No, Glover’s analysis doesn’t really stand up. Mugabe was given succour by British governments of both left and right in the 70s and 80s. We regarded the situation there as an embarrassment and we were desperate to wash our hands of it. I think Thatcher was probably expecting Joshua Nkomo or Abel Muzorewa to win the post-independence election but if so she hadn’t done her homework.

I think Zimbabwe highlights the illiberalism of much of the left and right in a way that the long history of Iraq also does.

Policy towards both countries over decades demarcate the dividing line of sensible discussion as between liberals and illiberals, not left and right.

The flaws of UK/US policy towards Iraq are exposed by the democratic transition in Zimbabwe – successive governments have failed and we shouldn’t allow legitimate criticism of any to be carry over into an unsustainable defence of others. The extended survival of Saddam and Mugabe is a testament to the inconsistent application of policy within UK/US government and the incoherence of policy between them.

ISTR that back in 1980 the Trostkyists backed Mugabe because the Communists were backing Nkomo.

But that was a very long time ago.

The great tragedy in all this is that there are two Mugabes – old and new. This is the old Mugabe who was indeed ‘given succour’ by the left – from wikipaedia:

According to a 1995 World Bank report, after independence, “Zimbabwe gave priority to human resource investments and support for smallholder agriculture,” and as a result, “smallholder agriculture expanded rapidly during the first half of the 1980s and social indicators improved quickly.” From 1980 to 1990 infant mortality decreased from 86 to 49 per 1000 live births, under five mortality was reduced from 128 to 58 per 1000 live births, and immunisation increased from 25% to 80% of the population. Also, “child malnutrition fell from 22% to 12% and life expectancy increased from 56 to 64. By 1990, Zimbabwe had a lower infant mortality rate, higher adult literacy and higher school enrollment rate than average for developing countries.”[33]

- but this was not the ‘monstrous’ Mugabe – that is the new one. The African states (Mbeki in particular) remember the original Mugabe – the one who threw off imperialism, gained freedom for his country and brought about these changes. That is why they are reluctant to condemn him. The right it certainly and demonstrably was that supported the minority regime that created the ‘before’ figures above – to their eternal shame. What has happened to Mugabe would take a Shakespeare to analyse and describe.

PeteB

Pete

I was discussing exactly that with some one yesterday – that Mugabe was in fact a reasonably good leader of a reasonably stable and prosperous nation once upon a time.

We speculated that perhaps his descent into despotism came as a result of mere longevity.

With just one solid power base, other politicians had a vested interest in ingraciating themselves to him and making him happy. That fostered a ‘yes man’ and corrupt culture – and gradually drove him into terroble decision making and paranoia.

after all – it is hard to imagine what it does to ones mind to always be right and never be disagreed with.

The old Mugabe was only successfull due to the prosperity left by the Ian Smith regime. It took Mugabe less than 10 years to waste it all away. The old and new Mugabe is the same one being put their by the left wing. The same happened to Uganda and Zambie. No excuse can be used for what he has done to Zimbabwe. Same with South Africa in another 10 years time.

Ian

so the world bank was lying then?

I was discussing exactly that with some one yesterday – that Mugabe was in fact a reasonably good leader of a reasonably stable and prosperous nation once upon a time.

We speculated that perhaps his descent into despotism came as a result of mere longevity.

The warning signs were there from quite early on, though. It was fairly clear that Mugabe wanted to create a one-party state and that only his loyalty to fellow Patriotic Front leader Joshua Nkomo stood in the way of that. Once Nkomo retired all oopposition was crushed and it was only the emergence of the MDC that restored any semblance of democracy.

From the mid-80s onwards Mugabe also appeared to encourage tribal violence by the dominant Shona tribe (of which he is a member) against the minority Matabele tribe (which previously looked to Nkomo as its leader).

While the “absolute power corrupts….” phenomenon may have played a part in bringing abot the present situation, I think on the whole that Mugabe was simply biding his time before unleasing a reign of terror.

Paul

But it is fair to think his intended iron grip was not meant to be a grip of a country in a state of complete ruin.

He was of course never really a democrat. And he was also not interested in issues human rights. But he did manage the country reasonably well and by African standards it was prosperous and stable.

Hence my point is not that power corrupts – plenty of people are corrupt before getting any power. It is that a lack of dissent leads to bad decision making.

It was fairly well-known at the time of the 1980 election that Mugabe was ideologically allied to the Chinese Communist Party, which had ensured that ZANLA was equipped with Chinese weapons. Nkomo had allied to the Soviet Union for the same reason with ZIPRA, but the difference was that everyone knew Nkomo didn’t really believe it.

Nkomo was therefore preferred as a potential first President of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately attempts to maneuvre Nkomo into power failed when ZIPRA shot down Air Rhodesia airliners in 1978 and 1979, and the Shona electorate in the 1980 election was thoroughly intimidated into voting ZANU-PF. By that time, refusing to accept the result of the election on grounds of intimidation would have been impossible.

The most striking thing about Stephen Glover’s piece is that Conservative governments from 1980 to 1997 got on extremely well with Mugabe and never protested about anything. Almost as soon as Labour was elected, Clare Short sent a very silly letter cutting aid and then trying to claim that she understood how the Zimbabweans felt because her family were Irish and likewise suffered under British colonial oppression. There is a time and a place for trying to make common cause like that, but not when you’ve just stopped someone’s cheque.

As everyone now realises, Mugabe did not just suddenly turn bad in 2000. The Gukarahandi massacres were widely reported in the UK in the early 1980s. There is also good reason to suspect Mugabe of personal involvement in the death of his rival Josiah Tongogara in December 1979, and he may also have been connected to the carbomb assassination of Herbert Chitepo in 1975 (although there are other suspects there).

I am Zimbabwean, born after independence.I am interested in politics and very much intrigued by the conpiracies involved.On the Zimbabwean issue, i believe i am too much of a lame man to understand the Zanu-pf war against the West.

The are so many dictators in Africa at the moment, notably in Eritrea were any child who turns 16 is obliged to go to war.They move in houses almost every other 3 months collecting boys from there houses.The Equatorial Guinnea President rules with an Iron fist.Why is it Mugabe is one man the British and the Americans are desperate to get rid off.Is there more to the Zimbabwean issue than meets the eye.

Surely, anyone who knows African politics knows the Americans or the British have at one point supported a rebel group in Africa or mastermined a coup.That is not democratic to me and leaves me to this one question ‘What is it about Zimbabwe that makes the wolrd desperate to to change the government in the name of democracy?’.

It has been believed for some time by many people that Mugabe’s character and behaviour underwent radical change following the death of his first wife Sally, in 1992. It seems to me as good an explanation as any.