Kaizer Nyatsumba: A heartfelt round of applause for President Mugabe

Former colonial powers like Britain were the cause of the land problem in the first place

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has systematically reduced his own country, especially in the past two years, into a basket case and severely handicapped some African leaders' attempts to overturn the continent's negative image. Wherever they have gone to sell the ambitious New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad), these leaders have had the embarrassing situation in Zimbabwe thrown at them.

Mr Mugabe, it seems, is no longer content with merely wrecking his own country, which now has to beg for food in order to survive. Instead, he wants to take all of Africa along with him, with his friend and ally Sam Nujoma of Namibia marching right behind him. For Western sceptics who heard the two men lashing at Tony Blair in Johannesburg on Monday, their tirade is sufficient proof that Africa is truly irredeemable.

Mr Mugabe, it will be pointed out correctly, represents the embodiment of just about everything that African leaders have recently committed themselves to moving away from: flagrant disregard for human rights, lack of respect for the rule of law, harassment of the media and those he regards as opponents and the staging of fraudulent elections and the concomitant subversion of the will of the electorate, among other things.

These are things of which Nepad, with its much-vaunted peer review mechanism, strongly disapproves, promoting as it does democracy, good governance and a sound management of the economy, among other things. And yet, when Mr Mugabe stoutly defended his policies and criticised Mr Blair, he was applauded by a sizeable number of leaders – some of them Africans – as well as some journalists covering the event.

Does that mean that the Africa that wants the world to believe it is committed to democracy actually approves of what has been going on in Zimbabwe since around March 2000? After all, if Africans did not approve of Mr Mugabe's blatant abuse of human rights and lack of respect for his country's courts, why did they applaud him when defended these despicable policies?

Two points need to be made. The first is that African leaders were not alone in applauding Mr Mugabe. They were joined by some leaders of other developing countries. This must mean that some of Mr Mugabe's views also struck a chord with them. The second is that applause for Mr Mugabe does not necessarily imply wholesale endorsement of what he said, let alone approval of what he has been doing in Zimbabwe.

The applause can be explained by the fact that there was a lot of truth in what he said. There is a serious land problem in Zimbabwe, and no self-respecting African would find acceptable a situation where 20 years after independence vast tracts of land continue to be monopolised by a minority. So the land inequity had to change to a much fairer system that would see the majority getting back some of their forebears' land. For that there would be applause from people confronting similar problems in their own countries.

There would be a justified applause, too, for Mr Mugabe's assertion that former colonial powers like Britain were the cause of the land problem in the first place, in addition to the positive legacy of infrastructure that they left behind. It reflects very poorly on the UK that, despite its commitment in the Lancaster House Agreement to helping Zimbabwe address its land problems in a legal and orderly manner, the money has yet to be made available.

Where many would differ with Mr Mugabe is over the objectionable and illegal methods he has used to address the problem, and that the necessary land reform is used for political ends. Mr Mugabe has been at the head of the Zimbabwean government since independence 22 years ago, yet it was not until he faced a political challenge from the fledgling Movement for Democratic Change that he started to talk about land reform.

That is why it has been difficult for African leaders to stand on public platforms and denounce Mr Mugabe, as the West has repeatedly demanded. They agree with him on the need for land to be transferred to the majority, but are deeply embarrassed by the methods he has used to achieve that goal and the way he has stolen the March elections and generally violated human rights.

The Namibian President, on the other hand, is a close friend and political ally of Mr Mugabe. In the past three months he has himself warned Namibia's "arrogant white farmers" to co-operate with his land redistribution programme or face a fate similar to the one visited upon their Zimbabwean counterparts. It appears that Mr Nujoma, who got his country's constitution amended to enable him to serve a third term, is planning to take a leaf from Mr Mugabe's book and may be preparing both his country and the international community for that period.

My impression is that the other leaders will continue to champion Nepad and adhere to legal and orderly land reform in their respective countries. Mr Blair is correct when he insists that Mr Mugabe and Mr Nujoma represent a minority in Africa.

The most unfortunate part for Nepad and its champions, such as South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, is that the man singled out for such public ridicule on Monday also happens to be Africa's strongest friend in the West.