April 4, 2008
The mind of the dictator
It was predictably depressing to see Robert Mugabe’s first televised reactions to the Zimbabwean election. We don’t cheat, he said - flapping his hands in a weirdly disjointed, faintly camp movement. But, as for the opposition, he shook his head sorrowfully, “lots of irregularities”.
I often wonder, on such occasions, what is really going on inside the head of a dictator like Mugabe. This, after all, is the man who has terrorised opposition politicians and merrily rigged elections for years. Is he just utterly cynical; or does he, at some level, believe what he is saying?
If he were purely cynical, I suppose his internal voice would be saying something like: “Sure, I used to be a freedom fighter. But now I’m rich and powerful, and I have way too much to lose by stepping down from power. So I’ll do whatever it takes - including murder - to stay in power. And who cares what happens to the country, it’s all about me now.”
That, actually, is what I think it does basically come down to: personal enrichment, personal survival, personal pride - and screw the country.
But I would be be very surprised if that is how Mugabe actually thinks, as he lies awake at night. Even the most brutal dictators can usually come up with a self-justifying narrative that allows them eventually to turn over and go to sleep. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - they all convinced themselves that they were acting for the greater good.
I got a sense of what Mugabe’s internal narrative must sound like listening to an interview with the Zimbabwean ambassador to the UN. He argued that the Zimbabwean economy was in a mess because it had been deliberately sabotaged by the UK and the US. Follow that logic through and the opposition are simply playing the game of the former colonial powers - a point the pro-Mugabe press hammers home at every opportunity. And if the opposition threatens to return Zimbabwe to some sort of colonial servitude, then Mugabe is not only justified - but duty bound - to do anything necessary to keep them from power.
If that is how the Zimbabwean president thinks, then it still seems to me likely that he will fight until the bitter end - and take the country down with him, if necessary. It will require forceful persuasion by outsiders - the army, the “politburo” of Zanu-PF, the South Africans - to break through his delusional world.
What a load of rubbish Gideon. In this entry you are equally guilty of providing a ‘greater good’ paradigm as Mugabe. There cannot be social utility for people who ascribe to any holier than thou judgment. Theres only mediation between circumstance — and by attempting to be inside the mind of a dictator here, you have proven yourself no better than monists like Mugabe, the Pope or Dubya.
Posted by: Robert Enton | April 4th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentIf Mr. Mugabe is anything like other dictators (e.g. the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein)he is sincerely convinced that the well-being of the Zimbabweans depends on his own survival in power and stepping down is a betrayal of the nation.
Long-serving dictators are isolated from the realities of their subjects’ lives and surrounded by self-serving sycophants who feed their egos and deepen their isolation and delusions. They have no opportunity to think otherwise.
Nevertheless, one has to stop and think that Mugabe can’t be such a monster if people were allowed to vote against him in such huge numbers. In the Middle East and Central Asia he would have won 99% of the vote!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentGR: I think you’re broadly right in your analysis. If you look around the world at the less-than-fully-democratic countries, you can see some of the justifications you outlined above, especially “the common good” and “the struggle against outside malign forces / former colonial masters” in what they do: North Korea, Burma, China, Syria, Iran, even Pakistan and Russia to a certain extent, and the list goes on.
Unlike in democratic countries, where the electoral process acts as a metaphorical steam valve to release internal tensions, dictatorships and their fellow travellers need a focus for the ire of their people. In North Korea it is Japan; throughout the middle east it is Israel and / or the US and / or Britain; for Russia it is the US, and the list goes on.
If Mugabe is shifted by the forces you mention - the army the politburo etc - then the democratic process will once again have proved its worth. If Mugabe had managed to dispense with democracy altogether, then I think we would be looking at a much worse situation.
Posted by: AYC | April 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this commentWhy this focus on Zimbabwe, which is not an important country? Is it perchance related to the fact that Mugabe expropriated the poor white (British) ranchers’ land?
Posted by: RCS | April 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
You ask a good question. Why all the focus on Zimbabwe?
There is a certain hatred of Mugabe among the Brits. After all, he defeated the minority white government (consisting of settlers of British origin) who unilaterally declared independence and set up a racist government (with apparent disapproval but underhand support from Britain, to the extent that British companies flagrantly ignored the sanctions against that government and were not punished in any way for it). Mugabe also had the temerity to outmanoeuvre and outvote Britain’s favoured candidates (Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Joshua Nkomo).
Therefore, there is a special place in the heart of the British establishment for hating this black man who outwitted the colonial masters and they shall cheer his downfall to the rafters.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentPacifist: Why spoil a good conspiracy with a hint of the truth?
RCS: to the contrary, Zim is an important country. A fully functioning democracy, with a healthy economy, brought to ruin and near dictatorship is a loss for those who want to see democracy spread - and a victory for the Islamists and Chavistas who hate the essence of a free society.
Posted by: AYC | April 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this commentIslamists in Zimbabwe? That’s a new one!
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm | Report this commentTell Dubya and he would want to bomb the nation out of existence (the danger being that Zimbabwe has too many syllabels for him and he will probably end up ordering an air raid on Zambia!)
Zambia, Zimbabwe — it’s all the Zame.
Posted by: RCS | April 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Report this commentEven though Rhodesia was also a rather small country, that did not stop the world from being outraged at the racism and oppression of the Ian Smith regime and rejoicing at its demise. Does an egomaniac like Mugabe, who, if this were possible, has created even greater suffering for his citizens, deserve a pass from the rest of the world merely because he is black and able to mouth outmoded anti-colonialist rhetoric that no one inside or outside Africa takes seriously?
There is no mystery about what is happening in Zimbabwe, and what has happened in far too many other countries in Africa in the past few decades, namely a ruling kleptocracy taking over at gunpoint and enriching itself while the rest of the country starves, the rest of the continent looks on uncaringly and the world contents itself with meaningless hand-wringing, while making sure that there is as little damage to its investments as possible.
It is time to move past all the irrelevant talk about the past sins of colonialism in order to try to excuse or justify Mugabe and his cohorts. This has no more meaning that trying to excuse China’s repression in Tibet by focusing on how “feudal” all those “backward” Tibetans were (or are). And as for Gideon Rachman’s hypothesis that Mugabe may have delusional belief that he is staying in power for the common good, I doubt that Mugabe spends a single second thinking about the common good. Like dictators everywhere, he cares only about holding on to power, whatever the cost to his people may be.
While I have no pretensions to be an expert on Africa, I will venture a prediction for the immediate future in Zimbabwe, based on the reality that is already starting to emerge from the recent raids on the opposition and arrests of foreign journalists (fortunately one of them, a friend of mine, was able to flee the country just in time). This is that there will be martial law, most likely followed by even more police brutality, repression and killing, followed by the election results being cancelled and Mugabe being declared president for the rest of his long life, while the rest of the world moves on to focusing on other countries that are more “important” than Zimbabwe.
This is not to say that there might not be some vigorous discussion about whether some western leaders would be willing to shake hands with Mugabe at the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympics.
Posted by: algasema | April 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentPacifist: glad to see the steel trap springing into action. Clearly I am talking about those who hate democracy generally.
Posted by: AYC | April 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentRCS… Zanzibar is not safe either…to someone like Shrub, it sounds near enough to Zimbabwe and he will have a vague memory of “Zanzibar” from his drinking days as there are a few bars and clubs around the word called that.
Posted by: Pacifist | April 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Report this comment@ P & RCS, very interesting and well-presented earlier comments.
At least the people of Zimbabwe have been given the opportunity to vote - unlike the way Brown was foisted upon us!
@ Algasema, your post both contains some absolute truths, and also some classic emotionally-charged rhetoric, largely resultant, i am sure from the fact that you have a friend affected by the crisis.
MDC need to spend long enough in opposition, not only to get its story straight in terms of what its pitching the people and what it can realistically offer in the near and medium term in terms of economic remedy; but also long enough to create grassroots support which is an important factor in terms of MDCs potentially longevity as a serious party in government.
MDC needs to be seen as a vehicle for modern Zimbabweans (white, black, Asian, Coloured etc) - whilst also address the structural land-driven issues associated with wealth, resources and mobility.
I tend to agree with Pacifist in that the fact that that Mugabe in all his misguided badness has managed still to enable MDC to grow into the public consciousness shows you that at his core, democracy is something that he still supports. 28 years of democracy is not quite Westminster yet and it will take some time for even an educated black newly in power like Mugabe to understand that democracy cannot be switched off temporarily - its all or nothing and putting the trust in the people.
The pain of the past 10 years in Zimbabwe is probably necessary so that Zimbabwe can finally put its colonial ghost to bed - both blacks and whites have stuffed it up, now its time for true modern day Zimbabweans to stand up and be counted.
Posted by: Karl Effenbergsson | April 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentKarl Effenbergsson, thank you for the kind comment about my alleged “absolute truths”, but you are mistaken if you think that my opposition to Mugabe and his gang of thugs has anything to do with the fact that I (very recently) found out that I happened to know someone who had the courage to go in there to try to report the truth. My “emotionally charged rhetoric” happens to be based on what I would like to call my “constitutional” aversion to dictators, including the would be one currently in power in my own country, the USA. There is no point in trying to glorify, rationalize or make excuses for Mugabe. The world (especially South Africa) should focus on getting him out as soon as possible, so that the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe will start to come to an end.
I also have to admit that I am just a little impatient with people who try to find silver linings with dictatorship in any form. With all due respect, comments about how the last ten years of Mugabe’s rule might have had any kind of benefit at all to anyone except his inner circle of kleptocrats are just as silly as the comment that a German classmate of mine at Harvard made to me a half century ago about Hitler. His comment was that certainly, Hitler was evil, but someone had to do something about the fact that the Jews had supposedly taken over the German banking system. Please forgive me if I find some of the excuses for Mugabe’s misrule of theft, lies and terror appearing on posts of certain of my co-bloggers equally fatuous.
Posted by: algasema | April 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Report this commentAlgasema, not sure how you line up Bush with Mugabe, but I completely agree with your final para.
Posted by: AYC | April 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentAlgasema:
Not sure how you line up Bush with Mugabe, but I completely agree with your final para.
Posted by: AYC | April 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentLet’s not miss a valuable lesson in debating the details. GR is onto something when he talks about how Mugabe gained power through spreading the theory that foreign countries were plotting against Zimbabwe. This placing of external blame is the signature of a rising dictatorship, whether it is Mugabe, Hitler, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Mao, Bush, et al. In every case, the leader claimed to need more power and control in order to protect the country from those insidious outsiders, those barbarians at the gate.
Keep this lesson in mind the next time you hear about how warrentless wiretaps or secret torture prisons are needed to protect us from foreign “evildoers.”
Posted by: Chris, Little Rock, AR | April 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentZimbawe is symtomatic of problems throughout Africa…it is important what is going on there …Africa is important …The US waited way TOO LONG to establish an Africa Command (AFRICOM) and that is due to being hung up in Iraq for the last 5 fracken years!… we, i.e, the West will eventually pay a high price for that.
Mugabe may or may not be delusional but he is most certainly amoral. The one saving grace is that he is old…and hopefully unhealthy. His crackdown will perhaps increase opposition and tsk tsking from the West…but brutality too often wins out in Africa….and it is unimaginable brutality that targets innocent many chidren and women in large numbers. It realy makes the West look feeble and weak when a old man can be allowed to reak so much havoc…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 4th, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Report this commentFortunately, AYC, Bush is only at the comparative beginning of a road down which Mugabe has already made considerable progress, but it is not farfetched at all to see a common contempt for democracy, especially as shown by the latest shocking revelations about the (since withdrawn) Justice Department memo by John Yoo claiming that Bush has inherent power to override all domestic laws and international conventions against torture. One might even argue in Mugabe’s favor that, at least, he has no Guantanamo, unless one considers that he has come close to turning his entire country into one.
Posted by: algasema | April 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm | Report this commentI should also add to my post above… keep this lesson in mind when our politicians create policies that increase the chances of outsiders attacking us. Such attacks, if they occurred, would be quite useful to someone making the case that the threat to our lives and our freedom comes from impoverished foreigners rather than from our own government.
Posted by: Chris, Little Rock, AR | April 4th, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Report this commentWhat must be going on in the mind of Robert Mugabe? An interesting question. The honest answer is that we do not exactly know. But speculation is a wonderful mental exercise. And what we have learned about people with a violent past (tyrants and guerrilla leaders alike) gives us some clues.
Mugabe secured power through violent struggle and has kept it by violent means for almost three decades. He will be determined to cling onto power. No matter what comes in his way, his basic instinct will be to crush it.
A dictator who survived through years of guerrilla war against Ian Smith and overcame formidable opponents like Joshua Nkomo has total belief in himself. Nothing he says or does is wrong.
Dead certainty is the most prominent trait of a dictator.
Tyrants are feared for their ruthlessness which makes them look powerful. But they are, in fact, quite insecure. And their insecurity makes it very difficult to contemplate giving up power.
As they approach the end, they tend to go deeper and deeper into their past, remember the time spent in prison, the skirmishes with security forces, the existence without food and shelter, their own sufferings and those of close comrades. Having emerged from such a long, dark period, it is impossible to contemplate returning to ordinary life, even worse isolation or prosecution if he stays in Zimbabwe.
Mugabe will have been thinking a lot in recent days, spent mostly in private or with close advisers. He will have been planning a great deal, to outwit the opposition in the next round of voting, or in whatever comes before or after that. He will probably confide in fewer people than before. As far as he is concerned, the fate of his country is forever linked to his own.
It may be difficult to believe, but authoritarian leaders are indecisive in the end. They cannot be sure of anything once they are not in control. They have become used to being one of the pack they lead. Group loyalty is very strong and outsiders are seen as enemies who are always wrong and who must be defeated. Any kind of compromise with the opposition cannot guarantee a dictator’s survival and survival is paramount.
Many experts in the media are tempted to make reckless predictions, but being predictive in this situation is risky. Those who really want Mugabe to go should give him every assurance that, as he nears the end of his long life and political career, he has no reason to fear revenge from his victims.
It is difficult to show magnanimity, but it is the need of the hour if bloodshed is to be avoided.
Deepak Tripathi
Posted by: Deepak Tripathi | April 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm | Report this comment@ algasema,
I am certainly not an apologist for Mugabe, especially after having grown up in Zimbabwe and having parents from Zimbabwe who incidentally are still there. I’m afraid your boiled down and far too simplistic and doesnt take into account cause and effect which is crucial if you want objective and constructive suggestions on where things should go now.
Tripathi’s post above is very close to the mark. All the other drivel is unhelpful and predictable.
Comparisons with Hitler are both emotive and completely apologist in fact for Britains unmistakable role in the mess that is Zimbabwe today. That doesnt excuse Mugabe, but explains that part of the problem is also a sum of the parts. Western media, british governments and of course African leaders all have thrown dice into Zimbabwes predicament. Mugabe stepping down tomorrow doesnt change the fact that MDC need to build a mandate and that takes longer than 5 or 6 years since they have been a serious opposition.
Zimbabwe’s parliament has not been around for as long as Westminster so I’m afraid your outburst remains a classicly flawed one…
Posted by: Karl Effenbergsson | April 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Report this commentKarl Effenbergsson, you refer to my comments, and those of almost everybody else’s above as “drivel”, but you have great praise for the post of Deepak Tripathi. So have I. Let me quote from Mr. Tripathi: “Mugabe secured power through violent struggle and has kept it by violent means for almost three decades. He will be determined to cling onto power. No matter what comes in his way, his basic instinct will be to crush it.” I am glad to see that we appear to agree about this.
Unfolding events in Zimbabwe, namely the refusal to release the election results, the barring of the opposition from the court, which is also stalling on the MDC’s lawsuit for this purpose, increased intimidation by the “war veterans”, the arrest of foreign journalists, as well as everything in Mugabe’s past history (see the recent book “Mugabe” by Martin Merideth) make it clear that Mugabe, in all likelihood, will seek to postpone the “run-off” as long as he can while imposing martial law. Fascism is no less fascist when it is taking place in Africa than it was when it held sway in Europe.
I must also express surprise that anyone could take Mugabe’s ranting about Western “colonialists” seriously. Screaming about “colonialists” now, after three decades of Mugabe’s homegrown terror and violence, bears an uncanny resemblance to Hitler’s raving about the Jews. If there are any “colonialists” left with influence in Zimbabwe, it is the Chinese, who are propping up Mugabe’s dictatorship. This is worth thinking about for anyone who might have plans to be in Beijing this August.
Posted by: algasema | April 5th, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentOne more word: My comparison between Mugabe and Hitler may strike some as “emotive”, and, admittedly, Mugabe is no mass murderer or military threat to his neighbors. But the comparison with Hitler, at least in one sense, is not original to me. One of Mugabe’s worst goons, now deceased, but famous when he was alive for his leadership of Mugabe’s much feared “war veterans”, called himself “Hitler” Hunzvi.
Posted by: algasema | April 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm | Report this commentAlgasema, “Fascism is no less fascist when it is taking place in Africa than it was when it held sway in Europe.”
I couldn’t agree more, hence my earlier comment that the enemies of democracy throughout the world will be cheering on the tyrant. For those of us who view democracy as a beacon for all peoples, the crushing of the election result must be seen as a defeat. Only time will tell as to whether democracy has been truly snuffed out - I suspect not that long either.
Karl, “Western media, british governments and of course African leaders all have thrown dice into Zimbabwes predicament.”
Tish and piffle. Mugabe has been the dictator. It is he that must bear the blame for the predicament that has overcome Zimbabwe: the 100,000% inflation; the torture; the repression; the mass exodus; the slum clearances; the land distribution policy. Blaming all that on Britain and the “western media” won’t wash I’m afraid. Zanu PF and Mugabe have been in charge. It is they who should answer for their crimes.
Posted by: AYC | April 6th, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this comment“Islamists in Zimbabwe? That’s a new one!
Tell Dubya and he would want to bomb the nation out of existence (the danger being that Zimbabwe has too many syllabels for him and he will probably end up ordering an air raid on Zambia!)”
This is too funny!
Posted by: Mnqobi Nyathikazi | April 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am | Report this comment@ Algasema, not everyone else’s comments - just yours in the context of your earlier post. Some of what you have said does have much merit in it…
However, exagerration, I am afraid, doesnt make your point any more forceful… or perhaps I should say it makes it less so.
@ AYC, I think Pacifist said it best:
“There is a certain hatred of Mugabe among the Brits. After all, he defeated the minority white government (consisting of settlers of British origin) who unilaterally declared independence and set up a racist government (with apparent disapproval but underhand support from Britain, to the extent that British companies flagrantly ignored the sanctions against that government and were not punished in any way for it). Mugabe also had the temerity to outmaneuvre and outvote Britain’s favoured candidates (Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Joshua Nkomo).
Therefore, there is a special place in the heart of the British establishment for hating this black man who outwitted the colonial masters and they shall cheer his downfall to the rafters”
Its clear that Mugabe has been holding the reins since 1980 and the buck should stop with him - but that is not without very transparent strings initially from Maggie Thatcher’s Tories first and then ultimately Lancaster House Agreement was reneged upon by Claire Short & Co under new Labour.
Since the 1890’s the history of Zimbabwe has been about serving British and white South African interests and pushing Blacks to the fringes of development and society. Right up until Smiths day that remained the case and transparent, democratic institutions did not exist at the point that Mugabe came into power, so it is no wonder that an inexperienced man who came to power through armed struggle to run an economy for 95% of the people instead of the 5% under previous white only governments was allowed the same a carte blanche by the very British institutions, companies, interests or whatever you wish to call them to increasingly serve the people involved in that armed struggle. Flawed - yes. But the buck stops with us in Britain as well as the Mugabe’s of this world.
In any case, your blame game doesn’t change the fact that Mugabe’s young democracy is developing - and unfortunately bloodshed and turmoil have been a necessary ingredient to the next stage: largely driven by a majority increasingly aware of the issues and given a voting voice on how governments can impact on their future.
As an aside, I would love to see Gordon Brown go to the ballot box tomorrow. At least Mugabe allows the gathering tide to grow against him.
But does Brown have the balls?
Posted by: Karl Effenbergsson | April 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentKarl:
“so it is no wonder that an inexperienced man who came to power through armed struggle to run an economy for 95% of the people instead of the 5% under previous white only governments was allowed the same a carte blanche by the very British institutions, companies, interests or whatever you wish to call them to increasingly serve the people involved in that armed struggle. Flawed - yes. But the buck stops with us in Britain as well as the Mugabe’s of this world.”
He seemed to be avoiding a total disaster up until he destroyed the agricultural base on which the economy was bedrocked. That’s the point at which the wheels fell off. And that had nothing to do with Britain. Britain didn’t order the “slums” cleared. Britain didn’t conspire to have his opponents repressed and tortured.
Your argument is weak and contradictory and your post-imperialist hand wringing simply serves to excuse the behaviour of a tyrant, and by extension, tyrants. Whatever crimes Britain committed in its imperial heyday are historic. The crimes in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Tibet, Burma, Iran, are all taking place TODAY.
Posted by: AYC | April 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentAYC, self-righteously said: “The crimes in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Tibet, Burma, Iran, are all taking place TODAY.”
That he found it convenient to mention neither Chechnya nor Palestine is another example of certain people’s conditional morality and their love of “our son of a bitch(es)”.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Report this commentP: wondered how long it would take before you emerged. You’re right. The list I gave is not comprehensive. I could have included Gaza. The crimes that are being committed there by Hamas put Mugabe to shame. And you’re right about Chechnya. You missed Venezuela however.
Posted by: AYC | April 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
Thanks for providing the amusement here, and good night!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this comment