The pope and Zimbabwe

Pope Benedict is a man of tact and nuance. Where his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, had a tendency towards blunt talk, Benedict is a refined diplomat.

His statement to the Zimbabwean bishops that the clearly rigged parliamentary elections in March “laid the basis for what I trust will be a new beginning in the process of national reconciliation and the moral rebuilding of society,” seems strangely at odds with a reality where hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans are living in fear of political intimidation, and face hunger because of the avarice of their political leaders.

In his address to the bishops, Pope Benedict echoed his words to Zimbabwe’s new ambassador, who presented his credentials before the pope on June 16.

Pope Benedict reminded ambassador David Douglas Hamadziripi that “at this important hour in the history of your country, particular concern must be shown for the poor, the disenfranchised and the young.”

As he spoke, tens of thousands of poor families faced a winter without shelter after a government operation arbitrarily destroyed their homes and stripped them of their livelihoods.

This is in stark contrast to Pope John Paul’s scathing public censure of injustices in Zimbabwe, especially the land seizures, when he welcomed that country’s ambassador in May 2003. While the late pope’s criticism left Zimbabwe’s government untouched, it arguably helped galvanise the Zimbabwean bishops in writing the pastoral statements which Pope Benedict so warmly endorsed.

Many might have preferred it had Pope Benedict against his cautious character spoken out with vigour against the atrocities committed by President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF, and perhaps acknowledge that the elections in which he is investing some hope were fundamentally flawed.

One may suppose that the pope’s measured approach at least partly intended to moderate the forthright statements of Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo, who has courageously articulated the frustrations of many of his compatriots, at home and abroad. If so, it must be hoped that the pope’s diplomacy will not be seen as a repudiation of Archbishop Ncube.

Zimbabwe is experiencing a human rights disaster of appalling proportions. “Operation Murambatsvina” has targeted urban constituencies where Mr Mugabe has enjoyed little political support. It is a crime against humanity to deprive up to 300000 people of shelter and livelihood. The bishops of Zimbabwe in their pastoral letter “The Cry of the Poor” have described the campaign as a “gross injustice” to the poor which “cries out for vengeance to God”.

Speaking on British television station Channel 4 last month, Archbishop Ncube compared the lack of international action against human rights abuses in Zimbabwe to the Rwandan situation 11 years ago. “We’ve seen what happened in Rwanda: people standing around, the UN standing around, the African countries did nothing about it.” The silence is indeed deafening.

Pope Benedict chose not to speak out against “Operation Murambatsvina” or against other human rights violations in Zimbabwe. We must trust that this decision was well-informed and intended for the greater good. His praise for successive pastoral statements by the Zimbabwean bishops must be read as a veiled criticism of the Mugabe regime.

However, Pope Benedict’s brand of diplomacy, while suitable for a pope, cannot be a model in the wider Church’s pursuit for justice and peace.

A pontiff may not feel free to speak explicitly on political matters even when human rights are being violated. For the rest of us, it is a duty to protest loudly and forcefully.