Mugabe the survivor?

[Cuddly Ocelot]

E Ba Gum. Spelt backwards

[Tangled Metal]

Not in a strong position? Hmmm!

The army coup that isn't a coup? The SADC and AU have been trying to ditch the dictator on Africa look with coups being deemed incompatible with modern Africa. Basically if Zimbabwe wants to stay part of those organizations it can't have a coup. If Mugabe resists it's a coup, if he gets his way he'll resign and it's not officially a couple so they stay in those bodies.

The army and his opponents have handed him a strong position.

I heard crocodile got his name because he was a wiley guerrilla fighter in the fight against Smith (IIRC that's the name of the white minority rule leader). It's a comment on fighting style not cruelty. As in stealthy fighter, ambush fighter. It's a very old nickname earnt before Mugabe's rule when he became his behind the scenes enforcer / right hand man.

Of course back then he was a brutal fighter against a brutal opposition in the form of Smith's government and army. He was brutal working for Mugabe. Nobody in a high rank in Zanu-PF is anything but part of that brutality. I doubt even the opposition are clean in that respect.

As far as I know being fat in the face isn't a crime. Many countries in Africa seem to have populations with fat faces. Is it not too do with something other than corruption?

[Bonefishblues]

Two aspects seemingly glossed over in most reporting. Did Mugabe "get worse"? No - "In fact, the signs of his attitude to opposition were there from the early 1980s, when members of the North-Korea trained Fifth Brigade of the army were sent to Matabeleland, home to his then rival, Joshua Nkomo. Thousands of civilians were killed..." His true colours always clear. Is his(likely) replacement "better"? No. All the evidence and past actions strongly suggest that quite as brutal and equally corrupt. Nickname the "crocodile" not apparently from his political attributes, rather his brutality.

All those celebrating the presumed change will see nothing new....

I think this view flies in the face of the general consensus, which is that Mugabe's early years were generally positive in their effect for his country. I don't doubt that he has always had the capacity for utter ruthlessness though.

I also hope that your pessimistic view of the future is proved wrong.

[djnotts]

Realistic, not pessimistic.

For example see http://www.business-anti-corruption.com ... s/zimbabwe

If the populace is very lucky, the best it can hope for is to become an economic satellite of that well known bastion of democracy ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42012629

Much of Africa is destined to fall before the next wave of imperialism.

[Bonefishblues]

Whatever you term it, I hope (and expect) you are proved wrong, as do millions of Zimbabwe citizens - who have high levels of education and literacy (1st in most tables) in the context of prevailing African standards.

I'm optimistic this is a turning point, and I think in the light of the above that the next incumbent will find it much more difficult to subjugate a population.

[Tangled Metal]

You didn't read the bit about re-engagement with the west. Or about Chinese and British embassies being the biggest. Or Britain connected deeply with business, civil society and opposition but Chinese with zanu-pf and I pricked technical support such as security. Or how China is only interested in stable government for investment. Or how China is looking elsewhere in Africa.

Only saying that it doesn't actually look to me like they're the sole imperialist nation with Zimbabwe. We're still right up there in the Zimbabwean imperialism stakes.

If you want to look for Chinese imperialism then take a look at australian mining areas. Some mining areas are bought and paid for wholly by China. Not always to the benefit of locals.

[mercalia]

Whatever you term it, I hope (and expect) you are proved wrong, as do millions of Zimbabwe citizens - who have high levels of education and literacy (1st in most tables) in the context of prevailing African standards.

I'm optimistic this is a turning point, and I think in the light of the above that the next incumbent will find it much more difficult to subjugate a population.

well I suppose who ever takes over will realise what ever happens to Mug will happen to them sooner or later and maybe moderate their behaviour? Surly the day for African Autocrats is soon coming to an end? One hopes

[meic]

will realise what ever happens to Mug will happen to them sooner or later

Already has happened. Tortured by the white Rhodesians and a decade in jail for sedition.

Or do you mean surviving to be the longest serving, democratically elected, leader in the world?

[mercalia]

will realise what ever happens to Mug will happen to them sooner or later

Already has happened. Tortured by the white Rhodesians and a decade in jail for sedition.

Or do you mean surviving to be the longest serving, democratically elected, leader in the world?

you forgot the" " so I have added it - thats what Zim democracy is about

[meic]

Depends on "what side you are on".
The imperfections in the voting dont mean that the MDC actually has a higher proportion of the electorate. They do have a much greater support from the West though.

[Ben@Forest]

I feel sorry for the ordinary people in Rhodesia

Of course when it was Rhodesia they were not even allowed to vote and the repression was just as violent.

You do have a odd turn with facts - blacks were allowed to vote in Rhodesia. However the electoral system was set up in a way that those who contributed more tax or had more property (whites) got more representation than those who contributed less (blacks). This was inherently unfair but technically the system did have the capacity to allow change (i.e. as blacks got richer they would get more representation). This, needless to say, did not happen in the 70-odd years the system was in place.

I don't think it was right and of course income or property was an anachronistic way of determining suffrage - but the UK used it right up until the Representation of the People Act in 1918 - so the Rhodesians using it from the early 1900s onwards wasn't so strange.

[meic]

blacks were allowed to vote in Rhodesia

Neither of us said blacks, we said ordinary people.
Who as you point out didnt get the vote until Mugabe took over.

[Ben@Forest]

blacks were allowed to vote in Rhodesia

Neither of us said blacks, we said ordinary people.
Who as you point out didnt get the vote until Mugabe took over.

As far as I understand it everyone had the vote - certainly from 1961 - though black voter registration was low.

[mercalia]

so the tyrant has gone but not the tyranny as one commenator has said

The BBC summarises his "legacy"

"this highly educated, wily politician became the caricature of an African dictator, who destroyed an entire country in order to keep his job."

as for voting?

"The man who fought for one-man, one-vote introduced a requirement that potential voters prove their residence with utility bills, which the young, unemployed opposition core electorate were unlikely to have. " was he any better than the whites he replaced?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23431534

[Tangled Metal]

"Was he any better than the whites he replaced?"

Obviously not but what a high aspiration to have achieved! Also how bad were white minority rules in Africa. Rhetorical question.

If most on here remember news reports about the veterans on white farms and the various forms of Mugabe's violence, there's plenty who don't remember what went before.

By asking that question you're putting perspective on what went before. We know Mugabe was a brutal tyrant, equating him to his predecessor tells us youngsters his bad it was. Although I reckon we guessed.