Zimbabwe: Get Behind the Fist

[Lemur]

They're holding elections (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_ZHOUYpsxcSx84jPDB9hNTviMVA) in that blighted land as we speak. I'm secretly impressed with Mugabe's campaign slogan; no "Ready on Day One" or "Change We Can Believe In" for him, no, that would be too mellow -- his personal and party slogan is Get Behind the Fist (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/29/zimbabwe).

Lovely.

With most news agencies banned, getting news devolves to bloggers (http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/nairobi/2008/03/talking-bout-a.html) and the few journos who are tolerated.

Extra credit bonus material: Samantha Power's 2003 essay, How to Kill a Country (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200312/power), with its patented ten-step program for utterly destroying your nation. (Yes, this the the same Powers who called Senator Clinton a "monster.")

So what do the Orgahs think? Will Zimbabwe get behind the fist? Will Zimbabwe turn into another North Korea, a blighted, blasted place where people starve in silence while a few elite leaders drink cognac? Or will they descend into revolution? Why haven't they revolted already? Is Mugabe just that good at strangling dissent and killing opponents? What's the idea? Why can't they get rid of the crazy dude?

[Furious Mental]

I think Zimbabwe will probably turn out like Zaire- collapsing into a very bloody war. I don't think it could become another North Korea. The government there has had half a century to build up the apparatus of indoctrination and intimidation. By comparison Mugabe's methods are crude although still sufficient.

I would say one reason why there hasn't been a revolt yet is that the persons that would start one- urban dissidents in their youth or middle age, have mostly just left the country. By sending back foreign currency to their relatives they also ameliorate the misery of living in Zimbabwe, somewhat. Another reason is that no one doubts Mugabe would meet any revolt with force so success is impossible without arms. However Mugabe has always managed to maintain the loyalty of the army, police, and security apparatus, and I don't think any of the opposition politicians have the mettle (or resources) to become guerrilla leaders (ironically what they actually need is their own pre-1980 Robert Mugabe). In any case none of Zimbabwe's neighbours show any willingness to dole out weapons, money and sanctuary to rebels; alot of them still view Mugabe as a hero of anti-colonialism.

[Kralizec]

There already is an African North Korea. It's called Eritrea.


Why can't they get rid of the crazy dude?

Because Zimbabwe is a police state, and the elections held thus far have been shams. The only reason that his most important opponent stands a chance is because he's from the same party.

[Big_John]

what? samantha power is dating a man?? my gaydar is acting a bit wonky.

and oh yeah, zimbabwe.. dang.

but i have to take issue with your phrase "devolves to bloggers" Lemur. blogging is in many ways superior to traditional media. "limited to bloggers" would be a fairer wording, imo.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why don't they revolt? I'd imagine it has to do with Mugabe's control of the army and the seizing of firearms from the people. After all, firearms are just for the state, right? (Looks at people who said in the Member profile thread that only the military and police should have guns).

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=12207

And here's a story several years old about people pleading for weapons:
http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=11982

Not the whole reason certainly, but a significant part I'd say.

CR

[woad&fangs]

80% Unemployment:inquisitive:
100,000% Inflation:inquisitive:
Millions of homes and business' destroyed:inquisitive:
Corrupt Despot who still considers Colonialism a threat:inquisitive:

Why the :daisy: hasn't a revolution started??!!??! Mugabe can't kill 90% of the population. Even without guns they should be able to pull it off. What is the worse that can happen if they fail? Life can't get much worse than it already is.

[Romanus]

The problem is that he has the support of a lot of african leaders. Which tells me a lot about the continent as a whole...

[CountArach]

I can't see any way for the opposition to win... especially with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7310544.stm

[Viking]

Will Zimbabwe turn into another North Korea

If you had seen the documentary posted in the Korea thread I doubt you'd think in that direction. A fascinating, disturbing and interesting documentary, all at the same time. But er, definately not a new NK, no.

[CountArach]

And what do you know:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/30/2202807.htm


Marwick Khumalo, head of the Pan-African Parliament, says in one Harare constituency, "It has been brought to our attention that out of the 24,678 registered voters more than 8,450 have been registered under block 081083 ... which is a deserted land with a few scattered wooden sheds".

[Banquo's Ghost]

Crazed Rabbit will appreciate this one.

According to a BBC report, many districts are made up entirely of the dead. In a delicious irony, they even found the name of Ian Douglas Smith, the leader of Rhodesia who declared UDI and whom Mugabe finally overthrew, still listed as a voter (he died in 2007).

[HoreTore]

Why don't they revolt? I'd imagine it has to do with Mugabe's control of the army and the seizing of firearms from the people. After all, firearms are just for the state, right? (Looks at people who said in the Member profile thread that only the military and police should have guns).

If there is one thing africa does not lack, it's guns. If someone wanted to make a rebellion in zimbabwe, getting guns would be the least of their problems...

[Pannonian]

Crazed Rabbit will appreciate this one.

According to a BBC report, many districts are made up entirely of the dead. In a delicious irony, they even found the name of Ian Douglas Smith, the leader of Rhodesia who declared UDI and whom Mugabe finally overthrew, still listed as a voter (he died in 2007).
Does anyone know whom he voted for?

[naut]

Judge George Chiwese told the BBC that the vote would be free and fair.Bollox, about as free as a Jew in Nazi Germany.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Comforting to know that this is all the UK's fault.

:rolleyes3:

:laugh4: :laugh4:

[Lt Nevermind]

Hmm, according to the news here, citated from Reuters I believe, it looks like the opposition declared themselves victorious over Mugabe with an estimated 67 % share of all votes given (though only a third yet counted). Strangely enough, I was under the impression that these elections would have been pre-elected like so many others under silmilar conditions have been, and that such behaviour from the opposition would not a) be possible in the first place b) be tolerated by the regime. Now the regime seems to settle in warning the opposition that pre-declarations lead to dire consequences. I'm not quite sure what to think about this situation but I doubt Mr. Mugabe is too excited about passing his throne to the opposition with a friendly handshake.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If there is one thing africa does not lack, it's guns. If someone wanted to make a rebellion in zimbabwe, getting guns would be the least of their problems...

It doesn't lack guns in the hands of dictators and their militaries. Didn't you read the link? Mugabe has taken guns from the people.


According to a BBC report, many districts are made up entirely of the dead. In a delicious irony, they even found the name of Ian Douglas Smith, the leader of Rhodesia who declared UDI and whom Mugabe finally overthrew, still listed as a voter (he died in 2007).

Ah, reminds me of home. I must express surprise that Ian Smith was allowed to live a peaceful (relatively) life in Zimbabwe.

CR

[HoreTore]

It doesn't lack guns in the hands of dictators and their militaries. Didn't you read the link? Mugabe has taken guns from the people.

Yup. But if anyone wanted to make a rebellion there, the arms dealers would be there in an instant to supply them.

[woad&fangs]

Yup. But if anyone wanted to make a rebellion there, the arms dealers would be there in an instant to supply them.

The country has 80% unemployment and 100,000% inflation. They might have a hard time coming up with the money to pay the arms dealers.

[HoreTore]

The country has 80% unemployment and 100,000% inflation. They might have a hard time coming up with the money to pay the arms dealers.

Haven't you noticed that dirt poor people always seems to be gun-toting as well? What's the unemployment in gaza now? 95%? How many guns do they have?

Besides - if there is going to be a rebellion, it'll need a leader. That leader would have to come from the government, like the opposition candidate in the election is, because Mugabe as basically killed everyone else. But plenty of people in his government don't like him, like the generals of the coup a few years back and the current opposition. They would be rich, and therefore able to supply arms. Also, Mugabe has made a lot of enemies in other governments in the world, governments who would be interested in sending aid to a rebellion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup. But if anyone wanted to make a rebellion there, the arms dealers would be there in an instant to supply them.

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people? And of course, there's the problem of paying with Zimbabwe currency.

The thing is, if you need firearms for a revolution, by then it's usually to late to buy the firearms. You don't buy insurance after you've been robbed, or an airbag after you've been in a crash, do you?

CR

[Pannonian]

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people? And of course, there's the problem of paying with Zimbabwe currency.

The thing is, if you need firearms for a revolution, by then it's usually to late to buy the firearms. You don't buy insurance after you've been robbed, or an airbag after you've been in a crash, do you?

CR
The success or otherwise of an armed rebellion depends on the favour of South Africa. If the South African government decided it had had enough of Mugabe, then they can provide the rebels with the arms necessary to succeed, or even move in themselves. If the South Africans decided to move into Zimbabwe, do you think Mugabe's army could resist? However, if the South African government decided Mugabe was the lesser evil than the alternatives, then they can support him in whatever way necessary. In such a case, do you really think an armed rebellion could succeed by itself?

I think you place too much credence in the effectiveness of the people's rebellion.

[HoreTore]

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people? And of course, there's the problem of paying with Zimbabwe currency.

The thing is, if you need firearms for a revolution, by then it's usually to late to buy the firearms. You don't buy insurance after you've been robbed, or an airbag after you've been in a crash, do you?

No, whether you have firearms available before a revolution doesn't matter, since once it is started, they become available. Say the revolution starts with rioting, as they usually do. That rioting would lead to looting, and that looting would include arms deposits, giving them weapons. Also, once the rioting starts, a leader would probably emerge. That leader would of course be a powerful guy, and he would get the support of a few other powerful guys, like a general who would turn his regiment and its resources against Mugabe. Finally, as I've said, Mugabe has outside enemies, enemies with money and weapons.

Also, I'd say that conscription is a better option than firearms to overthrow a government. If the army is made up of every citizen, it'll be a lot harder for a despot to turn it against the people, as that would mean turning it against themselves.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, whether you have firearms available before a revolution doesn't matter, since once it is started, they become available.

Arms dealers are a wonderful thing, no?

The rebels can buy arms if they have money. Weapons are remarkably easy to come by these days - automatic weapons, RPGs, grenades, anything you want. There are Zimbabweans outside Zimbabwe who have money, who could fund rebels. In addition, there are foreign countries who may or may not be willing to supply any potential rebels. The foreign aid to the rebels would be what was really necessary. Besides, what about places like Uganda? They weren't exactly close to Mugabe during the Second Congo War.

[Tribesman]

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people?
Do you think Smith just allowed people to come into the country to sell Mugabe guns .:dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gee, tribesy, you think maybe some of the surrounding countries helped Mugabe, and maybe others like China? Gee, I think China makes guns, don't they.

So your question is bollox. Oh, wait, its not a question, your sentence didn't have a question mark. It's just a nonsensical statement.


In such a case, do you really think an armed rebellion could succeed by itself?

I think a rebellion would put a lot of pressure on Mugabe's backers.


No, whether you have firearms available before a revolution doesn't matter, since once it is started, they become available.

Bah, that's nonsense. Rioters aren't going to overwhelm military bases where weapons would be stored.


Also, I'd say that conscription is a better option than firearms to overthrow a government.

Wow. You think Zimbabwe's army is all volunteer? Could you provide a list of the modern dictatorships (last 100 years or so) that have had volunteer armies?

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

CR

[HoreTore]

Gee, tribesy, you think maybe some of the surrounding countries helped Mugabe, and maybe others like China? Gee, I think China makes guns, don't they.

And just why on earth wouldn't other countries help the rebellion, countries like your own US...?


I think a rebellion would put a lot of pressure on Mugabe's backers.

Like the kurdish uprising in Iraq 15 years ago...?

Yeah, that was a real success. Oh, and they all owned firearms btw.


Bah, that's nonsense. Rioters aren't going to overwhelm military bases where weapons would be stored.

Of course they can, it's happened quite a few times. Who's to say which side the guards will take? Besides, weapons aren't just found in fortresses, there are more deposits around a country.


Wow. You think Zimbabwe's army is all volunteer? Could you provide a list of the modern dictatorships (last 100 years or so) that have had volunteer armies?

I wasn't talking about the situation in Zimbabwe.

A final question though CR; Pannonian, EMFM and myself made a dozen points in our posts, you've only objected with short sentences on a few of them... Does that mean that you agree? And just out of curiosity, how would this "common man's" armed uprising of yours do? How would a disorganized lot armed with rifles beat a state power? And could you please explain just why it is crucial that they have access to some very basic weaponry before the revolution begin?

[Crazed Rabbit]

And just why on earth wouldn't other countries help the rebellion, countries like your own US...?

The rebellion against Rhodesia? Seems like a funny question, considering what we know of Mugabe now, but perhaps we didn't want to help a man that the communists wanted in power, even if Rhodesia was an apartheid state.


Like the kurdish uprising in Iraq 15 years ago...?

Yeah, that was a real success. Oh, and they all owned firearms btw.

Eh, you mean the one that succeeded in taking control of some parts of Kurdistan/Northern Iraq from Saddam? :inquisitive:


I wasn't talking about the situation in Zimbabwe.

So guns in the hands of the people would help the situation there? :inquisitive:
And maybe you could get that list anyway, to see if your point had any validity?


A final question though CR; Pannonian, EMFM and myself made a dozen points in our posts, you've only objected with short sentences on a few of them... Does that mean that you agree?

Not really, you just repeat a lot of the same, silly points. Well, not Pannonian. And EMFM just talked about arms dealers, which I had already talked about.

And you've made a couple posts where you seem very sure of your predictions on just what exactly will happen, but it all seems based on bad assumptions. And your point about Gaza is really, just silly. They get all sorts of funds to help the 'resistance' from all over the world.


Of course they can, it's happened quite a few times. Who's to say which side the guards will take? Besides, weapons aren't just found in fortresses, there are more deposits around a country.

Ok, evidence please.


And just out of curiosity, how would this "common man's" armed uprising of yours do?

Probably like one of many such revolutions throughout history. I'm very curious as to why you think it'd be worse off than a unarmed mob rioting. Please, tell me how that is better for the people.


How would a disorganized lot armed with rifles beat a state power?

Well, by getting organized first off.


And could you please explain just why it is crucial that they have access to some very basic weaponry before the revolution begin?

Because it's a damn sight harder to get them when you feel a revolution is necessary? Because otherwise the people are disarmed before a authoritarian government. Perhaps you could explain why it's so necessary to have mobs of people get cut down by government machine guns as they 'riot' before they can finally get some weapons.

CR

[HoreTore]

The rebellion against Rhodesia? Seems like a funny question, considering what we know of Mugabe now, but perhaps we didn't want to help a man that the communists wanted in power, even if Rhodesia was an apartheid state.

No, the hypothetical rebellion against Mugabe.


Eh, you mean the one that succeeded in taking control of some parts of Kurdistan/Northern Iraq from Saddam? :inquisitive:


And your point about Gaza is really, just silly. They get all sorts of funds to help the 'resistance' from all over the world.

And just why shouldn't an anti-Mugabe rebellion get support from a dozen regimes? Like the US, for example?


Ok, evidence please.

A few miles from where I live there's a locked bunker containing quite a few weapons and ammunition. The only defense there is a fence plus the lock, not really hard to get into. These are scattered all over the country. Now, I don't know the situation in Zimbabwe, but I would be very surprised if they didn't have some supply points around the country.



Probably like one of many such revolutions throughout history. I'm very curious as to why you think it'd be worse off than a unarmed mob rioting. Please, tell me how that is better for the people.

I'm not talking about an unarmed mob, I'm talking about an organized rebel force supplied by outside governments and led by local powers. Powers that don't need to worry about how they'll get a hold of guns.


Well, by getting organized first off.

That would be the point though, when they're already organized, buying/getting weapons is REALLY easy, especially in Africa.


Because it's a damn sight harder to get them when you feel a revolution is necessary? Because otherwise the people are disarmed before a authoritarian government. Perhaps you could explain why it's so necessary to have mobs of people get cut down by government machine guns as they 'riot' before they can finally get some weapons.

No, when the rebellion is there, getting guns would be easier, because the arms dealers would be attracted to coming events and potential money to be made, and foreign governments are more likely to lend support if they see things are moving along; when things are quiet they will be more conservative, because it may turn out as nothing, and hurt relations with the regime.

Also, aren't you overestimating the value of your guns a little? When Mugabe deploys his T59's, it doesn't really matter if you're holding a stone or an ak-47 in your hand. It's not going to damage that tank at all. Or do you include RPG's, tanks, grenades, artillery, etc in your "right to keep and bear arms"?

[Tribesman]

Gee, tribesy, you think maybe some of the surrounding countries helped Mugabe, and maybe others like China? Gee, I think China makes guns, don't they.

So your question is bollox. Oh, wait, its not a question, your sentence didn't have a question mark. It's just a nonsensical statement.

So you now say that they do get guns after it starts , damn I coud have sworn you said that it was too late by then:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Whats even funnier Rabbit is even though you write ....I don't think you understand the situation.....it is you that doesn't understand the situation , in that conflict the ones already with the guns who had their little rebellion were the ones who lost , and those that didn't already have the guns who won and now mismanage the place .


Bah, that's nonsense. Rioters aren't going to overwhelm military bases where weapons would be stored.


Errrrrr...since history repeatedly says otherwise it must be you thats talking nonsense .:yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

OK gentlemen, shall we return to topic? I don't doubt that a thread on the efficacy of armed populations in overturning dictatorships would be very interesting (feel free to start one) but we are losing the relevance to the topic of Zimbabwe's current election.

Some results are being released officially (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7321938.stm) that show a neck-and-neck race. Many results that have been released locally show a complete landslide (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mugabe-the-writings-on-the-wall-802717.html) to the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.


The writing was on the wall for Robert Mugabe last night. It was pinned to the side of polling tents, posted on school fences and written on the walls of community halls. The election results that Zimbabwe's president had made every effort to rig were coming in against him.

There is a significant delay in the official release, which is generating all sorts of rumours - that Mugabe has fled, through to him preparing the security forces for a bloodbath.

It all looks very ugly. We can but hope that Mugabe wants to live out his retirement in a South African beach resort, but when do dictators ever get the message that time is up?

[Husar]

:laugh4: I think all your nonsensical posts are completely wrong and show your misled bias of whatever fashion. Now could anyone tell me what Zimbabwe is and what this Mugabe guy has to do with it? :inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know what's going to happen, it seems fairly clear that "Bob" went potty some time around the turn of the Millenium. Is he eve actually running things right now?

Until the final results are released I think it's impossible to know what will happen.

OT:

HoreTore, Norway has a dispersed militia-system where all your arms are spread around the country in small pockets to prevent your defensive ability from being knocked out. That's not normal, concentrated power is.

[Geoffrey S]

So, do the opponents of Mugabe have the credentials to allow hope that they can turn the country around? Or are they just same thing, different name?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think anyone in that wretched country has a hope in hell of turning it around right now. The next generation will be a bunch of impoverished and hence poorly educated peasents, so life will get worse. All because some old men can't get over their racism.

[HoreTore]

Actually, the literacy rate(ie. education) is one of the few things Mugabe has done right. It was somewhere around 30-40% during white rule, according to the CIA factbook, it is now 90%.

[Big_John]

Actually, the literacy rate(ie. education) is one of the few things Mugabe has done right. It was somewhere around 30-40% during white rule, according to the CIA factbook, it is now 90%.all illiterates were executed.

[Vladimir]

Actually, the literacy rate(ie. education) is one of the few things Mugabe has done right. It was somewhere around 30-40% during white rule, according to the CIA factbook, it is now 90%.

Good point. Also under communism, everyone has a job!

[drone]

Propaganda is less effective if the intended targets can't read it.

[Pannonian]

all illiterates were executed.
Source?

[Big_John]

Source?link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke)

[Lemur]

Well played, Big John. Going back to the literacy thing, I don't find it hard to believe that Mugabe accomplished a few good things, and acknowledging this doesn't take away from what a massive crock he's made of everything else.

No leader is all bad or all good, and you only need to smash up a few important things to send your country into a tailspin. Same applies to individuals. You can be a nice guy, a loving husband, a good worker, and still have a little problem with being a serial rapist. Doesn't take away from how nice you were to your dog, but it does rather overshadow your good points, and justifiably so.

So Mugabe didn't destroy absolutely everything he touched. So what? How does it matter? He's messed up enough important things to seal his legacy as an unqualified disaster.

[Pannonian]

Well played, Big John. Going back to the literacy thing, I don't find it hard to believe that Mugabe accomplished a few good things, and acknowledging this doesn't take away from what a massive crock he's made of everything else.

No leader is all bad or all good, and you only need to smash up a few important things to send your country into a tailspin. Same applies to individuals. You can be a nice guy, a loving husband, a good worker, and still have a little problem with being a serial rapist. Doesn't take away from how nice you were to your dog, but it does rather overshadow your good points, and justifiably so.

So Mugabe didn't destroy absolutely everything he touched. So what? How does it matter? He's messed up enough important things to seal his legacy as an unqualified disaster.
It does mean that the criticisms need to be accurate though.

I recently read a novel, written in the 1960s, which was a take on power and political struggle. The hero had just penetrated to the heart of the enemy stronghold, seeing all the excesses of the tyrant in detail, and managed to assassinate the tyrant. The author had taken care to portray the tyrant as an absolute monster - one with some human qualities, but a monster nonetheless. The hero's group called in the repressed courtiers, preparing to tell them of the freedom they'd won. The courtiers came in, spilling out all the evils the late tyrant had committed. Each story was worse than the last, until the stories became utterly fantastical and obviously false. Unable to contain himself, the hero laughed. Perhaps the late tyrant wasn't so bad after all, if this lot was what he had to face from day to day. Of course this wasn't so, but the fantastical allegations rather hurt the argument against him.

[Papewaio]

How much more could Mugabe do to be considered a tyrant?

The country is starving. Yet before it was a net exporter of food.

Why is it now starving? Years and years of replacing the farmers with his political cronies and his military veterans. None of which can farm as well as they can mutilate the opposition.

Why is it not a functioning democracy? Because the opposition including its leader get put into jail, beaten up and accused of all sorts of wrong doings. All the effort of fighting this is for naught as the election ballets get bent to suit Mugabe's desires.

Mugabe does not a benign dictator make.

[Furious Mental]

For quite a while Zimbabwe under Mugabe was a better place to live than its neighbours. I have read even white Zimbabweans admitting this. However in the past decade or so it has gone totally off the rails, I would say starting with the expropriation of land from farmers and granting of it to Mugabe's political clientele.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Zimbabwe went trough a violent decolonisation / white minority rule period. When the war ended and Mugabe gained power in 1980, the development of Zimbabwe naturally bounced up. Had Mugabe died somewhere in the 1980's, he would've gone done in history books as a fine freedom fighter. Alas, he lived. It wasn't long before he turned into one of the world's most boneheaded and disastrous tyrants. Mugabe inherited a well-developed country with a bright future, and it was he himself who layed it to ruins.

The literacy rates in Zimbabwe rised for the first decade of Mugabe's rule simply because, as elsewhere in Africa*, older generations were mostly illiterate, while the younger generations mostly had enjoyed some basic education under colonial rule. When the older generation started to pass away, the literacy rate increased. This demographic statistic is independent of the quality of education.

Mugabe destroyed the eduction of Zimbabwe. So before long, the literacy rates started to drop under his rule. Despite the effect described above, literacy rates have been steadly dropping since the mid-nineties already. As has the standard of living, the economy, the human development.

Zimbabwe now has the lowest live expectancy on the planet. There is nothing benign about Mugabe. There is not a single redeeming factor to his rule.


*This pattern is not unique to Zimbabwe. In many newly independent African nations, the literacy rate went up after decolonisation. This was hailed as a succes. But what often really happened was, that the younger generations were already receiving schooling under colonialism. Unlike their parents and grandparents. And when the older illiterate generations died, so dropped the illiteracy rate. However, before long, the level of education of younger generations started to decline.
With the current dying of the older generations of Africans who received their education under colonial rule, the effect is now reversed in the statistics again: the literacy rate of many African nations is currently declining.

[Furious Mental]

Actually soon after the passover of power, education spending tripled, so did healthcare spending. To say this had no effect on anything is obviously nonsense. However economic policies which transited from pre-revolution state capitalism to quasi-Marxism to neoliberal shock therapy unsurprisingly harmed the economy and led to Mugabe's ultimate descent into poorly concealed measures to protect his wealth, power, and prestige, such as invading the Democratic Republic of Congo. Obviously he has almost single-handedly ruined the country, but that is no reason to try to rewrite history as though he was always the insane despot that he is now. If his governance had been this bad for 28 years running he would have been hanged a long time ago. Such revisionism is unwarranted; he is already bad enough to deserve being deposed 100 times over.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Official sources put the parliament elections as roughly tied between parties, and the opposition as being just short of the 51% they'd need to win without a runoff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7323667.stm

Sounds like it's being rigged for at least runoff.

As to the rebellion thing; Horetore's statements seem based on the assumption that neighboring states will help out any rebels. But Zimbabwe's neighbors, especially South Africa, don't seem to want to force change. Hoping that outside groups would fund a rebellion because you can't wage one yourself is giving up control of your life. And of course, having guns before a rebellion would mean people are used to using them and better at it.

CR

[Fragony]

He steps down, who would have thought.

[Don Corleone]

Interesting. And here I thought this thread was going to have something to do with 'blue' movies that are banned in most parts of the United States that I unfortunately observed at a college party one inebriated night. :laugh4:

All kidding aside, did Mugabe really resign peacefully?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting. And here I thought this thread was going to have something to do with 'blue' movies that are banned in most parts of the United States that I unfortunately observed at a college party one inebriated night. :laugh4:

All kidding aside, did Mugabe really resign peacefully?

Actually, that's not a bad metaphor for how Mugabe has treated the country of late...:devilish:

[Banquo's Ghost]

IAll kidding aside, did Mugabe really resign peacefully?

Not yet. There are rumours circulating that the MDC and he are having talks about how a peaceful transition might happen, but nothing concrete.

[Big_John]

the opposition leader didn't want to claim victory until the official vote count was known. mugabe's party denied reports that mugabe was making deals with the opposition to step down. apparently the opposition party told news sources about this deal-making.. i'm guessing either they let the cat out of the bag too soon, or the "deal"/announcement was actually a political maneuver from either side.

now, the state-owned paper is predicting a run-off. :shifty:

[Fragony]

Not yet. There are rumours circulating that the MDC and he are having talks about how a peaceful transition might happen, but nothing concrete.

Mea culpa, it is indeed speculation for now, didn't read article properly.

[Lemur]

Excellent analysis (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3689991.ece) of where things stand as of now. And just to avoid getting slapped for discriminating against bloggers, here's an top-notch blog post (http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/04/zimbabwe-one-week-later-uncertainty.html) about the current mess.

[Vladimir]

Since I'm on a sodomy roll ...


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/RubberFist.jpg

Hmm, any correlation? :thinking: