March 30, 2008
Zimbabwe - what is to be done?
Dictators sometimes miscalculate. So I suppose it is possible that Robert Mugabe - failing to realise the depth of his own unpopularity - has just gone down to an electoral defeat in Zimbabwe that is so catastrophic that even he will be unable to reverse the result. But I am pessimistic. Mr Mugabe does not strike me as somebody who is likely to be shamed into doing the right thing. Nor is he the kind of man, who is likely to shrug and say that retirement might not be such a bad option after all. Maybe the army will turn against him? Otherwise, I think he will just dig in his heels and declare victory.
So what happens if Mugabe has indeed been clearly defeated - but decides to cling on to power and to brazen it out? I’ve just been listening to Lord Malloch Brown, Britain’s Africa minister, talking on the BBC World Service. He unequivocally ruled out the possibility of military intervention. Instead, he suggested two courses of action. First, Britain and other western countries should be absolutely clear in condemning a rigged election. Second, we should support African-led attempts at mediation - modelled on Kofi Annan’s efforts in Kenya.
Well, that sounds fine as far as it goes. But those measures don’t sound strong enough to dislodge a determined dictator like Mugabe. (And there is a big question mark - anyway - over whether Zimbabwe’s African neighbours, in particular South Africa, will be willing to get involved. Their record so far is pretty feeble.)
So if the kind of measures that Malloch Brown suggests won’t work, has anybody got any better ideas? What could the outside world do to support democratic change in Zimbabwe?
And - best case scenario - let’s say Mugabe is prevailed upon to step aside, what then? Some of his most damaging economic changes - in particular, the destruction of the farming sector through land redistribution - may be irreversible. So how could the outside world help a new Zimbabwean government?
Perhaps some background may help. Ex President Kaunda explained things thus to the BBC a few months ago - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6728015.stm and I quote:
“The Thatcher government had begun to deal with the land issue, as did her successor, John Major. But when Tony Blair took over in 1997, I understand that some young lady in charge of colonial issues within that government simply dropped doing anything about it.”
I think the young lady may have been Claire Short (British Secretary of State for International Development) and this may be her letter:
http://maravi.blogspot.com/2007/03/zimbabwe-claire-shorts-letter-nov-5th.html
Chris
Posted by: Chris Roberts | March 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm | Report this commentGR:”What could the outside world do to support democratic change in Zimbabwe?”
I think faith based organizations could really make a difference here on bringing democratic change and on eradicating poverty …65 to 75 percent of the population in Zimbabwe are Christian or are a mix of Christian and indigenous beliefs… again, I harken back to Davos, the “Religion and Modernity panel (I saw it on You Tube) where Pastor Rick Warren spoke about why Faith Based insitutions could be such a positive force in reducing poverty in Africa and elsewhere….he referenced the fact that (1) the Church is universal, it was global long before any Fortune 400 company was, and (2) it has developed and refined the very “delivery system” that is needed …it reaches the people that one needs to reach if you are to be sucessful at eradicating poverty…
I have not thought this all through, but in reviewing the many panels/position papers at Davos… this panel was the only one that stuck with me this year… I think Warren is on to something here…in any event, it is interesting you wrote about Zimbabwe…I attended a special Mass today devoted to Devine Mercy. There was a devotional, my favorite, asking for mercy for the whole world…I especially asked for mercy for Africa and the Middle East.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 31st, 2008 at 5:15 am | Report this commentIs this not a job for the UN? Surely if they see an election that has been rigged they should look to do something about it. It should be the responsibility of the UK as Zim is a former Commonwealth country, or SA as their neighbours, to table the motion and garner support.
Posted by: Nick S | March 31st, 2008 at 10:03 am | Report this commentZimbabwe does not have any oil or other strategic resources. As such, it does not awaken the urge to “spread democracy”. Therfore, it does not pay the West to get involved miltary intervention.
The Zimbabweans will be left to their own quiet misery and, in due course, will replace the 84 year old Mr. Mugabe.
Time will tell whether the replacement will be an improvement.
The parallels in other African countries have not been encouraging.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am | Report this commentYesterday the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in an interview that ‘Mugabe’s regime is a disgrace to the people of Zimbabwe and a disgrace to southern Africa and to the continent of Africa as whole’. If Mugabe is ‘found guilty’ of election fraud, what would US do? They are already the driving force behind the heavy sanctions on Zimbabwe - next step?
Posted by: Sebastian | March 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am | Report this commentMugabe cannot stay in power forever but he may try, if somehow he relinquishes control ,steps must be made to create a new chapter in this nation .Zimbabwe can become wealthy again through land development. International assistance is needed for this to take place. Afghanistan is a good model to look at, where land development has improved the lives of many people. The problem lies at the door of a new leader , as it will be very hard for them to openly ask for assistance. Assistance from who? South africa would be the obvious choice, and the afican nations preferably as its channel. A new chapter must be looked for .The security situation will need to be handled before organizations can begin the slow reconstruction of land, but it seems like this is the only way forward.
Posted by: Benjamin | March 31st, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Report this comment…land to grow crops is increasingly becoming a resource the world craves for.
Posted by: Benjamin | March 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentMugabe who has probably been responsible for as many (if not more) crimes against humanity than Saddam is fortunte to be in a country with no Oil or Strategic resources.
Actions will probably be:
a) Make a lot of noise about Democracy (feel good factor)
b) Tutt tutt if violence arises
c) Propose more sanctions
d) Pass the buck (Africa problem, UN, God,etc)
Its about time someone discovered WMD in Zimbabwe
Posted by: brian | March 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this commente) Find something else to take over the headlines.
e)
Its not unusual for people in leadership positions to fail to see the negative impact they are having. Mugaqbe probably genuinley believes that he represents the best hope for a better Zimbabwe, and that only he has the skills to get the job done.
I know it is inconceivable, but why not:
1. Congrateulate him on his achievements (there must be some if we look back far enough)
2. Accept that recent policies were full of good intentions but scuppered by the economic law of unforseen consequences
3. Offer him and his family a high level of ‘compensation’ for leaving office with strict deadlines for acceptance
4. Offer some concrete transitional steps he could take before leaving office that - if they work - will enable him to claim the credit down the road.
I know this will in no way go to satisfy our need for justice and revenge for what ‘Team Mugabe’ has actually done to the people of Zimbabwe, but it might accelerate change
Posted by: Tim | March 31st, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Report this commentBrian your spot on there
Posted by: Benjamin | March 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Report this commentEr, how about some African led initiatives to resolve the situation? They’re the ones who’re feeling the impact - Britain isn’t allowing in any refugees from Zim as far as I know (to its disgrace); on second thoughts it no need to, as they are all too busy crawling through fields of razor wire in the hope of finding some sort of life in South Africa. African Union anyone?
Posted by: AYC | March 31st, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this commentAnyone ever wonder how Bob Marley’s “Zimbabwe” is such an ironic song? Seems “who will liberate” is the question, Bob, not Africans, sorry bro.
Posted by: AG | March 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentI have to say - I found the faith based institutions post interesting. I am not religious myself but the point is valid and the Church is especially important to the impoverished in Africa. Unfortunately, Mugabe has consistently been a barrier to any form of liberalisation and I suspect that the Church would also find itself stymied were it to try and oppose him. In fact, I am sure we would soon see the United Reformed Church of Zimbabwe sprout up with Mugabe as its head!
Comment about the lack of natural resources being a lack of incentive for foregin governments to get involved is entirely pertinent. Personally I was for the invasion of Iraq but accept that for any country to spend resources on doing something good there must be a financial incentive.
Sadly, the UN is marginally less effective than the EU when it comes to generating any sort of agreement and even worse (if that’s possible) at ensuring the agreed actions are completed. Indeed, I believe Zimbabwe is part of the UN and consequently on certain rotations will actually be part of the 15 member security council. Zimbabwe is not the only crackpot dictatorship that is party of the UN.
Sadly, sanctions only hurt the innocent. If economic sanctions cost Zimbabwe money, you can rest assured that Mugabe will just take more from his own people.
Unfortunately, force / disease / age are the only way to rid the world of someone like Mugabe. Do accept though that there needs to be a decent plan in place for when he is finally toppled.
Posted by: tom | March 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Report this commentThe idea of rewarding Mugabe’s odious policies is absurd - you just encourage his cronies, and other would-be dictators elsewhere, to hang tough until the rich West tries to buy them off.
As for the faith-based organisations - sure they have a role to play in the rebuilding of civil society - but they’ve conspicuously failed to mitigate, let alone reverse, the harsh policies of the post-independence government.
I’d personally sanction military intervention to get rid of the bastard, but seeing as noone else would, I think the pressure has to come from the AU countries. If they fail to step up to the mark, then the UN is the next best options - but it would be the usual (white, Western) suspects pushing for sanctions and not a lot else.
Happily I believe that the election results are likely to be so overwhelmingly in favour of telling Mugabe to f**k off that you’ll see the fragmentation of the ruling Zanu-PF coalition, between ‘pragmatists’ willing to leave a sinking ship, and the ‘die hards’ who are willing to stick with it or die trying. The former outnumber the latter, I suspect. You can see the independent candidacy of the ex-Finance Minister as an indication of the fragmentation.
Posted by: James | March 31st, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentPut pressure on South Africa.
Posted by: algasema | March 31st, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Report this commentMugabe, a classic example of a freedom fighter turned tyrant. How can someone damage a country so ever badly? Purely unfathomable.
Posted by: Alan | March 31st, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Report this commentRobert Mugabe was born in 1924, he is very old. The real question is who is waiting in the wings?
Posted by: David Seaton | April 1st, 2008 at 7:01 am | Report this commenthttp://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Er…
I am no supporter of Robert Mugabe but sadly any moral right the UK and US has to berate Mr Mugabe (or China’s role in Tibet and Darfur as another example), vanished the moment the “allies” invaded Iraq and claimed with hubris that this was being done to spread democracy. I also agree with Kenneth Kuanda that Britain has also left itself open to criticism by not putting up its share of land redistribution money for Zimbabwe as promised.
Just look at land redistribution in South Africa, which is based on voluntary and market principles. It has had virtually no effect on redistribution and in the words of Cyril Ramaphosa therefore represents the unacceptable continuation of apartheid. Land redistribution is necessary to reverse colonialisation. Britain should have given more help when it could have. An embittered dictator like Mugabe (but who nevertheless said in 1980 that he would not target white Zimbabweans just because the blacks had been oppressed) would inevitably turn into a destructive monster without the help of the power responsible for decolonisation to encourage a peaceful and sustainable transition.
Zimbabwe is a shame on Africa. But if the UK and US wanted to be consistent in their criticism they would berate other countries in Africa where governments routinely steal elections. What about Nigeria, where incidentially the level of poverty is often worse than in Zimbabwe? Nigeria is unquestionably more central to Africa’s future than Zimbabwe. But Nigeria has oil so we better just shut up.
Posted by: Dinosaur | April 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am | Report this commentLooking beyond Mugabe, this election is likely to cause an irreparable rift between MDC and ZANU-PF. Even if Tsvangirai wins (now, or at some point in future), how will a democracy function with such clear animosity between the two major parties? MDC would certainly seek retribution for the years of oppression if it came to power, quite possibly throwing Zimbabwe into greater chaos.
The West should not just throw aid money towards Zimbabwe (the preferred way of dealing with problems in Africa it seems), but assist in creating economic and democratic institutions, and more importantly develop incentives for its stable functionality. People/Governments respond to incentives. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe started out as a model for governance in Africa. I remember visiting Harare as a kid, and wondered why more African nations couldn’t follow Zimbabwe’s lead.
The West’s policies rewarding dictators/autocracies, and providing no incentives and rewards for good governance has been reckless.
Lisa-Helene, I find the idea of the involvement of Faith Based institutions quite interesting, but to the point of . .
“Faith Based insitutions could be such a positive force in reducing poverty in Africa”
How?
Posted by: VKA | April 1st, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentAt the time of UDI many white racists predicted the sort of chaos that ultimately developed as Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. What is so hurtful to those of us who worked for the peaceful transition from colonialism to independence is to see those racists proved right. Those of us who were - and still are - white, liberal idealists have been proved wrong. And it hurts!
Posted by: Bob Harvey | April 1st, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentYou cant build institutions without throwing money at those institutions you want to build. Ultimately land redsitribution would have taken the heat off Mugabe’s Shonafication of Zimbabwean society, and the 5th brigade may not have had to go on the rampage in Matabeleland to prove that Mugabe was boss. Britain showed more concern when Ian Smith declared independence than when Rhodesia was finally lost to Zimbabwe and when a black president finally presided over an agricultural system dominated by white farms. Remember the promises made at Lancaster, and the promises broken.
Posted by: Dinosaur | April 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentBob Harvey,
Posted by: David Seaton | April 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentI don’t think even those white liberals who wish Africa well fully realize the magnitude of harm that colonialism has done there.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Frankly, Chris & Tim present views which are the most constructive within this forum:
The problems in Zimbabwe today need to be understood within the context of a story that began 2 generations ago. That point is not exonerating the depth to where Zim has fallen over the past 15 years, but really does echo much of Sir Garfield Todd’s, view of self-serving subjugation by former settler Rhodesians who missed an opportunity to bring the masses with them during the days prior independence.
Many intelligence Blacks lost their lives over the land and independence issue! In Zimbabwe - post-independence, it is quite remarkable that so many good Western journalists and press seem to expediently forget that in looking at the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe, Lancaster House agreement etc, Mugabe’s election mandate in 1980 was always borne out of the promise of eventual redressing of the balance in terms of land and resources in Zimbabwe.
Yes, there is a way to do that constructively, but like most of the political chess matches played by the West in former colonial Africa - it should come as no surprise that apparently moderate conciliatory “darlings” of the West like Mugabe in the 1980s early 1990s, can become the devil incarnate.
And as in chess, your strategy changes based on that of your apparent opponent. In the ongoing political African chess gambit, that is no different. Check Mate happens far too often sadly….
And sometimes the only move is Tim’s suggestion!!
Posted by: Karl Effenbergsson | April 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentVKA”Lisa-Helene, I find the idea of the involvement of Faith Based institutions quite interesting, but to the point of . .“Faith Based insitutions could be such a positive force in reducing poverty in Africa” …..How?”
Well, again, I and many others need to think this out. But I buy Warren’s concept that religious institutions are global and have a unique and effective “delivery system”…so the issue becomes WHAT SHOULD THEY BE DELIVERING? Now , I am very aware of the fact that organized religion(s) have often been a contributing factor to conflict and even degradation of both individuals and whole societies. But it does not have to be that way…and we are in an age where there are no secrets, where we can shine a bright light very quickly on religious bad apples …the religious arena, like the political, military and civic arena…it is all a matter of the quality of leadership …and obviously, separation of religion and state is an imperative for true democracy…
I think the most important contribution that faith based organizations can make is to reduce rage…again, before everyone rolls their eyes…it can do that … the fact that we have often seen in history that it does not or even in the most horrible ways does the opposite, does not mean that it cannot…This means that DIFFERING religious and faith based organizations must work together, not in a competitive mode but in a creative mode…faith based organizations have many shared values and it is these values that can build community, a civic culture, combat illiteracy, bring more discipline to an individual’s life and to the life and ordering of that individual’s community, which in turn brings
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Report this commentabout a respect for rule of law, tolerance, leading to a contract/covenant not only with God but with each other and communities whereby people prosper, spiritually and physically and eventually economically … rule of law and economic liberalization is what democracy is about, and faith based organizations have a unique role to play in getting people on the path to building democratic institutions especially in poor countries …
No, this is not (and by design CANNOT be) the purview of the UN.
The UN was created as a tool to prevent bad things from happening BETWEEN nations (something it has been very successful as doing - the number of deaths from conflicts between UN member states is paltry in comparison with the number of deaths from conflicts between countries prior to the formation of the UN). The UN is not a tool to solve all problems, and it is particularly ill-suited to encourage good things to happen WITHIN any given State (it has no natural authority within sovereign nations).
Posted by: Andrei Timoshenko | April 1st, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Report this commentLets hope the report that Mugabe is ready to step down after he accepted he failed to win the country’s presidential election is accurate!(Agence France-Presse)
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 am | Report this commentMs. Lawson thanks for the well reasoned and thoughtful response to my question. You’re indeed right in pointing out that a cohesive civic society is an essential instrument towards creation of democratic institutions.
You’re also correct in reinforcing the need for tolerance and pragmatism, and the contribution the faith based organizations could make. (I had overlooked the subtle distinction between “faith based organizations” and “religious organizations” in my original post).
I remain a cynic though. Unfortunately, self-interest almost always tromps morality. Most of the global problems of today wouldn’t exist if we all subscribe to and live by the ideals you’ve described.
If the reports of Mugabe stepping down are true, it is step in the right direction for Zimbabwe. But, only time will tell whether Mr. Tsvangirai would provide the leadership required to heal its woes.
Also agree with Mr. Timoshenko that the UN is not a body equipped to deal with internal conflicts of member nations, unless there is a near unanimity among its members that the intervention is for the purpose of averting an imminent humanitarian crisis.
The UN is designed to be a forum for international discussion, and it has almost ceased to be even that. I chuckled a couple of weeks ago when I heard Sepp Blatter (President of FIFA) proclaim his organization to be more important than the UN. Perhaps, he was just making a tongue-in cheek remark about UN’s irrelevance.
Posted by: VKA | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 am | Report this commentI have read through all the comments with great interest, as I worked in Zimbabwe for 2.5 years in the middle 80s and as a Spanish national, perhaps I can be a little bit more objective about matters. I would agree that the Lancaster House Agreement was never implemented, but I would say that the Zimbabwe issue was like Northern Ireland, a matter which the UK Government hoped would go away!Also the 5th Brigade’s activities in the early 80s (20000 dead according to some estimates-see Judith Todd’s book)do not suggest that Mr. Mugabe’s intentions were all that charitable.
In any case, no one appears to be addressing the immediate points. Zimbabwe is a country whose inflation rate is 100000% p.a., has a population whose life expectancy is below what it was in 1980 and has some 30-35% living outside its borders, starvation based on suspected political loyalty, an unemployment rate that makes the Great Depression look good, and an imploding educational system.
All suggestions so far only deal with the medium and long-term problems, important as they are.What are the immediate possible solutions to the aforementioned problems or are we suggesting that the only credible solutiion is cutting through barb-wire and crossing into Botswana and South Africa? Neither of these two countries really want such a situation to continue, judging by the attempts to deport people.
I feel that discussions can be interesting but actions are what is required or an admission that in the short-term very little can be done!
A.M.R. Aziria
Posted by: A M R Aziria | April 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm | Report this commentAziria:”I feel that discussions can be interesting but actions are what is required or an admission that in the short-term very little can be done!”
Today assoc. press is reporting that security agents and paramilitary police in riot gear have surrounded a hotel housing foreign journalists and reportedly have taken away some reporters…
Aziria, it may be more a matter that very little will be done…rather than can be done….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm | Report this commentIf Mugabe imprisons, bombs, sanctions, starves and assassinates the people who displeased him by voting in ways that he doesn’t like, wouldn’t he simply be following the example that the West set for him by its treatment of the majority of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas in the most democratic elections held in Arab lands?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am | Report this commentSo what if these elections were democratic? So too were the elections which brought Hitler to power in 1933. Democracy must fortify itself against those which would have it destroyed from within.
And that isn’t the only similarity between Islamism and Nazism: Both fan hatred of the “other”; both justify maiming and murdering the sub-human or the infidel.
Posted by: RCS | April 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Report this commentHi Rcs,
It seems that your second paragraph is a masterly self-description of the racist Zionists, artfully reflected onto others.
Generations of propagandists, from Goebbels to “Comical Ali” will identify with your talents.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentP, since when are you defending Islamists? Are we witnessing a slow (even greater) radicalisation of your views?
Posted by: RCS | April 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentI am a radical defender of free elections and object to people being starved when they express their democratic choice.
Call me sad, bad or mad if you disagree with the above!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Report this commentThe Hamas coup in Gaza does not count as ‘free elections’, neither does the murderous cleansing which ensued.
As I stated in my post before last, there must be limits to what is allowed even in free democratic elections, a paradox perhaps, but one which is well justified by historical examples such as the rise of the Nazis.
Radical and purist ideologies, whether communist, fascist or Islamist, have never brought any good. The obsessive strive to cleanse society of unpure elements has left behind a very sorry trail of mass murder, terrorism and destruction. A fine balance between ideals and the messy reality on ground is a necessary requisite for a just and prosperous society.
Posted by: RCS | April 4th, 2008 at 11:54 pm | Report this commentI have just viewed, listened and read former PM Blair’s speech at Westminster Cathedral. This an important speech. It is as much about GEOPOLITICS of the 21st Century, as it is about faith. It is deep, bold and brave. For those that are “open” it will be music to their hears…the speech they have they been waiting for someone of high profile and importance to give…for those that are “closed” it will not only threatening but they will try to belittle its relevance and significance. I was dithering as where to post it …should I go to Mr. Rachman’s first “China-Olympic”post? as what Blair says here is so on point :
“The other – which I see so plainly now – is that the centre of gravity, economically and politically, is shifting East. And it is shifting fast. China has gone from a standing start to arguably the most powerful nation on the continent of Africa. China and India together, will industrialise the bulk of their populations, presently employed in subsistence agriculture, probably within two decades. Because of the size of their populations, understand what this means: it is an industrialisation roughly three times that of the U.S.A. and at roughly five times the speed….”
Or should I post at Mr. Rachman’s “Zimbabwe” post ….where I advocated earlier this week that Faith Based groups could play a productive role in assisting a damaged country and an even more damaged people to move forward with societal infrastructure that could aid in building democratic institutions? Then, I just came upon yet another all too familiar sounding exchange between “P” and “RCS” and I realized my post belongs here….I hope everyone is at least “open” to listening to the video and/or reading Blair’s speech.
http://tonyblairoffice.org/
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 5th, 2008 at 5:52 am | Report this commentLisa-Helene Lawson: I think faith based organizations could really make a difference…
come on, we found out long ago bringing bibles to African nations do not change the economy. You should pray for your own economy. This is such an insulting comment, someone is starving and you tell them to pray. Give money! Economic development, etc.
Posted by: Steven Bolton | April 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm | Report this commentDear L-H L,
No good will come of anything B Liar says, ever.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Report this commentBolton: “This is such an insulting comment, someone is starving and you tell them to pray. Give money! Economic development, etc.”
“insulting” oh dear, another person I have offended…!!!!
Thank goodness “P” is still here to dialogue with!
Bolton, You know nothing about faith based orgs and their work if that is truly your response or maybe you are just the dramatic type!…Faith based orgs are representated by a variety of religions, often working in coalition and come with shared values not Bibles! …They have distributed medicine, food, started economic workshops to start up small business, co-ops, taught reading and writing, farming, built homes and have been doing all this for decades …. I wasn’t nor was PM Blair’s in his speech advocating missionaries!… furthermore, no one is saying faith based orgs are the answer to poverty ….they are a slice of of a larger pie…
P,
I understand where you are coming from with your comment. I do not agree with you. But I was raised by a mother who repeatedly told me “that when 2 people agree on everything, then one of them is then unnecessary!” I like to think of both of us as 2 very necessary people in this world! So, if we disagree from time to time it is perfectly alright!…P!,…why don’t you read the speech and pretend it was someone else! …I could have written and given this speech!…pretend it was me and just read it!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 7th, 2008 at 1:21 am | Report this commentClaire Short notes her (opressed) Irish antecedents. My opressed antecedents were Gaels from The Scottish Highlands.
In Ireland land taxes and local services taxation are still odd because of irish sensitivity to the behaviour of past landowners. This oddity distorts the Irish property market. In Britain the effects of the 19th century Highland clearances are still being felt.
As I see it Zimbabweans have the advantage that they can easily learn about history, take others mistakes into account and learn the laws of economics. The vikings settled in North France - viewed french land ownership law and imported it to England. On the periphery of the British isles Norman (feudal) law was ignored and rejected. Land Ownership was by family (clans).It is obvious that this does not really work in a modern global economy. All economies demand the efective use of resouces including land use. How else can prosperity be derived?
No country can prosper without seeking and taking advantage of its relative competitive advantages. In Zimbabwe recent land use and management practices contributed to relative competitive avantage and (taxable) profits and(taxable) wages. There are lots of ways of redistributing wealth and enriching the population of a country.
Giving land to individuals seems to me to be like giving the Highland Glens back to the kilties. You just get ore tinkers. Most of the Highland aristocracy prefer dancing at London Highland balls rather than digging the peats. Zimbabwe isnt much different,
Why not set up the Zimbawean aristocracy with fine Townhouses and big pensions ( bit like the opposite of the colonial remittance men) …nationalise the productive land - employ farming expert management (of any colour) to rebuild prosperity in Zimbabwe farming……..with a view to eventually selling large farms to the private sector (Companies with long time horizons and easy access to finance). Just as is happening in Central Europe - where redistributed Ukranian land ( which was lying fallow) is being let to Companies which are reintroducing efficient mechanised farming.
The future can be good. It will only arrive quickly if Luddites no longer rule. If expertise (rather than skin colour)
is employed at national economc strategy level.
Much of SWOT ( Srengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats) analysis is to do with common sense……..employed in land ownership policy …employed in wealth redistribution policies. …and in national taxation policy.
Ms Short made a demand for a Land register as a prerequisite for aid. Land can be used for leverage - finance. Failure to develop a Land Register is likely to condem Zimbabweans to the type of future the Hihland Gaels and the Bog Irish experienced. OK so it is going to upset cultural sensibilities …….but if it is done so with modern economic explanation ( as a backdrop) in a national recovery plan then why not. Zimbaweans have a duty to contribute to and take part in the world economy. Japan has relatively few naural resources and mostly rotten farmland. Look at the Japanese experience.
The world on the other hand has a duty to publicise the truth about the massacres in Matabeleland……..and get quickly to the absolute truth about the will of the Zimbabwean people.
Lest we forget, indigenous ownership of econmic assets worldwide tends to be small./// nor is it halpful to be in the hands of individuals ( black brown yellow or white). The future is likely to be corporate.
Posted by: Ewan Duncan H MacRae | April 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Report this commentMogabe is the quintessential African. A tribal chief given unrestricted power and exploiting it to the full. To look to Mbeki from South Africa is a waste of time too, as he will do nothing against his “brother”. After all, a lesser known fact is that Mogabe and Mbeki’s wives are biological sisters! And South Africa is well on its way to becoming another African failure like Zimbabwe, despite both countries buried in astounding mineral wealth.
Unless you are able to change the culture of Africans, you will never be able to see prosperity on that continent. Bob Geldof, Bono, Gordon Brown, George Bush and all the world’s horses and all the world’s men, cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together again.
Colonialism brought civilization to Africa, but it is considerably more challenging to civilize Africa.
Morgan Tsvangurai and Jacob Zuma will be no different to their predecessors when they take over from the current dictatorial regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Africa, is a continent shackled by its culture.
Posted by: Peter Jordan | April 9th, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this comment