>> coming up next, book tv presents afterwards, an hour-long program where we invite guest host to interview, authors. the former documentary filmmaker exports the weeks following the electoral defeat of one of africa's longest standing governments. the zimbabwe native provides an inside look at the tactics of the leader who refused to relinquish office. he discusses this firsthand account with the transafrica forum. >> thank you so much for joining me here today. your book is the third book in a trilogy of books regarding zimbabwe. ..

>> guest: i was sent to do a story about the end of the three-year rule, and it turned into something completely different. it turned into mugabe essentially declared war on his own people. and launched this campaign of torture on an industrial scale. and all foreign journalists and many observers were thrown out. a lot of the ngos were suspended or closed or that very.

allow the opposition leadership fled the country. they were in danger, their lives were in danger. but i stayed for that period, and the fear is really a kind of summation of what happened in those very, very dark days. >> host: you are a zimbabwean, so in some ways a memoir of going back home, although one of her chapters says you can never go home again. but tell us a little bit about that. tell us about growing up in zimbabwe. clearly you are a white zimbabwean, and there's been a lot of talk around race relations in zimbabwe. and i think many people in the united states see a very polarized situation where the blacks, the majority population, continue to live in poverty. we are not really sure frankly who's fault that is. >> guest: zimbabwe is a very confusing country to look at through the filter of the american experience, the filter

particular of the african-american experience. and mugabe understands very well how to suspend the story to maximum advantage. what you have is, you have the basic narrative of rhodesia, and my upbringing, when i grew up in the country it will still rhodesia, white will, minority rule. my own particular family were white liberals. we lived in a rural area and my mother was a doctor. i went to multiracial church or what happened -- there was a seven-year guerrilla war for liberation, and in 1980 mugabe wins election and becomes the first black then prime minister of the new nation of zimbabwe. now, at its very height, the white community in zimbabwe never exceeded 300,000, maybe a quarter of them in. i mean, really about 1% of the

population, maybe. what happened at that point, a lot of whites had left during the war. the war went on for a long time. and in 1980 when mugabe came to power no one expected him, no foreign observers, the brits, the clone apart didn't expect him to come to power. he was seen as the most militant, even seen as economies. they was worried he would be the one who had kind of a racial vendetta. and, in fact, when he came to power, none of these things came to pass. he was remarkably modernist in the early days. he didn't nationalize. he reached out to the white community and invited them, in fact, a few of them to stay and to contribute. whatever happened in the past, happen. we are embarking on this new nation of the zimbabwe where, whether you're asian, white or whatever, all come together. in a sense we were the precursor

of post apartheid south africa. we saw ourselves as the rainbow nation at that point. >> host: what happened? clearly what we see now in south africa did emerge and the, although he was jailed for over 20 years, he came to power and there was, at least a summit of harmony. they're still problems in south africa but they're going down most people in the right path. was zimbabwe is really tumbling out of control. what happened there? >> guest: without going into too much detail about domestic policy in south africa, the one crucial thing you put your finger on, modica, he stood down after five years. south africa is on its on its third president. we've never gotten past our first. what happened was mugabe, now 87, had been in power for over 30 years. would actually happen is that he installed himself and became more and more dictatorial, more

authoritarian, and then dictatorial. and very quickly establish a one party state with a total grip on power. now, it's interesting because in those early days, i mean, land was always a big issue, and we read a lot about the land in zimbabwe. and so far as you read about zimbabwe in the american press, the story that has excited the media here more than any other story on the land invasion. so you have a situation again in which it's quite easy to spend the opposite, which are that a very small group of white people on the disproportionate amount of land. what happened, if i can get back to the 1980, that speech at a copy of make and he reached out in particular to commercial farmers, iran is very inefficient had a productive aggro industries. and said listen, i'm not going

to kick you off or land but if you want to contribute, what i want you to do is go back and to grow food and i want you to feed not only zimbabwe, but the region. and they did. that carried on essentially for nearly 30 years. it certainly carried over 20 years, when suddenly he moved against the form. now, and when he moved against the farm he dressed it up in the rhetoric of addressing historical bills. >> host: but certainly to talk about south africa is one thing, but then you look at the fact that certainly mugabe was in a position to really be one of the only postcolonial leaders in southern africa for about 10 years. he didn't receive the support i think that most zimbabweans believed he would receive for his sorts of economic progress. so to what extent is zimbabwe story, also start of the failure

of the international community to support those sorts of new efforts to really put not only the vote but the wealth in the hands of the majority? >> guest: there are two issues. the first is land reform, given that agriculture was the economic engine that primary drives zimbabwe. and the curious thing is, for the longest time mugabe's party didn't feel about me. when i grew up i told land was second only to racial discrimination as a reason for the war. the fact that black people couldn't vote. land was a close second, this was primarily a real country. but it's my belief, this is likely, that what happens is one of the copies start achievements in those early years is education. that what happens is even under repeating days of the logistics

of education were quite good, the infrastructure was there, but mugabe spent on education. he quickly became the most literate nation in africa, the most educated by four with a huge middle-class. what tends to happen when you educate people and we see is all over the third world, they don't want farm anymore. if you go to university get a degree you don't want to go told in the field. he want to go to an office, you want to get the kind of job. so the pressure to go back to the land wasn't that big. people were not clamoring for a. it was on the front burner. there were two or three efforts, and there was foreign money to back up land reform. and they never actually happened, none of it happened until 2000 when the land invasion happened. and really the main thing about the land invasion, and you don't read this in the foreign media very often because again, what they love is the sort of racial

bindery of these things, it's very easy to see on the television set. but the copies will target wasn't so much the 10th thousand or so white farmers. it was the million or so black farm workers who were members of the farmers, the farmworkers union and which supported the opposition, the mdc. and it was a big million vote block that mugabe need to break up extreme to break up the commercial farming structure, which he did very successfully. >> i think you're raising an important point that there are these stories of change, although we've had the same there in zimbabwe for 30 years. there's certainly been changes within society. your book i think is an amazing job in presenting to us the view from the ground up, after the 2008 election and really what

people were experiencing. i frankly was quite struck not only by the level of fear that people have but also the brutality that people had experience. i wonder if you want to talk a little bit about some of the people that you met and spoke with. and the treatment that they received just for possibly being in the opposition party. without even evidence of being opposition party, many people refuse. can you talk about that? >> guest: it was a very, very extreme. i've been a foreign correspondent, a war correspondent for decades. i've covered wars all over africa and i've never seen anything quite this premeditat premeditated. and what was so shocking about this was that the victims were not armed. they were not threats to anybody. they were peaceable, democratic activists. what essentially happened was no god and his people had lists of the opposition, the mdc's office, but not the top people.

just at village level and whatever the chairman, chairwoman, those type, and they found out across the country, the copies people, and they burned down the house is, the activist houses and they pulled into these uniform torture basis which ironically was cited in schools, because schools have stopped working because allied with the farm invasions they were -- by 2008 the zimbabwe dollar was hardly. so the civil service from the teachers and whatever, had on essentially stopped working. the activists were pulled into the schools. they were tortured on an industrial scale. thousands and thousands of people are run through these torture basis where they were thrashed within inches of their lives. they couldn't set, they couldn't lie down.

the flesh was ripped from their bodies. they use this other torture methods were you beat somebody on the soles of the feet so badly that they couldn't stand. terrible pain. the hospitals were not working. what they did was by and large, people did die. people were killed, but the intention was mostly to torture them very severely and then to release them back into their own community so these people would be pushed on wheelbarrows coming in, trying to get a lift to walk at night. and eventually come back to their own communities where they would act as human billboards. they would be advertisements for what happened to you if you oppose the regime. and they would spread ripples of anxiety through their home communities when they reemerged. this went on for months. >> host: who knew? you suspect of the journals were

pushed out that one of the things i've that was very interesting in your book is you talk about the church, and the church's role. i remember a few -- actually when you are on the ground covering these stories, i remember reading one civil rights leader here in the state said the job he can't possibly be torturing people, he's a christian. and so there is a belief that his faith has really driven him, it drove him in two wars, it drove him to politics. he has stayed in as a leader because he does have multiple political and spiritual obligation. so this is the belief. so i'm just one how has the church and other institutions, what role are they playing to highlight these situations and to uncover the problems in zimbabwe? >> guest: the church, there are different churches. mousavi himself as a catholic in the group as a jesuit. in fact, he was so inculcated in

catholicism that he lived actually in the mission station. he was abandoned by his father. his father was abandoned when their very young but in many respects they just want to rant that mission station was sort of almost a substitute father for him. and i think that he had had a lengthy relationship with the catholic church ever since. the catholic church was very active in rhodesian days in condemning the security forces same that the war that was being fought with just war. in other words, it was a liberation war and the people -- they were at that point, they backed mugabe. coming, in moral terms. but very quickly what did happen, and all too soon forget the early on in the copies rule in 1983, he'd been in power for barely three years, he sent his north korean trained brigade into the southern province where

there had been trouble, there have been political protest and a sporadic security issue. but he sent them into targets against the civilian population, in particular office space of a different opposition party. and they killed within probably about 20,000 civilians. it's never been a proper inquiry, no one has ever been arrested. and the catholic church condemned it. they didn't condemn and they brought out a report. several years later. i was a rookie reporter in those days and reported on that and got death threats and thrown out of the country at that point. but at that point, too, mugabe's relationship with the catholic church started to change. and he still went to church and things and they have been very kind to the system, during war. but he was less, you know, less

obviously trusting of them. and the reason was happen come a strange situation where the anglican church has actually split. and there's a pro-mugabe priest was taken over the physical church, although has almost no congregation. so the anglican church, the worshipers can't get to the church. they have to worship in streets and in health. >> host: said you're describing systematic torture. this is not the random gangs of people. it's systematic torture by the state. and are also described a situation where the church, is basically impotent to do anything about it, or has chosen not to. and i guess i'm just wondering, what infrastructure is in place where victims can go in zimbabwe, or anywhere in southern africa? who is fighting for the people of zimbabwe? who is fighting for the opposition victims? who is fighting to ensure the church and other organizations

can operate? >> guest: i mean, what happened in this particular time and what tends to happen is the ngos, the various ngos, and they do it exist human rights ngos as well as social ngos, for food and care and medical help, they are put on notice and they are very vulnerable. and right now, as with sort of entering into the pre-election period, there will likely to be elections in zimbabwe later this year or early next year, the violence, there's an uptick of violence and they have arrested various ngos, human rights ngos leaders. what they normally do is accuse them of high treason which carries a potential death penalty. just recently they arrested 45 people for watching in fact, the tunisian and egyptian uprising on tv. i think nine fm have now been

charged with high treason. and there's another ngo head has been arrested as well. someone else was arrested for putting a comment on a facebook page saying do each of them are whatever. so he has now been accused of high treason. and the residents, art gallery, a director, he was arrested and accused of high treason. so, you know, it becomes very oppressive. mugabe becomes are you allergic to many criticism. and in times like that it is very difficult to provide the support, you know, activists are very vulnerable at times like that. there isn't really any way for them to turn. it's hard for them to find protection in a situation like that. >> host: one of the things that many people in the united states are not aware of, and i only became aware of it after visiting zimbabwe, is it's

illegal for more than i believe it's three people that are unrelated to be in the same room at the same time. that is, and less, without permission from the state. and that's shocking of course to most people when they hear that. and i'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the ways in which the judicial system has been used, or the legislative system has been used to prop up the power already in place. >> guest: one of many ironies of the situation is there is a parliament. a department of democracy but in truth, ever since been spent with the prime minister of rhodesia he started to realize more and more what the role was because it was state emergency declared on what is not emergency power where you as prime minister, now president, which is basically write it off published that on friday. so a lot of laws get passed that way, especially security law.

so the law that you are talking about is one that basically prohibits anybody from gathering without permission. and under that regulation, mugabe has just canceled the last three attempted rallies by the opposition. they don't have to give a reason. they just make up some reason, but they can just cancel it. then if you get together, you committed a crime. but also there's this other crimes which is to bring the president into disrespect. but if you just criticize him and say it's all a egypt or whatever, and you have probably preached that law. it has very, very serious penalty. so it's a very repressive regime in that sense. but right now we're in a really complex situation where after the chief election of talk about, after the torture where mugabe then basically declares

himself president in the second month and even though he was clearly beaten in the first round, the two sides, the opposition of the government pulled together in this absurd hybrid government. it's a worrying trend in africa now, but when the incumbent loses, it's declared a draw. it happened in kenya. it's all coming to a climax now. and then in zimbabwe. and, of course, you paper over these crimes. there's no real political resolution. so what's supposed to happen in zimbabwe, after this national unity, which is not at all united, that was a transitional period during which also to democratic reforms would come in, including the right to have political rallies, the right of access to electronic media, all sorts of things like that, very few of which have, in fact, happen. >> host: what is the

enforcement mechanism? can you talk about who's in charge of making sure. clearly, my understanding is that mugabe's government has retained basically control of the police and the military. >> guest: and the hard ministries. >> host: right. and the party has -- >> guest: education, health. >> host: and finance. which, of course, we all know is spiraling out of control. what enforcement mechanism for the international community's the fourth? you describe a police force, clearly their own adversaries are the people and they're not fighting a foreign war. so who's making sure -- >> guest: the problem, the international unit is that from the very beginning, going back to president bush coming he handed off the zimbabwe conflict to south africa.

will instead he was the point man on zimbabwe. south africa as the sort of great power in the region was going to kind of sorted out, and they're going to do it through the southern african development community. and so technically they should be doing to say you're not doing enough for this one, whatever. but in practice, this hasn't really happened. so in practice when you put your finger on the problem, which is mugabe cherry picks the reform, but the important ones like, for example, zimbabwe television, zimbabwe broadcasting corporation, radio, is very important in rural communities, absolutely complete monopoly for mugabe. you can have any independent registrations in zimbabwe. so there's things like that. that's not, you know, the gnu was established on the basis

that all these things would be allowed. and they're not. so he is a breach. >> host: i have to push on this a bit because in your book, i mean, it's striking how the situation that people find themselves in. there's one story you told of a father with his wife and his four year old, and i but his nine year old daughter as well -- sock in his four -month-old and his nine year old daughter, and he said i'm going to run this would. and the rest of you in that way to save your lives from mugabe's forces closing in on their little home. south africa is in charge of ensuring the safety of people. they're in charge of ensuring that the government is not in breach. with stories like that, how is it possible that people are turning a blind eye to what is happening? >> guest: technically the torture that i described happened, that's what led up to the establishment of this hybrid

government. i mean, subsequently the violence hasn't been quite as bad, although as i said it's now starting to get worse, worse again. and that's the worry. but i mean, that case, the case you were referring to, the kind of bravery he showed and deliberately drawing the attention, the fire away from his wife and kids so they could escape, and i came across that solitons. there was another grandstanding as a local council, an opposition counsel in a previously mugabe heartland area of and among hundreds of militia came an iphone. he did pretty much the same thing and ran off, and they charged him with spears and rocks and everything to and eventually they felt him and his lie down all these people. and he turned around to them and said you better kill me because i know who you are now.

and i'm going to come back and get you. and i thought, why would you say that? i was a comp i seen the error of my ways, and i said why did you say that? he said i was mad. he said because it was true. so, you know, sort of bravery, almost to an insane degree of. >> host: and why, can you describe, i'm imagining you will be, you have to ask them why, why it is so important a part of the opposition party if you're facing death within your community, if you try to do with the national structures, you are clearly going to be noted and you may be beaten, you may be killed. why are people so opposed to the mugabe government? >> guest: they are opposed because zimbabwe has collapsed. it went from being come from have hired -- highest standard of living in africa to one of the lowest.

they have lost all freedom. they were offered what they thought at that point was a true election. in zimbabwe and i believe really our democratic. there are other african countries with institutions are very weak, where people are not that educated, which difficult and unique more than just an election to establish a real democracy. but zimbabwe has these things. it has a tradition. it had lawyers and doctors and accountants. it had a big vibrant, a civic society, debates, and people cared about this. if there's one country in africa where democracy really good work and where you really could get a grip, its zimbabwe. and you can see that when you talk to people. they really are democrats, and they decided to do it in the vein of gandhi and martin luther king or whatever, the opposition wouldn't be violent, that they

would be peaceable. in the face of enormous publication, they pretty much state that which is again extraordinary. but they haven't been rewarded for it by the international community because basically we only get involved when the body count goes up. so because of zimbabweans, they don't fight back, they have just been peaceable, the international community ignores them. it's happened more in darfur, more in congo, even in other places to some extent. and that's the irony of it goes that you mentioned civil rights movement and i always think while for so long the cameras were not there, there were no photographs, no when you of the violence that african-americans in this country were experiencing. at some point the cameras did show up, and that was so important to give the movement a boost to let people know in the north, for example, that in the

south this is what people are experiencing. and i'm wondering, you know, when is the calvary going to show up? when is the media going to take notice? you're a part of the media. you're a journalist. zimbabwe issue home. when do you think the tide will turn? >> guest: the problem is that mugabe will keep the media out so television in particular you can't just walk in, you can decide to go into a piece of walking tomorrow. >> host: but mubarak attempted to keep after me in egypt as well. >> guest: they were allowed in. zimbabwe, it's been very difficult to get in, but also your right. the interest in the story haven't been there. my worry is that to some extent, i mean, i covered the last five or six years of apartheid and does a huge story. again, talk about civil rights. the cameras turned up, and you know, the future of south africa almost took place on people's

television screens because of the story that ran night after night with these very -- post to illustrate important aspect and that's what drove the story. if your screens go dark, its work much more difficult to keep an issue alive. but my worry is that the reason, one of the main reasons that apartheid was such a big story was that it had white people involved in it, and why people behaving badly. and when you have a south african disparagingly called black on black violence, that the international media stops being so interested. zimbabwe, they get interested when the white farmers are

kind of look like they are going to succeed, and talk like this, he destabilizes them. the two or three people who were taught about successes have blood on their heads that they're the people of been in charge of this oppression over many, many years. so, in fact, things could get, could be destabilized once he is gone. it's not just, i sometimes think the international communities,

the whole of their policies are wait until mugabe dies. i think, i don't think that the policy. >> host: i wonder though, i think the other question that many people have that follows zimbabwe some of our, but who are these people that they're still voting for mugabe? because while most people do believe that morgan did when the last election, they have had a pretty good showing. i'm just wondering what is the impetus behind following the part of the copyright now? we know what the opposition party -- we've made it pretty clear but i'm wondering why are people still, i the also in zimbabwe caught up with the rhetoric of the struggle of the liberation struggle? "the fear" mugabe's actual vote collapse. we don't know what was because there was so much, the count was up there. for example, zimbabwe has the lowest lifespan in the world i think, it was down to i think 38

or 39. and yet on the electoral roll there were thousands and thousands of people were 110 years old. yet the figures are a figment. that's part of the product the people who counted them are also unreliable. on many, many added to that you enormous intimidation. for example, to go to a local government and say to him, you people in your area, if they don't vote for pierce then you won't get anymore this or that. he did that. he had reform when he said he would ask going to increase the number of polling station. so instead of three or four villages going to say molestation, and that way they didn't vote for mugabe you could always blame the other villages. but they would not just have one village and that would be to go to the village head and say, we know you are, you vote the right way. and you go to his people as they please, we have no option. so the truth is that there's

some people in daily. some people in his home area, there are some people, but the actual figures, i mean, in a real free and fair election avoid opposition had access to media and what they are counted properly, the opinion polls i've seen have mugabe the real vote under the circumstances sinking to as low as 10%. >> host: it's interesting because in your book you talk about these village heads and have important they are, not only certainly assisting the regime at least knowing who is who and who believes what, but they also sometimes use the power to ensure that people in the opposition get safe passage. one story you told, someone was keeping a letter from his village had the same this guy is fine, let him pass without being hard. in fact, something like adobe didn't. >> guest: and that village had would show up as, blah, blah,

blah. people which of a bigger trying to live their lives for their try to get the. mugabe did this thing where every system goes, he threatened that he said he would cut off food day. he wouldn't allow the u.n. and ngos, defeating these to get into those areas because lots of reason to vote for mugabe other than just being enthusiastic about voting for mugabe. it's just a question of survival. >> host: i want to talk about what happens next, and i'm interested to hear your forecast. but i want to raise the issue of women in zimbabwe. two different ways. i notice is certainly brutality toward women, it's quite severe. and disturbing. so i'd like to hear, talk a lot about that. but on the flipside, one of the things i found so interesting about the book is how the women in your life played a role in this story, your mother, your

sister came on the journey with you. so i'd like to talk a little bit about women. so often in places where there's conflict and divisiveness, women are ground zero for the violence, they are the most impoverished. they of course are taking care of children, also are victims of this. of this sort of situation. you talked a little bit of a zimbabwe and women. >> guest: zimbabwean women are preventable population. i mean, they have been educated, a lot of them, among general population. and they are extraordinary women. you are right. there's this incredible feisty lawyer who goes in to defend all sorts of opposition people, and it's possibly harass and one thing or another. and she's about five-foot, but she's absolutely -- she's astonishing.

there's morgan tsvangirai's wife who was tragically killed in the event i'm talking about who was enormously influential on him. one of the women who is the deputy president, is it is mugabe dies what is in power, she would at least nominally takeover. she's also a very strong. another who is hiding at the moment was technically the minister of home affairs. she's supposed in charge of the police, but the police were looking for her to arrest her last week. i mean, you're absolutely right. i mean, that women plays a very important role in zimbabwe on all sides actually. it's interesting. >> host: and the woman in your life, your sister came on this journey from great britain try to she lives in london now and my mother lives with her. she came with me. and it made it much easier for us to be, you know, we didn't conform, we didn't look like

journalists are writers or whatever. we are from there. she's a great traveling companion. she's a great asset in helping the sort of lower intense situation that you also meet tasha she also used to be a media personnel. she was like a dj and had a music program. so, that also made it a lot easier traveling around. >> host: i got the impression, tell me if i'm wrong about this, but i got the impression there's a lot of people in the diaspora from different countries that are expecting turmoil. they are i want to waste people normally handle it. they move on with allies, they moved to london, moved to new york, whatever, and are successful and they do the best that they can given the fact that they're not in their home country. then there are others that go back. it sounds like you and your sister had determined that you're going to at least place a

partner destinies in the hands of what happened in zimbabwe, in that you want to be a part of a solution in zimbabwe. and i always wonder, why is that? you could blend in very easily in london. why do you -- guess that it's a good question. i think i should say to myself really, i need to move on. but zimbabwe is such an amazing story. it's -- the narrative is so compelling, and the tragedy is so extraordinary, and the people there are amazing. anyone who travels to zimbabwe to sort of infected by. they come back, i've got lots of american friends who go there for the first time and it infects in a way that other countries don't affect them. i think there's a larger point though which is the difference between the way that immigrants behave and the way that exiles behaved. so people who arrive in a new country because looking for economic opportunity whatever,

they tend to be very positive, lincoln, move forward, and americanize, whatever it is. people who have been dislocated from would have come from the didn't miss it want to leave in the first place but circumstances have made them homeless or they are excised. they tend to have this kind of disk continued attachment to the homeland. i'll tell you something that's interesting that increases that would have passed it by, i want to do a ph.d on account is the impact that the web has had on this but what used to happen is the shot would fall, 300,000 iranians arrived in america and it's hard to call home at the expense if you can't get a line. let us take for ever, sensors look at them, whatever. and eventually quite quickly the next generations. but now it's zimbabwe and leave and they're all iming and even each other, and some was having

more contact with each other, both in the diaspora into people back home than they were when they were living there. so they keep up that contact. at a very high metabolic rate once they have left. >> host: we've seen what's happened in north africa. it's been striking. and the best of our scholars and academics didn't see -- >> guest: none of them saw it coming. >> host: sony people believe this is going to be an opportunity for all over africa for people to be able to take the reins of power and ensure a fruitful destiny for the country. and i wonder what you think the prospects for that are in zimbabwe. you discuss the facts either at the end of this year, beginning of next the supposed the supposed be an election at i believe the election is a little bit late but there's supposed to be an election. repression may be on the uptake. who is left? >> guest: what's supposed to

happen is they're supposed to be a new constitution and elections supposed to take place under these conditions, free and flare and blah, blah, blah. bugatti wants to push ahead and have elections with things as they are because he can still sell them and intimidate people. the south africans have to stop there. that's what we are on that front. a zimbabwe's have been watching what's going on in north africa, and our enormous encouraged by. but there's one big problem. and it's a factor in egypt and tunisia, which i think sometimes isn't identified