European scholars need to act now to support Zimbabwean academic freedom, says Karen MacGregor
Events in the Middle East have pushed Zimbabwe from the consciousness of the world. But, as the regime of Robert Mugabe continues to repress democracy, academic and other freedoms are being trampled on by draconian laws and police clampdowns, intellectuals arrested and muzzled, and many students and academics literally live in fear for their lives.
Yet academia has remained largely silent. The words "academic boycott" have barely been mentioned. If European academics care enough about Palestinian freedoms to sign Steven and Hilary Rose's petition urging the severing of cultural and research links with Israel, should they not think along similar lines for Zimbabwe?
The European Union, US and others have imposed "smart" sanctions on Zimbabwe's leaders but not on those of Israel, so presumably the relative strength of the case against the Zimbabwean regime's abuses compared with those of Israel has been accepted.
The UK's Network for Education and Academic Rights is concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe and has promised a campaign to raise international awareness while providing support for threatened Zimbabwean students and academics. Its campaign will call on the academic and human-rights communities to challenge conditions in Zimbabwe. What type of action is still to be decided, but academic boycotts, action alerts and discussions with academic associations, including the Association of Commonwealth Universities, will be on the agenda.
There are many powerful arguments against a boycott. Boycotts are notoriously difficult to agree or implement. There are many repressive regimes, and wholesale boycotts of unpopular governments will dilute their impact. Apartheid South Africa was a unique case that transcended academics' normal reticence to suspend contacts. But, judged on the demerits of Zimbabwe's government, and its universities' actions against critical students and academics, there is a strong case to be made in favour of this stance.
This year's presidential election result means that Zimbabweans face a further two years of repression and political violence that has already claimed more than 120 lives and committed 30,000 cases of intimidation, beating and torture and, local groups say, half-a-million rights violations. The ruling Zanu PF party has become as degraded as South Africa was during apartheid in terms of draconian laws and state-sponsored violence against critics and supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
Since the election, journalists, opposition activists and intellectuals have been arrested, demonstrations banned and hundreds of people beaten, tortured or killed. Last week, Lovemore Madhuku, a University of Zimbabwe law lecturer and chair of the National Constitutional Assembly, was arrested ahead of a protest that the NCA was organising - his second arrest.
At the UZ, seen as a hotbed of opposition, political activities are outlawed. The campus bristles with spies, private security and police. Pro-democracy and student-issue protests deteriorate into clashes with police. Dozens of students have been arrested, some after the election, and more than 30 suspended from their studies in the past year.
Along with other Zimbabweans, students are suffering real hardship, with economic collapse and 117 per cent inflation eroding their grants by the day.
Students claim that on campus there is a state-sponsored youth militia, which is blamed for beatings and tortures of opposition supporters, and heavy security aimed at intimidating students. Journalists have to seek permission to visit the university, and academics are not allowed to be interviewed on a range of topics.
Vice-chancellor Graham Hill insists there is academic freedom, with staff able to teach and research what they want. But academics say they are denied promotion, their activities are closely monitored and their work questioned. Many have left, and those who remain are increasingly taking to publishing their work outside the country.
The Public Order and Security Act outlaws criticism of Mr Mugabe and his government, while the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act places the media under state control, making informed criticism by academics, a cornerstone of democracy, impossible.
Since the election, government crackdowns have - if anything - intensified. If a complete boycott is too crude, perhaps the academic world should do what it does best - be "smart" and begin to consider how to act against specific individuals and institutions allied to Mr Mugabe's government.
Karen MacGregor was The THES 's correspondent in Zimbabwe during the presidential elections.