I don’t recommend reading about the third world. It’s way too depressing.
Aha!!! It’s the Brazillian Monkey Law!!
I have a little part like that too, but it gets outvoted.
OK, then, I won’t 
Seriously, though - I know what you’re saying, but I for one am glad we don’t have an outright civil war on our doorstep - the current flood of refugees would become much worse, I think. Zim right now is much worse than even the Homelands were 25 years ago. How much worse if there was a war on? And whose side would we take?
Now if only our fucking government would grow some balls…
It’s overcast right now, but last I saw beyond the clouds it was blue during the daytime, and black with shiny things at night.
But we digress. Burma is somewhat different to Zimbabwe, in my opinion. Last Burmese elections were held in 1990, which were denied by the junta, who currently still rule. Last elections in Zimbabwe happened in 2005, on a one person one vote basis, with 78 parliamentary seats going to ZANU-PF, and 41 to MDC.
The point I’m trying to make is this, if conditions were so bad in Zimbabwe in 2005, why didn’t it go the other way? If intimidation was such a huge factor, why was 34% of the population not intimidated?
In 2005 the inflation rate was 254%. jjimm, would you vote for a government responsible for an inflation rate of 254%?
The next elections are due in 2008, will the majority still vote for a 6600% inflation rate? What will it take for 65% of the nation to change their minds and say “stop the bus, we ain’t going over the cliff”?
Agreed. Even the guy in the funny dress is getting a tad fractious.
Maybe it’s a form of Götterdämmerung: like Hitler in his bunker (Godwin alert!), he figures the country he has dominated is unworthy of him and wants to take it all down with him in burning wreckage. Maybe he also consoles himself that come what may, at least he rid the country of the [del]Jews[/del] whites.
In any case, it’s clear that the people are no more than a means to an end for him. What insane end that might be, I don’t know.
Because even Mugabe has the common sense to realise that 100% to 0% would be hard to certify as fair for even the most slavishly pro-Mugabe African Union member. And yet still (surprise surprise), the majority was just above the amount required to allow Mugabe to change the constitution. Strange, eh? In a way, you’re right; the opposition in Zimbabwe is weak and factionalised - Mugabe has kept it that way by prosecuting and beating its leaders and sending thugs to its rallies, while offering meagre olive branches to various bits in order to keep them believing that engagement might yet work. And his support is not fictional, either - he buys support with power, land handouts and even by restricting access to food supplies to ZANU-PF voters.
You should really read a few articles about what actually went on during that election (starting here, perhaps) before expressing amazement that the opposition failed to win. Your faith that Zimbabwe’s democratic will should prevail is touching, but highly naive. Yes, a stronger opposition would be nice, but a populist tyrant has many means of ensuring this doesn’t occur, and Mugabe seems to be as skilful as any in this crucial area.
That made me think of a line from awhile back.
" Voyager’s amendment to Godwin’s Law: Godwin’s Law no longer applies when they start building concentration camps."
Or in this case, try to take their own country down with them.
Thanks for the advice Dead Badger, but I’m not entirely uninformed about the Zimbabwean crisis. After all, it sits right on my doorstep.
Maybe you are right, maybe I am a little naive, but the fact is, the opinion on the 2005 elections was not unanimously against Mugabe.
http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001273/index.php
Now, I’m certainly no fan of our current government’s stance on the matter. I’d dearly like to see an email “Dear Bob, Fuck off already, Kind regards, Thabo.” but at the same time I don’t think the Zimbabwean electorate can totally abdicate its responsibility to the election process.
I just can’t begin to understand how you can believe that. People were beaten for voting the wrong way; they were denied food unless they pledged support for ZANU-PF; where these measures were insufficient, votes were simply created out of thin air. Thousands upon thousands were disenfranchised by impossible and arcane registration requirements. How can you possibly blame the electorate in these conditions? Of course the 2005 elections weren’t unanimously against Mugabe - they were bloody fixed! In the 30 districts for which figures were even released, ZANU-PF polled 183,000 more votes than the total number of votes the electoral commission said were cast. Perhaps you can tell me how one man, with one vote (which, if he’s lucky, he can cast without being beaten), can prevail against 183,000 government phantoms?
And yes, I’m well aware that the utterly spineless AU observers fell over themselves to call the elections free and fair (although even Mbeki seemed later to admit that problems existed). But to believe that this actually indicates the elections were anything but a sham goes well beyond naivety.
Okay, I’ll retract the totally abdicate part, and concede your phantom voters point. But I feel I need to go back to my original point, which is more of a philosophical question. How much does one have to suffer before one is prepared to endure a beating and vote for a more hopeful future?
But isn’t that the stuff of history? The entire world as we know it today has been wrenched from the iron grip of tyrants at some point. Eventually, people weary of being oppressed will rise up in whatever form they can, and do what needs done.
Sometimes they get help, sometimes they don’t, but the end result is always the same; the pendulum will swing the other way, and in 5 years, 10 years, or however long it takes, there will be discussion about the newest issue, whatever THAT happens to be.
Overall though, my sympathy for Africa dwindles everytime I hear a story like this one. They’ve had too much time not to get it right by now, just shows the fallibility of humans, I suppose.
Well, turn it round and ask how much suffering is a valueless vote worth? What’s the point in getting beaten if you know you’ll be outnumbered by non-existent opposition? In a country where you have to spend what little you earn in the morning before it devalues by nightfall, and where earning a living is nigh-on impossible even if you don’t try and join protests to get beaten for your trouble, why waste the effort? What’s it going to get you?
I think you greatly underestimate the control a little populism, a lot of cronyism and a standing army of thugs (sorry, “war veterans”) are capable of wielding. At this point it’ll take either concerted international pressure for proper elections, or an internal armed uprising to effect change in Zimbabwe. And the latter would almost certainly be comfortably put down, even if the opposition could muster sufficient coherence to actually mount one.
As well ask why North Koreans don’t vote out Kim Jong Il. The only difference is that Mugabe is slightly more subtle.
Perhaps so, but perhaps likewise we shouldn’t underestimate the power of massive non-cooperation and civil disobedience Mahatma Ghandi style.
Maybe. On the other hand, perhaps the Brits running India had serious objections to slaughtering enormous numbers of their political opponents, and a healthy respect for world opinion. (I’m aware that we weren’t whiter than white, so let’s skip that part.) I have my doubts about Mugabe and company.
Apologies buttonjockey308, missed your post first time round. Yes, indeed, and that’s the crux of my question. When will that “eventually” dawn on the Zimbabwean people?
And with that, I’m off to my piano lesson.
Yeah, sometimes passive resistance just makes the murdering bastards job that much easier.
And every time I see a statement like this, I’m forced to wonder how a concept as nebulous as sympathy for an entire continent is supposed to have any meaning whatsoever. While the more prosperous African nations’ craven tolerance of outright tyrants on their doorstep certainly makes them hugely in the general malaise, it’s rather tough to see what patronising finger-wagging brings to the table, save an excuse to collectively shrug our shoulders and stop worrying about the problem.
“Africaaa, sort yourselves out! Honestly! How can you have failed to follow our shining example of What To Do?”
“Oh, right, sure; so, another hundred years or so of modest internal strife, a couple more genocides and at least one balls-out mass conflagration and it’ll be gravy, then?”
“Er, no…”
“Huh. So when do we get to start invading places on whims? Soon, right?”
“No, we meant-”
“Not even a police action? We want to get this right, you know.”
Certainly, but look how well that worked out for the Burmese when faced with a government with neither shame nor a convincing external motive to react positively. In the seemingly complete absence of concerted international pressure, and with a leader who is clearly prepared to starve or chase away the bits of his population that bother him, who’d bet against the same happening in Zimbabwe?
Deleted
I never claimed my sympathy (or lack thereof) has any meaning, it doesn’t outside of my own head, still, there it is.
I don’t think Africa should be held to the standard of the world, I think the world should have been held to Africa’s standard, except one was never set. How long is it the duty of the rest of the world to deal with the problems of Africa, when, as you point out, even the prosperous nations within her own borders tolerate this type of behavior?