Cynicism as a substitute for scholarship
By Stephen Gowans
Mahmood Mamdani's largely sympathetic analysis of the Mugabe government,
"Lessons of Zimbabwe," published in the December 4, 2008 London Review of
Books, has been met with a spate of replies from progressive scholars who
are incensed at the Ugandan academic throwing out the rule book to present
an argument based on rigor and analysis, rather than on the accustomed
elaboration of comfortable slogans and prejudices that has marked much
progressive scholarship on Zimbabwe. Their criticism of Mamdani has been
characterized by ad hominem assaults, arguments that either lack substance
or sense, and the substitution of cynicism for scholarship.
At the heart of what might be called the anti-Mugabe ideology lays the idea
that the Zimbabwean leadership clings to power through crude
anti-imperialist rhetoric used to divert blame for problems of its own
making. This is an elaboration of elite theory -- the idea that a small
group seeks power for power's sake, and manipulates the public through lies
and rhetoric to stay on top. For example, one group of progressive scholars
complains about "Mugabe's rhetoric of imperialist victimization," while
Horace Campbell argues that,
"The Zimbabwe government is very aware of the anti-imperialist and
anti-racist sentiments among oppressed peoples and thus has deployed a range
of propagandists inside and outside the country in a bid to link every
problem in Zimbabwe to international sanctions by the EU and USA."
Contrary to the empty rhetoric school of thought, Mugabe's anti-imperialist
rhetoric is not unattended by anti-imperialist action, but in some extreme
versions of anti-Mugabe thought, (for example, that put forward by Patrick
Bond), Mugabe is an errand boy for Western capital. The Zimbabwean
leader's anti-imperialist reputation is, according to this view, smoke and
mirrors, an illusion conjured by a deft magician.
Full article at:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/cynicism-as-a-substitute-for-scholarship