Gasoline for that fire?

April 18, 2008 5:23 AM

April 18, 1980: Rhodesia is renamed Zimbabwe after it is granted black majority rule.

In 1980 the Rhodesian government accepted British and American mediation and signed the Lancaster House agreement for majority rule. In elections held that year, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), as ZANU became known, decisively defeated ZAPU. Robert Mugabe was installed as prime minister, and the nation was renamed Zimbabwe. (via)

Nearly 3 wees ago, Zimbabwe voted to, by most accounts, finally oust Mugabe. But he's still there, election results are still withheld, and his militia will shortly be getting their hands on 70 tonnes weaponry coming (via a complacent South Africa) from that one country in Asia hosting the Olympics this year.

Lots more at ZimbabweSituation.
Prev.

posted by allkindsoftime (60 comments total)

Rhodesia is renamed Zimbabwe after it is granted black majority rule.

And the black majority went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.
posted by three blind mice at 5:30 AM on April 18, 2008

I never really fully accepted Jared Diamond's reasoning for sub-Saharan Africa's complete failure.

I mean, look at Washington D.C., Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Memphis.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:36 AM on April 18, 2008

I never really fully accepted Jared Diamond's reasoning for sub-Saharan Africa's complete failure.

What's interesting about Zimbabwe is that by many accounts it was a fantastic success for many years, certainly compared to it's neighbors. And the person who lead the nation through those good times was also Mugabe. So at some point, after being a good leader he essentially became a really bad leader.

One thing to keep in mind is that the guy is 84 years old, And old-age senility could be one reason why you saw the sudden drop-off in government quality under the same guy.

I mean, look at Washington D.C., Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Memphis.

Huh? What about 'em? I'm not sure what you mean.
posted by delmoi at 5:53 AM on April 18, 2008 [1 favorite]

reasoning for sub-Saharan Africa's complete failure.

Well, one thing that comes to mind is the number of former African dictators buried very close to Karl Marx in London's Highgate Cemetery.
posted by three blind mice at 5:54 AM on April 18, 2008 [1 favorite]

What's interesting about Zimbabwe is that by many accounts it was a fantastic success for many years, certainly compared to it's neighbors. And the person who lead the nation through those good times was also Mugabe. So at some point, after being a good leader he essentially became a really bad leader.

It only goes to show that the Rhodesian economy was so robust that it sustained years of misrule by Mugabe before tanking completely.
posted by three blind mice at 5:57 AM on April 18, 2008 [2 favorites]

And the black majority went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.

And what does this mean? They certainly did a better job then the Rhodesian government, which did about as good a job as the U.S/Maliki government in Iraq is doing today. I don't think you can blame the Majority in the country given the fact that they just voted Mugabe out of office.
posted by delmoi at 5:58 AM on April 18, 2008

It only goes to show that the Rhodesian economy was so robust that it sustained years of misrule by Mugabe before tanking completely.

By years you mean decades, right? I find that pretty difficult to believe.
posted by delmoi at 5:59 AM on April 18, 2008

Isn't it a shame, three blind mice, the way dictators have misused Marx? Reminds me of how blatantly "democracy" has been used as a tool by totalitarian regimes.

Random thought:
I remember really liking the way Stevie Wonder said "Zimbabwe" in that song. Sounded good at the time.
posted by surplus at 5:59 AM on April 18, 2008 [2 favorites]

Nice lumping of a whole race there, TBM. I think you should be more critical of the surrounding geopolitical sphere for Zimbabwe's misery. The race issue lies at the heart of it (and at the heart of your comment). And Jesse, I agree, I felt Diamonds book was apologist doctrine for the evils of neo-colonialism.
posted by Student of Man at 5:59 AM on April 18, 2008 [1 favorite]

Mugabe has been a rat-bastard for a while now, at least since the 1982-84 timeframe: just ask the Ndebele in Matabeleland.
posted by aramaic at 6:08 AM on April 18, 2008

I never really fully accepted Jared Diamond's reasoning for sub-Saharan Africa's complete failure.

I mean, look at Washington D.C., Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Memphis.

Would you please stop in to explain how your comment could be interpreted as anything other than disgusting racist trash? Otherwise, please shut the fuck up, we don't want your kind here.
posted by nasreddin at 6:09 AM on April 18, 2008

70 tonnes!? That's a lot of guns. China massproduces everything it seems. I didn't know it was that much. Thanks for this post which sadly may be derailed fast.
posted by dabitch at 6:14 AM on April 18, 2008

You know, with all of these wonderful, "black people can't run their own country/city/etc.) comments, I almost thought that I was on Digg for second. Nice going resident Metafilter racists. BRAVO!
posted by anansi at 6:26 AM on April 18, 2008 [4 favorites]

I felt Diamonds book was apologist doctrine for the evils of neo-colonialism.

I don't know. I think there's a subtle difference between an apology and an explanation of how the colonialism happened the way it did instead of some other countries being the ones who would colonize the world. But I only read the book one time and towards the end I was trying to speed read to write a report on it and I could have missed some instances where he was being an apologist and not just describing the way things were. Like the difference between saying "the aryans are the master race" vs. "this is why the nazis believed that aryans were the master race".
posted by Green With You at 6:39 AM on April 18, 2008

I am not sure that the intermittent outage will come soon enough to save this thread from the racist implications by a few commenters that blacks are intellectually inferior and genetically incapable of self rule. It's hard sometimes to see the white hoods through the internet pipes but sometimes you can see the shadow they cast.
posted by caddis at 6:41 AM on April 18, 2008 [5 favorites]

How the fuck does that first comment still stand?

However, I'm glad I learned what ZANU-PF stands for, because I was never curious enough to actually bother looking it up, but now am a fraction smarter.
posted by bonaldi at 7:02 AM on April 18, 2008

Also previously.
posted by Brian B. at 7:14 AM on April 18, 2008

Well, with regards to the early success of the economy compared to the more recent failure, some believe that Mugabe is suffering from syphilis.
posted by djgh at 7:20 AM on April 18, 2008

And the black majority went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.

I presume you attribute the current situation and bleak prospects of the United States to the "fact" that the white majority are utterly incapable of running their own affairs.
posted by languagehat at 7:32 AM on April 18, 2008 [10 favorites]

I don't know. I think there's a subtle difference between an apology and an explanation of how the colonialism happened the way it did instead of some other countries being the ones who would colonize the world.

Well, I disagree. If you ask me the whole thing is just a just-so story. I mean, 200 years before the rise of Europe, China was the most powerful country in the world. If they had made an effort, they might have been able to colonize Europe, but that didn't happen. Before that, there was the Muslim middle east, which actually did colonize parts of Europe.

The other thing is, if you look back a few hundred years, Europe was in about a bad of a situation as Africa is now, it's just that people had nothing to compare it it to. Where Africa has AIDS, Europe had syphilis. You have the exact same violent revolutions, extreme poverty, lack of healthcare, and so on.

Geographic determinism totally ignores the roles of 'traditional' history, which mainly focuses on governments and leaders. But that's extremely important. Just look at China under Mao and after Mao. The difference in material wealth is enormous. Hell, look at North Korea compared to South Korea. Same people, similar geography, completely different outcome.
posted by delmoi at 7:32 AM on April 18, 2008

And the black majority went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.

*flips the bird*
posted by milarepa at 7:45 AM on April 18, 2008

Well, with regards to the early success of the economy compared to the more recent failure, some believe that Mugabe is suffering from syphilis.

I don't get this. What does syphilis explain that the senility of an average 84 year old man does not? Especially given there is a cure for syphilis, but none for old age?
posted by delmoi at 8:06 AM on April 18, 2008

Interestingly enough, the South African dockworkers are apparently refusing to unload the weapons shipment so that it can be transshipped to Zimbabwe.

...in the realm of conspiracy theories, one wonders if the slowed arrival of the weaponry could account for the slowed release of elections data.
posted by aramaic at 8:15 AM on April 18, 2008 [2 favorites]

How the fuck does that first comment still stand?

ZIMBABWE'S ECONOMY IS ROBUST AND SUCCESSFUL STOP ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A COLONIALIST TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE GOVERNMENT STOP
posted by oaf at 8:29 AM on April 18, 2008

did you know that telex is still the most reliable method to reach most African governments? true story
posted by perianwyr at 8:42 AM on April 18, 2008

META
posted by caddis at 8:44 AM on April 18, 2008

That action by the dockworkers is very cool. Thank you aramaic and BBC. I kind of missed that in the US press.
posted by caddis at 8:46 AM on April 18, 2008

ZIMBABWE'S ECONOMY IS ROBUST AND SUCCESSFUL STOP ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A COLONIALIST TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE GOVERNMENT STOP

Yes, because it's perfectly appropriate and accurate to blame the failure of a government/state on the RACE OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE!

Is this where I say that white people are complete idiots? Because you know the U.S. economy is falling out the window, and it sure as hell ain't black people in charge around here.
posted by rtha at 8:49 AM on April 18, 2008

We are about to change that.
posted by caddis at 8:59 AM on April 18, 2008 [5 favorites]

Thanks for a well-crafted FPP on a very volatile situation, allkindsoftime. I learned a lot from your links, especially the ZimbabweSituation site.
posted by amyms at 8:59 AM on April 18, 2008

I mean, 200 years before the rise of Europe, China was the most powerful country in the world. If they had made an effort, they might have been able to colonize Europe, but that didn't happen. Before that, there was the Muslim middle east, which actually did colonize parts of Europe

India, China, and a variety of Arab interests have to be included in any discussion of overseas powers meddling in present-day African affairs, but you can add the Persian and Mongol empires to cultures that attempted or intended to recolonize Europe.

That is kind of a misdirection though - Zim? yeah its a basket case. Mugabe changed a lot after his first wife died. I think you can say the African nationalist movements had their failures and Zimbabwe is one of them. In practical terms, yes less people starved/went hungry in Rhodesia and the country didn't seem to gain much in terms of real democracy. Zimbabwe also has a terrible human rights record and expelling most of its captains of industry had a greatly negative impact on the overall economic talent pool (again, no question - Mugabe's fault).

On the other hand, we must remember in any analysis of Sub Saharan Africa that the fall of Rhodesia pretty much synchs with the timeframe when people became aware of HIV/AIDS. No matter what circles you hang out in (this is coming from a straight, white guy who was only there a few months), if you have spent any time in Sub-Saharan Africa you know multiple people who died from it. To put aside the social cost, the strain on healthcare, the depletion of the workforce, and the simple loss of talent is immeasurable.

Internationally Kenya, Tanzania and some other places are getting caught up in proxy battles on the "War on Terror", so I am not sure they should be included in any examination of the success of colonial vs African governments. The international commmunity has also failed African development by not making any serious attempts to curtail the trade in small arms and illegal diamonds. At the same time, there are barriers to African nations in legitimate markets too - The EU and United States have made it very difficult for the African farmer to compete in agricultural markets because they provide so many subsidies to otherwise unsustainable farms. Ethanol production has caused waves in the commodity markets; I am not sure we understand the impacts yet -- but the idea that this is going to impact the poor has been floated by guys like Fidel Castro and it really sucks when Fidel is the voice of reason.

Even under those conditions, South Africa has put up good economic indicators and created a working liberal democracy. I think Namibia and Botswana are doing some good things. So I think the discussion in this thread which was comparing colonial to African regimes is oversimplified (to be charitable).
posted by Deep Dish at 8:59 AM on April 18, 2008 [7 favorites]

Geographic determinism totally ignores the roles of 'traditional' history, which mainly focuses on governments and leaders.

Diamond never says that geographic determinism is the only force in history. He specifically says that while Guns, Germs, and Steel's hypotheses predict an advantage for Eurasia over the other continents, it doesn't have an explanation for why it was European nations, as opposed to, say, India or China, that ended up colonizing so much of the rest of the world.

He has speculated (without specifically arguing for the point, as I recall) that without China's long unification and internal peace, if China had remained multiple kingdoms fighting with each other (and thus competing and being driven to develop and exploit advantages over the others), that China might well have been dominant. Notice that this is much more of a traditional historical explanation.

(While I happen to be currently reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, I haven't finished it; my attributions to Diamond, above, are based on hearing him speak a few years ago.)
posted by Zed_Lopez at 9:02 AM on April 18, 2008

Yes, because it's perfectly appropriate and accurate to blame the failure of a government/state on the RACE OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE!

The first comment doesn't do that, but squirm all you like.
posted by oaf at 9:03 AM on April 18, 2008

The first comment doesn't do that, but squirm all you like.
The first comment implies that very strongly, but strike a firm stance against those who would try and stem racist language all you like. Or come over to Metatalk, where it's being discussed.
posted by bonaldi at 9:06 AM on April 18, 2008

I'm reading the MeTa thread, thank you.
posted by oaf at 9:06 AM on April 18, 2008

So, trying to keep the thread on track, let's look at Morgan Tsvangirai, the primary domestic political opponent of Mugabe (at the moment).

Mugabe seems to be the sort of person that must always have a formal Enemy, and a domestic enemy (always, naturally, a "tool" of the hated formal Enemy). He never got alone with Joshua Nkomo either, climaxing with the use of the Fifth Brigade against Matabeleland (Nkomo's homeland).

...for which I've never forgiven Mugabe. Not to say that Nkomo was all roses, mind you.
posted by aramaic at 9:23 AM on April 18, 2008

I think history has proven that moderate governments work best. Unfortunately it's very difficult to sell moderation to a people hungry for change.
posted by rocket88 at 9:26 AM on April 18, 2008

Zimbabwe's economy went for two decades under Mugabe, before tanking - it wasn't growing, but it wasn't tanking either. All through the 80s, government spending increased, quality of life (in terms of health, education) improved but the economy didn't grow. In the 1990s, with the government in a debt crises, they followed the IMF's plan of structural adjustment and slashed government spending. Quality of life plummetted, and the economy did not grow. (Which is a damning indictment of structural adjustment but that is another thread.)

The recent attacks on property owners in the farming sector and seizure of properties - which has been legitimated by Mugabe - have tanked the economy. And the government is printing money to fund itself, contributing to the spiral of inflation. But it was only after two decades of black majority rule, with Mugabe as leader.

No, Mugabe is not a nice person - he never was (see history of 1982-1984 conflict in Matabeleland, as mentioned above). But the Rhodesian government was not nice either. They ran a segregationalist state, with racist policies, and opposed the majority of the people voting, aka democracy. And they didn't develop the economy - they ran an economy where the vast majority lived in abject poverty while a small minority (mainly white) lived in luxury. It was medieval, or colonial, as it were.

Talking about the failures of post-colonial Africa do not in anyway justify colonial Africa; in many ways, the problems have the same roots - the country is being run for the benefit of the few against the many. There are many reasons for this, the most serious of which is that states do not require internal legitimacy to be recognised; the Westphalian system gives them power without them needing the support of their people. This is finally being challenged in the case of Zimbabwe, but its far from the worst case (see the Congo).
posted by jb at 9:29 AM on April 18, 2008 [7 favorites]

the country is being run for the benefit of the few against the many

It always seemed to me that Zimbabwe merely replaced one set of dictators with another. They kicked out the Rhodesian loons, and replaced them with ZANU-PF loons. The basic mechanism of repression remained, and was merely redirected.

...the people involved changed, but the machine kept grinding away.
posted by aramaic at 9:34 AM on April 18, 2008

To be fair to the black majority of Zimbabwe, they only really voted for him once, in 1980 - and even that election was marred by violence and terror. Since then Mugabe has fixed, stolen and bought elections, using torture and terror. Since they'd never got to vote for everyone before, and had suffered real and terrible injustice under white Rhodesian rule, we can excuse them one mistake, right?

Despite this, despite murder and mayhem and torture, they've persisted in trying to unelect him, despite their brightest and best fleeing abroad and ever-increasing violence. He and his corrupt cronies are proving hard to dislodge.
posted by alasdair at 9:37 AM on April 18, 2008

Which is a damning indictment of structural adjustment...

Is it, though? Zimbabwe has not actually followed structural adjustment policy, right? Because I'm fairly sure an IMF policy wouldn't include "loot everything you can lay your hands on, put it in Swiss bank accounts, drive your most productive businesses out, and print as much currency as you want."

Unless you're arguing that the IMF structural adjustment policies are failures because people never follow them, I don't see how Zimbabwe tests them, any more than it demonstrates that fiat currencies don't work.
posted by alasdair at 9:42 AM on April 18, 2008

they only really voted for him once, in 1980

...which, given the differences in approach between ZANU & ZAPU, was more or less guaranteed to end with ZANU winning (IMHO, of course).

ZAPU never really organized the rural (majority) population, whereas ZANU did. They've been able to retain that advantage for a very long time; their war veterans are still a formidable force in the villages. For a long time I've felt that the MDC was repeating the mistakes of ZAPU/ZIPRA; the last election probably proved me wrong as it appears MDC did reasonably well in some rural areas.
posted by aramaic at 9:47 AM on April 18, 2008

If you are curious about living conditions under colonialism, read Nervous Conditions by Tsitsi Dangarembga. She describes how, during the Rhodesian period, people in the country routinely had dry hair and cracked skin from malnutrition and lack of oil/fats in their diet.

----------------------- --------------------

But at the same time - I don't think this is a primarily an economic issue (which is a shocking thing for me to say, since I'm an economic determinist).

(the following is based on hearing recent lectures on the State in Africa -- it's not my ideas, but those of much smarter and more well-informed people)

I think it's a state issue. One of the problems is that the form and function of the state in Africa - as supported explicitly by the international state system including the OAU - gives the state in Africa external legitimacy which is utterly detached from internal legitimacy. Many states in Africa get their power -- not from taxes and internal legitimacy - but from control of access to the country. All money going in and out - whether investment or aid - is controlled by the state; this is the source of their revenue and power -- it has been described as a "Gatekeeper state". In this situation -- where a state doesn't need internal legitimacy to be recognised by other states, so they don't need to worry about good internal rule and a healthy economy as much -- and in a system in which military coups have been recognised as "legitimate" just because they now control the state, regardless of how they got there -- is it surprising that there are problems with democracy in Africa?

I'm not saying that this is the only problem -- the government of Zimbabwe has been questioned in its legitimacy. Or that it is a "western problem" -- it isn't - the OAU has been one of the biggest props to states seeking to hold power without internal legitimacy. (I don't know enough about the African Union to say where they stand).

But maybe there is just something wrong in the world where the external legitimacy of a state can be so disconnected from its internal.

Not that this really explains Zimbabwe, which is a much more complicated story -- partly because its legitimacy has been questioned (though how much by other states as opposed to non-state actors?), and partly because Mugabe does have some support in the country. He does have some internal legitimacy, as much as you and I may dislike his rule. The problem is that we don't know how much -- the stories about the election (and at least an election has happened, unlike other places) are confused. I've been listening to CBC and BBC reporting (neither of which organisations could be described as pro-Mugabe), and its not clear there was a landslide for the opposition that's been covered up. I couldn't have predicted which way the election would go. Maybe you could say that's because people believ Mugabe's assertions that all of Zimbabwe's recent problems are being caused by neo-colonialism and Britain trying to wreck the country -- which is, of course, patently untrue -- but given the history of the place, a lot more reasonable sounding on the ground where actual colonialism and British settlers did make life suck for several generations.
posted by jb at 9:53 AM on April 18, 2008 [3 favorites]

Is it, though? Zimbabwe has not actually followed structural adjustment policy, right? Because I'm fairly sure an IMF policy wouldn't include "loot everything you can lay your hands on, put it in Swiss bank accounts, drive your most productive businesses out, and print as much currency as you want."

They did follow structural adjustment through the 1990s; that was the condition on them continuing to recieve and refinance foreign loans. It didn't work - it ruined the social welfare system (which was expected), but didn't improve the economy, which was the sole justification for making people's lives worse in the short term. But short term turned into long term.

They have since dropped structural adjustment, and things are much worse than they were in the 1990s. But the 1990s were worse than the 1980s for most people.
posted by jb at 9:57 AM on April 18, 2008

jb: ... the Westphalian system gives them power without them needing the support of their people.

On this I would completely agree with jb (though I suspect we'll disagree on solutions.) I'd also add that African elites keep power without needing the prosperity of their people, which is perhaps where this situation ties in with the historical China/Europe comparisons above. If elites don't need a strong, healthy populace, they don't make sure they have one. European elites were forced to continually build up their nations or face extinction from their neighbours. Chinese elites were not. Imagine if Africa lacked enormous mineral and oil resources: elites could not support themselves by selling extraction rights to foreign, rich states, and purchasing weapons and wealth to keep themselves in power and bribe the urban population to keep them happy with subsidised food and patronage. Imagine if there were no external industrialised nations to provide advanced weaponry.

Now, among all the hundreds of cultures in Africa, one will better-organised than the others. More education, more industry, better governance. Its population will grow, it will be able to overcome its neighbours, its way of doing things will spread. Just as happened in Europe, in fact. After a couple of centuries, sure, you'll still have backward, violent areas (like Europe has the Balkans) but the better governments and societies will have spread and prospered.

Throw in rich mineral resources leading to corruption and isolated elites, Cold War and War on Terror meddline, and everyone with talent fleeing the continent to work in the rich West, and it's no wonder the place is broken.

Finally, if you see elite corruption and poor government as a black genetic problem, do you really think black Barack Obama will be worse than white George W. Bush just because of his skin colour?
posted by alasdair at 10:02 AM on April 18, 2008

Mugabe has been a rat-bastard for a while now, at least since the 1982-84 timeframe

Agreed. From my limited reading, Mugabe seems to have been a vicious, paranoid thus (albeit a very well-educated thug) from the start. It's very sad that he was charismatic and ruthless enough to come into power and help devastate the nation.
posted by shivohum at 11:54 AM on April 18, 2008

I see dock workers in South Africa are refusing to unload the arms shipment.
posted by Abiezer at 2:14 PM on April 18, 2008

They list all these things that happened on 4/18 (18/4, for everyone not in the US) and they dont mention the 1906 Earthquake and subsequent fire that destroyed San Francisco?
posted by subaruwrx at 2:22 PM on April 18, 2008

Even under those conditions, South Africa has put up good economic indicators and created a working liberal democracy.

Has, being the operative term there. With Zuma in power, ZA could pull a Zimbabwe disaster on a much, much more massive scale. Emigration here is up over 400% this year alone, based solely on expectations of things to come. So I'm holding judgment on that one.
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:38 PM on April 18, 2008

Court bars unloading of Chinese cargo
posted by Artw at 11:33 PM on April 18, 2008

Has, being the operative term there. With Zuma in power, ZA could pull a Zimbabwe disaster on a much, much more massive scale. Emigration here is up over 400% this year alone, based solely on expectations of things to come. So I'm holding judgment on that one.

Fair enough. I hadn't heard about the emigration thing, I've been gone a few years now - but the entire length of my visit many people told me they suspected that "South Africa would make Zim look like Disneyland"; sitting on the other side of the world I get limited news coverage and while I saw a lot of problems when I was in ZA (including some fairly bone-chilling threats to a farmer friend-of-a-friend who I sometimes visited) I saw a fair amount of reasons to be hopeful.

Just for the record. I have some very close black African friends, and I have white South African friends - I consider among my closest who had served in the army, etc. I downed quite a number of pints with people who had fled Zimbabwe. I like the people on both sides.

Zuma has a taste for some fairly violent rhetoric, there are some credible rumblings about corruption and the rape case he faced was pretty troubling. Really if that means he funnels some cash off to some consulting company he owns, or some other shady side deals its not enough to throw South Africa into turmoil - stuff like this happens in Canada, and the USA.

Anyway, Zuma isn't in charge yet. I have other worries... Most people I talked to of any background, told me they thought the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was a bit of a farce - freeing a lot of people who were nothing but sadistic killers and criminals. History tells us that the kind of tension that exists in South Africa usually doesn't wane without a war to blow it off.

I am not fully convinced it will happen, and I worked those few months I was there like hell to try to prevent it. I am a lot more optimistic than my South African friends and probably the majority of South African immigrants I talk to in Canada (who I have to say, are the most pessimistic bunch). I tend to thing think that the longer this period of relative peace lasts the less likely things are to explode. Coverage stemming from the 2010 World Cup should help keep things in the world's public eye too (for whatever that is worth).

I also don't think that the situation in Zimbabwe and South Africa is 100% comparable either.

I have to admit, I posted about economic indicators on purpose because as a man on the street I wasn't sure what I saw in the Economist matched what my eyes and ears told me - but its not like I could observe the entire country. For now, I will let the positive stats dictate my opinion on what is happening in South Africa but I don't blame you for being scared, not one bit.
posted by Deep Dish at 11:42 PM on April 18, 2008

Zimbabwe Rhodesia was a state that existed from June 1 to December 12, 1979.

I mention this just because I have a Readers Digest atlas that was printed in this time frame and has this name for the country. It's weird seeing it printed across that part of Africa.

I do remember that as a child I was really impressed by the way that the UK government had dealt with the whole thing. The Lancaster House Agreement seemed to be a mature and sensible thing. The sort of deal that grown-ups came up with while the kids are asleep and present as a fait-accompli at breakfast the next morning.

The fact that Lord Carrington (one of those annoying members of the aristocracy, who almost justify its existence by being incredibly useful) was involved made it even better. As though the UK had taken a hideous and hugely unfair situation and helped everyone involved work it out.

Over the next ten years or so I kept meeting people who told me, and who had come from, lived in or were temporarily away from Zimbabwe, that the peace was temporary. That the Lancaster House Agreement was a way for everyone involved at the time to get set before the land re-distribution began.

The mess was always, on the British side at least, anticipated. The land issue, the thing that always causes the worst horrors after even the mildest revolution, had been left deliberately unresolved.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:27 AM on April 19, 2008

We can blame drought and land issues for almost every problem humans have ever faced, but I don't think we have a modern reference for a country that is dying from what is approaching a 40% infection rate of HIV.
posted by Brian B. at 8:14 AM on April 19, 2008

Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on
Yeah, La-la-la, La-la-la
posted by motownoni at 9:23 AM on April 19, 2008

I'd also add that African elites keep power without needing the prosperity of their people,

That is definitely true -- both because the international state system is willing to recognise non-democratic powers, but also because many states in Africa depend not on taxes for their funding, but on fees and monopolies, as well as foreign aid and loans. States don't fall when their economies do.

I didn't mention it earlier because, to be honest, most leaders really did want their countries to be prosperous. Even when leaders have/had flaws, they have wanted their people to be be prosperous -- who wants to lead a failed country? Nkrumah, the president of Ghana (elected, but then banned opposition, was declared president for life) just about bankrupted the government, but he did so not by building palaces but flawed economic development projects. He tried to build a massive industry park, and an aluminium processing centre. He wanted the economy of Ghana to be strong, and the people to be prosperous.

It's not just a socialist/nationalised vision versus a capitalist/free-trade one. Nigeria has been a bastion of free trade and international capitalism, but still is not that prosperous (though oil money has brought a lot of wealth to some people). I think the problem is that we don't really understand how economic development works. We might think that we do, but no one knows. We argue about what stimulates an economy to diversify from primary products into value added manufactures, and every keeps running experiments that don't work -- like nationalization or structural adjustment. And before we in the West start feeling smug, I'd point out that we don't really understand how our own economies got where they did, and how much of our development was due to internal changes and actions, and how much from things like massive influxes of capital from Aztec gold, slavery, and coercive colonial trade. It was probably in the interaction between all of these things -- our development was not "ours", but a world event.
posted by jb at 9:43 PM on April 19, 2008 [3 favorites]

Ten armed, uniformed Chinese military personnel spotted out and about in Mutare
posted by Abiezer at 12:45 AM on April 20, 2008

There's no real racial element to the Zimbabwe disaster. History is replete with fools who would trade the well-being of their own country in return for power over it.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:20 AM on April 20, 2008

Zimbabwe seems to be taking a turn for the worse, with opposition supporters in the villages apparently being beaten to death and perhaps 1000 people a day leaving the country.

I guess that's one way to fix things: just depopulate. Once everyone's gone, the people who are left will have everything.
posted by aramaic at 9:07 AM on April 21, 2008

Zimbabwe's state-run paper, The Herald, is now sending mixed signals. Yesterday they published an Op-Ed suggesting a "transitional government of national unity" headed by Mugabe. Unfortunately, the same piece also suggested that no fair runoff election is possible (because western sanctions put the ruling party at an unfair disadvantage).
posted by gsteff at 8:53 PM on April 22, 2008

Mugabe fails in bid to switch poll result
posted by Artw at 1:54 PM on April 27, 2008