Zimbabwe thread

[mancombseepgood]

I just thought it amazing that there wasn't a Zim thread on page one of this forum....

Anyway, here is a comment i found interesting on the BBC's 'your say':

In a 2006 survey, Asia was 8 times better off (800%) than in 1960, also the poor.
Africa is only 25% better off than 1960, but the rich 100x richer, the poor 20% worse.
Money from 'boom' times is wasted, by individuals, by governments.
Aid money swells the politicians' Swiss bank accounts.
Debt relief ditto.
Corruption and violence, already mind blowing, are escalating.
So this continent is about to rescue Zimbabwe?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5522&edition=2&ttl=20081020151549

 

[km2]

I don't know whats left to say about Zimbabwe really. We're told so often by western media/George Bush/etc that democracy is the answer to all problems, and then you have this terrible example of just how easily it all gets subverted. The only thing I can really say for Zim, is that it reminds me that ultimately democracy is not worth squat if the populous themselves can't defend it.

And there Morgan is supposedly part of a GNU, but doesn't have enough power to get a passport as prime minister. Ag, shame. Another example that if you're a political party in Africa and you don't have an armed wing, you just don't get no respect.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2412717,00.html

 

[mancombseepgood]

I don't know whats left to say about Zimbabwe really. We're told so often by western media/George Bush/etc that democracy is the answer to all problems, and then you have this terrible example of just how easily it all gets subverted. The only thing I can really say for Zim, is that it reminds me that ultimately democracy is not worth squat if the populous themselves can't defend it.

And there Morgan is supposedly part of a GNU, but doesn't have enough power to get a passport as prime minister. Ag, shame. Another example that if you're a political party in Africa and you don't have an armed wing, you just don't get no respect.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2412717,00.html

Thing is it isn't democracy - it's no different to the old Idi Amin up the road...

 

[IanC]

Thing is it isn't democracy - it's no different to the old Idi Amin up the road...

By democracy I assume you mean "government by the people", if so this clearly isn't happening in Zimbabwe. So what to do??

• Have democratic elections ... that worked well didn't it??
• Have an arbitrator in to decide the result of said democratic election ... Bzzzzt sorry wrong again, that isn't working either is it??

So when democracy fails what is the answer???

That's the question you really ought to be applying your mind to.

 

[km2]

Thing is it isn't democracy - it's no different to the old Idi Amin up the road...

Sure it's not democracy now, but we can all point that out after things go wrong. The challenge of any system is to be able to survive bad leaders (like Mugabe) without taking everyone down with it. If the first time an overly-ambitious president comes along and managed to take over the entire system and turn it into a quasi-dictatorship, then your democracy is pretty useless? I'm saying you could have had the best designed constitution, the fanciest laws, and the greatest judges, and your country would still go down the tubes if the populous isn't prepared to step in and do something when things go wrong.

Do you think Zimbabwe was a democracy when it started? What was the turning point to despotism, and what do you think could have been done before to stop the slide?

 

[IanC]

Sure it's not democracy now, but we can all point that out after things go wrong. The challenge of any system is to be able to survive bad leaders (like Mugabe) without taking everyone down with it. If the first time an overly-ambitious president comes along and managed to take over the entire system and turn it into a quasi-dictatorship, then your democracy is pretty useless? I'm saying you could have had the best designed constitution, the fanciest laws, and the greatest judges, and your country would still go down the tubes if the populous isn't prepared to step in and do something when things go wrong.

Well said sir!

 

[mancombseepgood]

The question is - what can the populace do against a violent dictator... what did our own country do when Apartheid was the scourge?

 

[Flanders]

The question is - what can the populace do against a violent dictator... what did our own country do when Apartheid was the scourge?

Hold a nation wide sniper competition and the winner gets to finish the job.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Hold a nation wide sniper competition and the winner gets to finish the job.

+1

 

[Generator Man]

By democracy I assume you mean "government by the people", if so this clearly isn't happening in Zimbabwe. So what to do??

• Have democratic elections ... that worked well didn't it??
• Have an arbitrator in to decide the result of said democratic election ... Bzzzzt sorry wrong again, that isn't working either is it??

So when democracy fails what is the answer???

Armor piercing 7.62mm

 

[km2]

Hold a nation wide sniper competition and the winner gets to finish the job.

And then the Joint Operational Command takes over and declares permanent martial law, Mugabe becomes a martyr having died "fighting the imperialists". A sniper isn't going to solve this one. You need a full on heavily-armed coup, because Mugabe's henchmen are even worse.

I think the cornerstone of a working democracy is having the majority of the population believe strongly in core ideals. Sure, one can disagree on how those ideals are achieved, but the ideals should be similar and act as something that unites the nation.

Parties need to be the vehicles used by the population to achieve those ideals, and the victory of the party is never to be the ideal itself. When things come down to "all I care about is Zanu PF winning", you're already stuffed. At the moment Zanu PF is driving the country hard into the ground and they still get 40% of the vote.

The more you have to share the parties ideals, rather than the party sharing your ideals, the more likely it is that democracy will fail. Different parties needs to be competing to try and act as the closest expression of your ideals. If you shift your ideals to follow the party line then this never happens.

If you want democracy to work this has got to become ingrained in the national culture, together with a desire to resist unfairness (not just to yourself), to stand up and go "this is nonsense!" and to have backbone in individuals who will resist when pushed. Anyone can be a big brave man when standing in front of a cheering crowd (yes, Julius, that's you) but it takes something else to have people who will object when not in the majority. I believe one of the strengths of SA's democracy over Zim is the large number of activists who have stood up on a variety of issues, and who can act as something of a rallying point for people who may not want to object alone.

This is all pure speculation though, but I think it's still a useful topic. Africa does have a piss-poor history of "working democracies", and it would seem to be pretty stupid to just ascribe that mass failure to some unlucky coincidence. Just repeating democracy and expecting a different result, without changing anything based on what we learn from previous failures gets close to the "definition of insanity".

 

[koffiejunkie]

The problem with democracy in much of Southern Africa is that people think democracy means "one man one vote" and doesn't understand that they should expect and demand accountability from their public servants.

 

[Generator Man]

I think the cornerstone of a working democracy is having the majority of the population believe strongly in core ideals. Sure, one can disagree on how those ideals are achieved, but the ideals should be similar and act as something that unites the nation.

That seems to be written by someone that has no experience whatsoever of the Zim situation. Go there and speak to the people, from village inhabitants to people in the business world. The vast majority of support goes to the opposition.

Parties need to be the vehicles used by the population to achieve those ideals, and the victory of the party is never to be the ideal itself. When things come down to "all I care about is Zanu PF winning", you're already stuffed. At the moment Zanu PF is driving the country hard into the ground and they still get 40% of the vote.

How can parties be the vehicles of the population's beliefs when said parties are prevented from voicing their opinions or taking part in anything?
Do you have any idea of the scale of oppression being dished out by Zanu PF? the opposition in that pcountry is prevented from doing anything other than sit and look pretty by violence and intimidation, the scale of which is probably beyond the grasp of most south africans. The only reason that Zanu PF got 40-odd % of the votes is through vote-rigging and violent intimidation, which included bodily harm to known MDC supporters or killing of their family members or threats of such. People were virtually beaten/blackmailed into voting for Zanu. A real free and fair election would see over 80% of the people voting for the MDC, if grass roots level indications are anything to go by.

The more you have to share the parties ideals, rather than the party sharing your ideals, the more likely it is that democracy will fail. Different parties needs to be competing to try and act as the closest expression of your ideals. If you shift your ideals to follow the party line then this never happens.

A party cannot be a competitor in anything if the party in power will use whatever means possible to tear them to pieces, including bodily harm and death.

If you want democracy to work this has got to become ingrained in the national culture, together with a desire to resist unfairness (not just to yourself), to stand up and go "this is nonsense!" and to have backbone in individuals who will resist when pushed. Anyone can be a big brave man when standing in front of a cheering crowd (yes, Julius, that's you) but it takes something else to have people who will object when not in the majority. I believe one of the strengths of SA's democracy over Zim is the large number of activists who have stood up on a variety of issues, and who can act as something of a rallying point for people who may not want to object alone.
.

The problem with Zim is the opposition is strifled to the point that they can do nothing. Couple this with lack of foreign funding/support/interest for the opposition, and no margin left whatsoever for the opposition to plan on any action that would remove Mugabe.

The Zimbabwean story has to be one of the best displays in the world of how to hang onto power by whatever means possible, and there is little support or interest from the rest of the world to get rid of Mugabe or make things easier for the opposition to do so. It makes colonialism look like the land of liberty in comparison. There is no freedom of association, movement or operation whatsoever in Zimbabwe, and thats because Zanu PF makes sure that it gives a good life to their foot soldiers (CIO etc) and keeps them close and loyal through good salaries and benefits to their families.

 

[km2]

That seems to be written by someone that has no experience whatsoever of the Zim situation. Go there and speak to the people, from village inhabitants to people in the business world. The vast majority of support goes to the opposition.

That's great, and your solution is? "Armor piercing 7.62mm" leaving the entire army and police structure intact. It isn't just an 84 year old man walking around administring the beatings himself.

How can parties be the vehicles of the population's beliefs when said parties are prevented from voicing their opinions or taking part in anything?

We live in a country where the ANC was banned and had no official political recognition from the order of the day, yet still managed to organise reasonably well.

A party cannot be a competitor in anything if the party in power will use whatever means possible to tear them to pieces, including bodily harm and death.

Now that's just ridiculous. By that logic no coup would ever work because the party in power would use whatever means possible to always win. Resistance movements would be useless because the party in power would always wins.

The problem with Zim is the opposition is strifled to the point that they can do nothing. Couple this with lack of foreign funding/support/interest for the opposition, and no margin left whatsoever for the opposition to plan on any action that would remove Mugabe.

The problem with Zim is the opposition is weak. The ANC didn't bother the Nats until they actually managed to get township unrest into full swing. The whole situation in Kenya worked out very differently because the opposition stood up and went "stuff this!" and made things happen. As I said before, in resistance politics no one takes you seriously until you actually do some opposition be it Ghandi-style or Kenya-style.

 

[Generator Man]

That's great, and your solution is? "Armor piercing 7.62mm" leaving the entire army and police structure intact. It isn't just an 84 year old man walking around administring the beatings himself.



We live in a country where the ANC was banned and had no official political recognition from the order of the day, yet still managed to organise reasonably well.



Now that's just ridiculous. By that logic no coup would ever work because the party in power would use whatever means possible to always win. Resistance movements would be useless because the party in power would always wins.



The problem with Zim is the opposition is weak. The ANC didn't bother the Nats until they actually managed to get township unrest into full swing. The whole situation in Kenya worked out very differently because the opposition stood up and went "stuff this!" and made things happen. As I said before, in resistance politics no one takes you seriously until you actually do some opposition be it Ghandi-style or Kenya-style.

Do me a favour and answer this question, before I even bother to answer yours. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO ZIMBABWE, OR BEEN INVOLVED WITH ANYTHING IN ZIMBABWE?

Because from what I can see, I have serious doubts that you realize the extent of the situation there.
Make a cocktail of communist China in it's peak of madness, and the Soviet Union of Stalin. Make poverty worse by about 100% and you get close. Anything that has the whiff of revolution/opposition/conspiracy to protest against the government etc gets squashed, no worse, killed/tortured/maimed/beaten/castrated/burned and trust me on this their intelligence on ground level has to be the best around, in Africa at least. Your ideas are simply not feasible unless a superpower steps in and gives a huge budget to the opposition to form/train a militia outside of Zimbabwe, to attack the current regime. The truth is the rest of the world doesn't give a flying **** about Mugabe or his chronies, so there is no interest whatsoever except for token sanctions and pointless speeches.

In the days of the Chimurenga they had funding from the Soviet Union, China and Cuba. And quite frankly the whites sucked at gathering intelligence or squashing the uprisings/formations of militias. Plus the Chimurenga had some form of worldwide support (just like the struggle against Apartheid) because it was the right thing to end colonialism and oppression. Nowadays most of Africa supports Mugabe for one reason or another, the rest of the world simply doesn't care, except for charity organizations that keep the population alive with food help and donations.

 

[IanC]

The truth is the rest of the world doesn't give a flying **** about Mugabe or his chronies, so there is no interest whatsoever except for token sanctions and pointless speeches.

Never a truer word spoken. Zimbabwe has nothing to offer the RotW hence they (the RotW, that is), as you so eloquently put it, don't give a flying ****.

 

[Flanders]

And then the Joint Operational Command takes over and declares permanent martial law, Mugabe becomes a martyr having died "fighting the imperialists". A sniper isn't going to solve this one. You need a full on heavily-armed coup, because Mugabe's henchmen are even worse.

Whoa, whoa...hang on a sec. Maybe I should've added a to the end of my post. I thought it a given that this wouldn't honestly be the answer. A quick fix maybe, but that was all my post was intended as, jokingly at that. I agree fully with you on what I've quoted.

 

[km2]

Whoa, whoa...hang on a sec. Maybe I should've added a to the end of my post. I thought it a given that this wouldn't honestly be the answer. A quick fix maybe, but that was all my post was intended as, jokingly at that. I agree fully with you on what I've quoted.

Hah, I guess I thought it wasn't an unreasonable enough suggestion to be obviously tongue-in-check. Would certainly be satifying to see.

Do me a favour and answer this question, before I even bother to answer yours. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO ZIMBABWE, OR BEEN INVOLVED WITH ANYTHING IN ZIMBABWE?

No I haven't, my knowledge of Zimbabwe comes from the news and other reports I've read. Is there extra information that you know which isn't covered in the news? Just because I wasn't on the Titanic, doesn't mean I can't point out that it didn't handle the iceberg well. We can all see Zimbabwe's problems, even though I don't doubt being in Zimbabwe may give you an excellent perspective on the situation.

Because from what I can see, I have serious doubts that you realize the extent of the situation there.
Make a cocktail of communist China in it's peak of madness, and the Soviet Union of Stalin. Make poverty worse by about 100% and you get close. Anything that has the whiff of revolution/opposition/conspiracy to protest against the government etc gets squashed, no worse, killed/tortured/maimed/beaten/castrated/burned and trust me on this their intelligence on ground level has to be the best around, in Africa at least. Your ideas are simply not feasible unless a superpower steps in and gives a huge budget to the opposition to form/train a militia outside of Zimbabwe, to attack the current regime. The truth is the rest of the world doesn't give a flying **** about Mugabe or his chronies, so there is no interest whatsoever except for token sanctions and pointless speeches.

Maybe your closeness to the situation has clouded your judgement. You're seriously trying to compare Zimbabwe to Stalin's Soviet Union in terms of efficiency of suppression? The millions that Stalin and Mao killed and sent to correctional camps? Stalin managed to keep his dissidents in his country, while Zimbabwe's borders are porus. Stalin managed to keep all dissent squashed down, while Mugabe manages to let 50%+ of the electorate vote against him in an election he supposedly was rigging. He couldn't even properly rig his own elections! Political opponents of Stalin ended up permanently in forced labour camps, Mugabe's opponent ends up as an (albeit figurehead) prime minister that has Mugabe giving Morgan at least some legitimace. Stalin built a working economy which could further fund his oppression, while Mugabe struggles to scrape up wages for his police. North Korea manages to have one of the largest land armies in the world and develop a nuclear program, while Mugabe wonders where the next petrol for his tanks will come from. You're trying to paint this picture of Mugabe as the Tyrant's Tyrant, while all evidence points to him just being an incompetent yet violent man.

So while I agree the rest of the world doesn't care less about Zimbabwe, to try and claim that Mugabe is somehow in the big leagues of professional tyranny, with the corresponding level of KGB intelligence is just laughable.

 

[Generator Man]

I give up