe for the reasons best known to it.

While we have tried our best as a nation to comply with some of the unreasonable demands put up by the UK it has been very clear that there is an unannounced agenda.

The UK must know that by Excluding Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth there are many opportunities being missed by the UK and many other Commonwealth states. The blocking of Zimbabwe signals a continuation of a fraught and deeply historical impasse. Such a decision taken by the UK signifies the evolving narrative of British-Zimbabwean relations and the broader dynamics of global geopolitics. It shows the deep rooted dislike of Zimbabwe by the UK. In holding on yo a very old grudge the UK is missing opportunity for reconciliation, growth, and a resetting of both historical and contemporary wrongs. The UK is throwing away the opportunity to assist Zimbabwe to conform with the expected ethos.

It is not a secret that the problem with Zimbabwe and UK relations is inextricably tied to the unresolved tensions surrounding land reform, a bitter legacy of colonial dispossession. This does not really come as a surprise since the Commonwealth is a club of the master and his servants.

Zimbabwe is being treated with total racism and what is happening is a land Distribution Backlash: The Reason For Not Re-Admitting Zimbabwe To The Commonwealth is sad.

We must remember that as part of its application to rejoin the Commonwealth, Zimbabwe invited the Commonwealth to observe its 2018 election. The secretary general agreed to this and said it would form part of her informal assessment. Ghana’s former president, John Dramani Mahama, was deployed to observe the elections along with 23 “eminent persons” and staff from the Commonwealth. In their final report, the observers noted “several positive aspects”, including “a markedly improved pre-election environment”.

Zimbabwe has worked towards readmittance, but has faced significant challenges which are mostly related to economic distress. These problems would be best fixed within the Commonwealth rather than by ostracising the Mnangagwa-led government. The human rights situation in Zimbabwe is now under control and there has been many positive developments. The painful thing is that the Commonwealth is basing its refusal on the reports from biased opposition members and its handlers. The rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly had improved significantly since the departure of President Robert Gabriel Mugabe.

The history of human rights violations in Zimbabwe is complicated by the inheritance of a colonial system that, because of skewed racial considerations, did not universally respect and protect basic human rights. There is a problem on consensus of what should be the universal content of human rights. Various perceptions on what constitutes human rights are embodied in the United Nations charter and its various covenants, even though individual states attach different values and priorities to the many rights that guarantee individuals a decent standard of life. The United Nations’ instruments on human rights cover a wide range of rights and it is generally acknowledged that at times threatening situations can compel a nation to curtail them.

The conflicts over land and intolerance for political opposition were at the locus of the violation of human rights in Zimbabwe. The arbitrary use of power by the state on these two issues generally had a multiplier effect with regard to disrespect for citizens’ freedoms and autonomy. Many of the rights that have been violated include the right to life and to a decent standard of living; the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly; and the right to choose leaders and to participate in political life. The Mnangagwa government in Zimbabwe discharged a great obligation to clarify and promote these connections with regard to general freedoms. The democratic space in Zimbabwe was opened and has been open since the advent of Emerson Mnangagwa. Positive human rights spell out what governments should provide for the development of conditions that will empower citizens to enjoy all the other rights. This has been Mnangagwa’s purpose since 2017 November.

Zimbabwe’s independence came in 1980 after a protracted guerrilla war against the white minority settler regime in which regaining land taken away from the indigenous people since 1890 was a central issue. Land remains one of the most important causes of violent conflict throughout the world and at all levels – the family, community and national. Even in pre-colonial Zimbabwe, there were land wars among the local ethnic groups, mainly the Ndebele and the Shona. In Africa’s agrarian economies, and in particular in Zimbabwe where 70 per cent of the population relies on subsistence farming, land is regarded as that ‘thing which completes a human being’ and this places it at the locus of all activities. All other rights derive from the right of its ownership and this opens up access to all other basic human rights such as housing, food, education and general livelihood. Using a complex web of legal instruments and institutions, the colonial regime systematically dispossessed the indigenes of their land.

The colonists ended up controlling over 87 per cent of the fertile land, while the blacks were shepherded into infertile reserves. Racial discrimination with regard to land ownership violated the basic human rights of the Africans as it denied them access to a productive livelihood and forced them to become labourers. Land claims pertaining to forced removals during the colonial period were never addressed and this led to intensified demands for justice after independence.

Land reform has thus lain at the heart of Zimbabwean politics, as equal access to and ownership of land by the majority would contribute to political stability and the enjoyment of land property rights. It is also important to point out that any discussion of human rights in Zimbabwe, as it relates to the land issue and governance, must take into account two issues: one is that of upholding the rule of law and the other is the international context in which Zimbabwe is located. In this regard, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expresses the moral thinking on international law and sets the standard for judging governments that act outside the ethical framework it has established for safeguarding citizens’ rights.

So it is pervasive to judge Zimbabwe base on their land distribution. Zimbabwe was in its right and the Commonwealth is victimising Zimbabwe and punishing it for doing the right thing. Land reform was done in accordance with the written laws of the country. Whether the laws are unfair or not is another issue. What matters is that they were arrived at through an acceptable and legal process and that the Law was fully implemented. This makes the rule of law a prerequisite for democracy and a fundamental principle for shaping human rights content. And Zimbabwe has done all possible to be readmitted.

The 1979 Lancaster House Agreement, which guaranteed compensation-based redistribution funded partly by Britain, represented a fragile hope for justice. However, as Britain’s reneging on these commitments during Labour Party era sowed seeds of mistrust and, ultimately, instability. The fast track land reform of the early 2000s, though condemned for violence, was a desperate assertion of sovereignty and restitution by Zimbabwe. For the UK to sideline Zimbabwe now is to turn its back on a problem it helped create and an opportunity it has to mend the rift by embracing a multilateral platform like the Commonwealth to facilitate dialogue.

Yet this issue transcends land and sovereignty; it cuts to the heart of the UK’s diminishing stature in Africa. The Cold War era witnessed Britain wielding immense influence across the continent, but this is no longer the case. The vacuum has been adeptly filled by powers such as China, which offers infrastructure deals, and Russia, which forges security alliances, all with minimal rhetoric on human rights. Africa, home to the fastest-growing economies, represents an arena of global competition in which Britain’s participation is becoming peripheral. By opposing Zimbabwe’s bid, Britain risks alienating yet another African partner, surrendering moral and strategic leverage while fostering resentment among those who view the move as an extension of colonial paternalism.

In 2018, Zimbabwe began the process of rejoining the Commonwealth. In response to a letter from President Mnangagwa, Secretary General Baroness Scotland said that she looked forward to Zimbabwe’s return “when the conditions are right”. The Commonwealth explained that to rejoin, Zimbabwe would need to show compliance with the fundamental values set out in the Commonwealth Charter, including respect for democracy and the rule of law, as well as protection of human rights. It also said that the membership process required an informal assessment to be undertaken by representatives of the secretary general, followed by consultation with other Commonwealth countries.

In 2021, the Zimbabwean government said that it was in the second stage of a four-part process for rejoining, with the application undergoing consultation among Commonwealth members. In November 2022, a delegation led by the assistant secretary general, Luis Franceschi, visited Harare, Zimbabwe. The visit was part of the informal process of assessment for Zimbabwe’s readmission into the Commonwealth. Following the mission, Professor Franceschi said that Zimbabwe had made “significant progress in its journey to rejoin the Commonwealth family”. He said that all the stakeholders he had engaged with had been supportive of readmission and that “we will work together towards that shared goal to ensure this process reaches its proper conclusion”. This is a different attitude as shown by Lord Oates. The UK government has said that the decision on whether Zimbabwe rejoins the

Commonwealth is a decision for all members. It has said that it would support Zimbabwe’s readmission “only if it met the admission requirements and complied with the values and principles set out in the Commonwealth Charter”.

Surprisingly the decision to block Zimbabwe was not done by all the heads of state. UK alone refused to readmit Zimbabwe into the Commonwealth. One asks a question. Is this fair or total racism.

While the UK waits for it own picked government to be in charge in Zimbabwe so it could readmit us Zimbabwe will continue doing good and serve its people. It will be the UK which will lose more than Zimbabwe.