The key word to remember here is stabilization, of which most of Africa, particularly the region concerned here, is often in short supply. If you don’t want the long version, skip to the final paragraphs of this post.
Mugabe used to be a respected leader in his youth, in spite of being a violent lunatic and xenophobe (he only got worse with age). He was a guerrilla freedom fighter, ordering the ZANU against the white government throuhout the 1970s. I would argue that the British were not the evil foreign presence they were made out to be at the time or since then (disenfranchisement and discrimination were indeed problems–and still are-- but certainly not deserving of the rhetoric and hatred espoused by Mugabe, who “liberated” Zimbabwe and drove it into the ground under all possible aspects).
Rhodesia actually “rebelled” against Britain in 1965 under the government of Ian Smith (a white Rhodesian-born man), when he issued the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Britain refused to use force at the time, just as the EU has refused to use force this time round. Negotiations went on for years but no agreement was reached, either internally in Rhodesia or externally with Great Britain (the UN applied sanctions for a while but mineral exports to Europe and the US were too important). Meanwhile Smith’s government was put under pressure from several points, many of them involving violence and Robert Mugabe (sound familiar?),. The latter enjoyed popular support from neighbouring countries and was seen as something of a hero. Smith gave up his independence attempts in 1979, and a referendum and paramentary elections were held. A party lacking crucial support, UANC headed by Muzorewa, failed to take power credibly after they won the vote. Even neighbouring majority-ruled countries were reluctant to assign credibility to Zimbabwe owing to its ethnic violence and political stalemates. The fighting went on.
Britain helped out by accepting temporary colonial rule of Zimbabwe and enforcing a ceasefire. More elections were held and in 1980 Mugabe, heading the ZANU, became Zimbabwe’s supreme leader based in part on his “freedom fighting” efforts and a lot of noble promises. Almost immediately (1982) came civil war: Mugabe alleged that Nkomo, his former rival and head of the opposition ZAPU, was plotting a coup (again, sound familiar?). Mugabe forced Nkomo out of office and arrested the members of the opposition (see, this is an old dog with no new tricks). Opposition supporters lashed out and the war started, lasting until 1987, when Mugabe accepted Nkomo as a figurehead (powerless) vice president and the opposition ZAPU ceased to be, transferring to ZANU-PF.
Since then Mugabe has been a shining example of a bad leader. The thorny issue of land reform during the 1980-90s, for example, consisted of promising the peasantry land and justice while not affording police protection to the white farmers. Result: the famous Zimbabwean white farm “squatter” culture, where farms were invaded and either seized or destroyed by blacks, and the farmers (white or black) killed or driven off. It’s worthy to note that public support was actually with the farmers and against Mugabe’s autocratic tendencies, and the squatters were not necessarily representative of the average Zimbabwean.
If that’s called a “liberation” these days I don’t know what to make of it–additionally, given such a definition, I would be hard-pressed to define “descent into political barbarism”. From the earliest days, Mugabe has been a despicable and thoroughly self-serving man (he dragged Zimbabwe into the Congonese civil war to protect his personal economic interests), yet he was re-elected every single time, including the last time a few days ago. I really don’t think this is the first time that he used underhanded methods to retain power.
Zimbabwe’s neighbours, most African nations in fact, are used to this. I very much doubt that anyone in the region takes this election seriously, but on the other hand there are the following considerations:
-
Monitoring efforts cannot be comprehensive. With several thousand polling stations, how can election observers cover all sites? It’s impossible and Mugabe took full advantage of that, no doubt putting on a good election show for some of his observers while conducting his disenfranchisement elsehwere. You now have outside observer data that contains mixed messages, and many African leaders are unwilling to engage in an argument over the legitimacy of the leader who may end up being in power for quite a lot longer. For example, Mbeki’s reaction was classic, he once again equivocated, bumbled around, and generally played for time (truth seekermentioned Mbeki’s position on HIV, same thing).
-
This is exactly the same shit that has been going on in Zimbabwe for at least 22 years, it’s not new and the attitude is that people, including neighbours, have to learn how to live with it since the situation shows no sign of improving.
-
Racism–Mugabe has been marketing himself as a black hero fighting the oppression of white colonial rule. I was particularly amused when he displayed his heroism by calling top-level members of the British government “fags” because they criticized his autocratic methods. Mugabe has support for this point of view (especially from mentally arrested “war eveterans”), although it should be noted that the country was in a better state decades earlier under expert colonial rule rather than petty autocracy. regardless, any African leader who denounces Mugabe faces the risk of being branded a colonial sympathizer, a traitor to his cause, etc. (somewhat similar problem to the Taleban and Muslims in general situation).
And so on. As I said stability in the region is important. Even were the examples above insignificant, there’s the ages-old truth that interests (especially economic) are more important than fairness. Most African nations have incredible problems within their own borders and it is not in their interests to antagonize someone as obviously lunatic as Mugabe. It will be interesting to see how such nations react when stronger European, Commonwealth, and American condemnation takes place-- people are often pushed into positions they do not wish to take and this is a very possible scenario if the “whites” are seen to be descending on Africa (public perception, even if incorrect, often defines policy).
To close on the humorous side, a couple days ago I was very amused to see George Dubya Bush on television delivering his verdict on the highly suspect elections in Zimbabwe. He was not happy and denounced them. He appeared to be rather nervous, almost sweating, as if he knew that not so long ago he was in the same position as Mugabe is now. His rhetoric on the topic was rather flat and hurried, unsurprising since quite a few objections against Mugabe could easily be applied to Bush, and I could swear he was thinking “please God, let this be over now.”