Robert Mugabe

[Correa]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/ChavezMugabe.jpg/250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

Can anyone offer a comprehensive analysis on the current situation in Zimbabwe and their opinions on Robert Mugabe? Thanks in advance.

[RedDemocrat]

I was unaware of Mr Chavez' attitude towards Robert Mugabe. I have lost all respect for him from learning that.

[RedDemocrat]

I was unaware of Mr Chavez' attitude towards Robert Mugabe. I have lost all respect for him from learning that- I was under the impression that Hugo Chavez was a compassionate, caring leader however I can no longer believe this.

[Amusing Scrotum]

He was discussed not so long ago in this thread - Pres. Mugabe compares Bush & Blair to to Hitler, at UN event (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41738&hl=mugabe) - The thread did tail off a lot if memory serves me correctly, but there was still some discussion on Mugabe.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:19 PM
I was unaware of Mr Chavez' attitude towards Robert Mugabe. I have lost all respect for him from learning that- I was under the impression that Hugo Chavez was a compassionate, caring leader however I can no longer believe this.
I'm sure he'll lose alot of sleep.

[fpeppett]

lol talking about reading into a picture! Haha i've seen pictures of Stalin laughing with Hitler; do I now hate Stalin for that? Idiot....

[bolshevik butcher]

Well, chavez is/was with robert mugabee not because he likes his domestic politics, he also does deals with china and america, economics is just a way of making money, a way of furhthering socialism, not a way of declaring his word view.

Chavez in recnet months in paticular has reiterated time and time again calls for socialism and pan american workers unity. Venezuela hosted a summit of the occupied and workers controled factories from through out latin america recently. That is clearly where the venezuelans real loyalties lie.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:26 PM
lol talking about reading into a picture! Haha i've seen pictures of Stalin laughing with Hitler; do I now hate Stalin for that? Idiot....
I hate Stalin anyway.

[redstar2000]

A couple of items that may be of interest...

Zimbabwe in meltdown - UN envoy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/4508078.stm)

Gangsters and Africa's Black Gold Rush (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,389138,00.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:03 PM
A couple of items that may be of interest...

Zimbabwe in meltdown - UN envoy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/4508078.stm)

Gangsters and Africa's Black Gold Rush (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,389138,00.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

If you look at the last thread on Mugabe, you'll see that the BBC is not viewed as a source which can say anything of interest on Zimbabwe.

The second link is interesting though, it appears China is better at being America than America is.

[RedDemocrat]

lol talking about reading into a picture! Haha i've seen pictures of Stalin laughing with Hitler; do I now hate Stalin for that? Idiot....

:D I suspect I can expect no less for criticising Hugo Chavez on these forums.

I believe that in the new media age it matters which oppressive dictators you embrace warmly in front of journalists. I don't hate Hugo Chavez, I am just saying that to be a worldwide leader of true social democracy he needs to avoid alienating large numbers of people by making friends with people like Robert Mugabe.

[bolshevik butcher]

I am actually suspicious of chavez' foreign policy at times. Allying with iran and other some of hte reactionary leaders of latin america at times, but he does seem to be reiterating support for the latin american worker, especially recently.

[fpeppett]

I hate stalin as well, I was just pointing out in ANY circumstance you shouldnt change your opnion so vehemntly over a single picture.

[The Red Scare]

To hate Chavez simply because he met with another leader you don't particularly like is foolish. You don't think that Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. met with such leaders? Chavez has a responsibility and an obligation to form deeper ties with every country that has been targeted by U.S. imperialism. The Bolivarian Revolution cannot succeed without any foreign support.

And while I don't agree with all that Mugabe has said or did (particularly his views on homosexuality), he is a committed Marxist who has done a great deal for his people...including land redistribution, and strengthening healthcare, education, and other social services for his country's poorest. He is one of the most well-respected leaders in Africa, as well as an instrumental figue in the non-aligned movement.

[bolshevik butcher]

And while I don't agree with all that Mugabe has said or did (particularly his views on homosexuality), he is a committed Marxist who has done a great deal for his people...including land redistribution, and strengthening healthcare, education, and other social services for his country's poorest. He is one of the most well-respected leaders in Africa, as well as an instrumental figue in the non-aligned movement.

Marxist?
Even when he was 'good' when he was in his guerilla fighting days to my knowledge he never claimed to be a marxist. As for land distribution it seems to mainly consist of given his other war buddies who have joined the beauacracy with him more land.

In all honest having seen the state of some of the parts of zimbabwe I dont see how hes so positive. You could argue that saddam has all the good atributes of mugabe, but i still disliked him.

[Correa]

Not that I am one to jump on the bandwagon, but should we support Mugabe? Has he killed any innocent people? Is he allied with capitalist entities? Is he a reformist? Is everything in Zimbabwe collectively owned by the people? :huh:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Not that I am one to jump on the bandwagon, but should we support Mugabe?

No.


Has he killed any innocent people?

Yes.


Is he allied with capitalist entities?

I'd imagine so. Well he is allied with Venezuela.


Is he a reformist?

More like a reactionary.


Is everything in Zimbabwe collectively owned by the people?

Absolutely not. I doubt anything is collectively owned.

[Correa]

Great, sounds like another leader giving Marxism a bad name. :angry:

[Sankara1983]

Mugabe is a vicious, brutal, corrupt, moralizing, demagogic tyrant given to self-aggrandizement. He combines the worst of Africa (tribalism, nepotism, authoritarianism) and the worst of Europe (racism, corruption, reactionary Catholicism). He, his wife, his justice minister and information minister gag the press, encourage chaotic violent invasions of productive farmland, and organize projects like "Operation Murambatsvina" to destroy the shanties of desperately poor people as political payback. On top of that, he's 81 years old and clearly senile, and has no vision for the country beyond his own life.

Anyone who thinks he is a "Marxist" or even "leftist" should read about on the Zimbabwe economy and all of the structural adjustment his regime has foisted on the people. They should also not read into his hypocritical, grandstanding, "anti-imperialist" speeches at the U.N., etc.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:23 AM
Great, sounds like another leader giving Marxism a bad name. :angry:

:huh:

I don't think Mugabe has ever claimed to be a Marxist, nor have his detractors ever labelled him a Marxist. Indeed the only person I have ever heard call Mugabe a Marxist, is "The Red Scare" in this thread and quite frankly such a view is absurd.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't think Mugabe has ever claimed to be a Marxist, nor have his detractors ever labelled him a Marxist. Indeed the only person I have ever heard call Mugabe a Marxist, is "The Red Scare" in this thread and quite frankly such a view is absurd.

Your ignorance is showing again comrade.

"Returning to Southern Rhodesia in 1960 as a committed Marxist, Mugabe joined Joshua Nkomo and the National Democratic Party (NDP), which later became the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), both immediately banned by Ian Smith's government. He left ZAPU in 1963 to form the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) with Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and lawyer Herbert Chitepo."

I wouldn't say he stayed "true" to the ideology for long of course, but its clear that he himself and others refered to him as a Marxist, and both ZAPU and ZANU were obstentially Marxist organizations at one time.


Not that I am one to jump on the bandwagon, but should we support Mugabe?

As with anything I'd suggest drawing your own conclusions from whatever information you can get. I don't support Mugabe politically, but clearly Zimbabwe should be defended against imperialism and the gains made under him (See below) should be defended.

Of course our goal is for the working class and its allies to take power, and we should always fight -- and support struggles -- towards that.


Is he allied with capitalist entities? Is he a reformist?

Originally no to both, though after his split with ZAPU and formation of Chinese-allied ZANU alot of things changed. The international climate was also changed dramatically by the deteriation, and then fall of the Eastern Bloc and USSR.

There were alot of moves made from early on that showed the true character of his government, like the neoliberal austerity program, prescribed by the International Monetary Fund, that they enacted.

He has also been responsible for alot of reactionary shit, like the persecution of homosexuals previously mentioned.


Is everything in Zimbabwe collectively owned by the people?

Not at all.

Some of the gains brought about under Mugabe have been:

1) Greatly improved health and education for the black majority.

2) When Mugabe became prime minister, 70% of the country's farmable land was owned by 4,000 whites. In 1999-2000 the government seized these lands and transfered them to Blacks.

This drew harsh criticisms, sanctions, etc. from the imperialist countries, and this all played a big part in the recent food shortages in the country, even though the white land owners (and even some members of this board!) will tell you it's because the Blacks (who were the ones working the farms to began with!) don't know how to farm.

This is also tied in with Operation Murambatsvina (Drive Out Trash), the campaign that demolished thousands of shacks and small businesses. The thing people leave out is that they were built without permission on land that was taken from white landowners and that was scheduled for redistribution. That little bit of extra information should better allow you to draw your own conclusions.

[The Red Scare]

Excellent points, CompaneroDeLibertad.

Mugabe is by no means perfect. I do believe that there is a good deal of corruption in his administration, and his dealings with the IMF and its "structural adjustment" programs is very risky business. He has also distanced himself (in deeds, if not in words) from the revolutionary-socialist position he once advocated. However, his government does remain a strong anti-imperialist force in Africa, despite these shortcomings. He doesn't want to turn his country into an American or European client state, and ought to be defended against all Western aggression. This is all a matter of principle. 'Socialist' leaders such as such as Qaddafi, Milosevic, Nassir and even conservative nationalists such as Saddam Hussein must all be supported in a similar manner. Its incredibly naive and simple-minded to totally condemn a leader who does not fit into a particular mold. No political leader lives in a political vacuum, they must always make compromises and work under incredibly difficult conditions.

[Guerrilla22]

Unfortunately his whole land "reaquisition" program has fallen victim to certain amounts of corruption. To what exten I'm not sure because one can't trust the western press to report fairly on people like Mugabe. This is not to say I support him.

[bolshevik butcher]

Fallen victum too? I think it was always intended to be this way. Well he has personally gained from it falling victum to corruption anyway. His wife owns one of the estates that were 'redistributed.'

[Amusing Scrotum]

Your ignorance is showing again comrade.

Thank you. ;)


"Returning to Southern Rhodesia in 1960 as a committed Marxist, Mugabe joined Joshua Nkomo and the National Democratic Party (NDP), which later became the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), both immediately banned by Ian Smith's government. He left ZAPU in 1963 to form the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) with Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and lawyer Herbert Chitepo."

I wouldn't say he stayed "true" to the ideology for long of course, but its clear that he himself and others refered to him as a Marxist, and both ZAPU and ZANU were obstentially Marxist organizations at one time.

First off, you have quotation marks so a link to the source would be nice.

Secondly, I think most people "dabbled" in Marxism somewhat during the sixties, especially those fighting in guerrilla movements. Not only would this likely win you some support from the locals, you'd also have a much better chance of receiving money from Russia.

A load of guerrilla movements no doubt labelled themselves Marxists to get funding from Russia. After all, you are more likely to win with a "superpower" backing you, than with no one backing you.


This drew harsh criticisms, sanctions, etc. from the imperialist countries, and this all played a big part in the recent food shortages in the country, even though the white land owners (and even some members of this board!) will tell you it's because the Blacks (who were the ones working the farms to began with!) don't know how to farm.

(Emphasis added.)

Is that directed at me?

Are suggesting Mugabe actually gave the land to competent farmers and not just his "buddies?" .....from what I gather, Mugabe did not give the land to black farmers, or even train black farmers and then give them the land. No, instead he just gave it to his "chums."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Secondly, I think most people "dabbled" in Marxism somewhat during the sixties, especially those fighting in guerrilla movements. Not only would this likely win you some support from the locals, you'd also have a much better chance of receiving money from Russia.

A load of guerrilla movements no doubt labelled themselves Marxists to get funding from Russia. After all, you are more likely to win with a "superpower" backing you, than with no one backing you.

Wait a minute, before you said "I don't think Mugabe has ever claimed to be a Marxist, nor have his detractors ever labelled him a Marxist. Indeed the only person I have ever heard call Mugabe a Marxist." Now "everyone has dabbled in Marxism"? Which is it?


Are suggesting Mugabe actually gave the land to competent farmers and not just his "buddies?" .....from what I gather, Mugabe did not give the land to black farmers, or even train black farmers and then give them the land. No, instead he just gave it to his "chums."

Do you "gather" that from the same sources that you "gathered" this statement from: "I don't think Mugabe has ever claimed to be a Marxist, nor have his detractors ever labelled him a Marxist. Indeed the only person I have ever heard call Mugabe a Marxist"?

I'd like to see an objective report that shows that Black farmers that worked the lands weren't given them. Do you have one?

[rebelworker]

I think that one lesson that can be learned from this thread and the picture is that no matter how well meaning an individual or group of people is when you play the game of a "socialist" state you have to constsntly make compronises on you beliefs.

Mugabe has set up a dispotic corrupt regeim that is currently at warwith the neww class of poor people who have been created in the years since he has taken power, their only crime has been oposing the opresivestate that gas not cared for them and for this they have been killed and had their homes destroyed. Some revolutionary leader...

As for chavez, the night is young, give him time. Any "revolution" set up around one personality in power is bound to become corrupt and lack vision(can you say cuba after castro dies).

Chavez shouldnt hug mughabe, Stalin hugging hitler actually said alot about how principled Stalin and his "workers" goverment actually were.

[ReD_ReBeL]

i do not like this guy but ehre are some factors about him...


"Returning to Southern Rhodesia in 1960 as a committed Marxist, Mugabe joined Joshua Nkomo and the National Democratic Party (NDP), which later became the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), both immediately banned by Ian Smith's government. He left ZAPU in 1963 to form the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) with Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and lawyer Herbert Chitepo. It would have been easy for the party to split along tribal lines between the Ndebele tribe and that of Mugabe himself, the Shona tribe, but cross-tribal representation was maintained by his partners. ZANU leader Sithole nominated Mugabe as his Secretary General."

"he pursued a "moral campaign" against homosexuality, making what he deemed "unnatural sex acts" illegal with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. This included the arrest of his predecessor as President of Zimbabwe, Canaan Banana, who was convicted of alleged gay sex offences. While Zimbabwe has the highest HIV/AIDS infection rate in the world, the overwhelming majority of sufferers there are heterosexual, and the majority of sufferers are women"


"When Mugabe became prime minister, approximately 70% of the country's arable land was owned by approximately 4,000 descendants of white settlers. However, he reassured white landowners that they had nothing to fear from black majority rule. Mugabe favoured a "willing buyer, willing seller" plan for gradual redistribution of land but little was done in his early years in power. However, in 1999 and 2000 Mugabe used force to transfer land ownership from whites to blacks. Since land redistribution, Zimbabwe has transformed from being an exporter of food to a nation with rampant food shortages. Mugabe's supporters, however, blame Western sanctions and political instability instigated by white landowners."

"In recent years Mugabe has emerged as one of Africa's most controversial leaders. His critics accuse him of being a 'corrupt dictator', and an 'extremely poor role model' for the continent. Nevertheless, Mugabe retains considerable popularity throughout Africa. For example, in 2004 the monthly magazine New African had its readers vote for the "100 greatest Africans" last year, Mugabe won a third-place finish, topped only by Nelson Mandela and Ghanaian independence hero Kwame Nkrumah. Mugabe's supporters tend to dismiss much of the criticism as being racially motivated, and characterize it as being little more than the bitter remarks of those who have been disadvantaged by his policies."

[QUOTE]"On August 17, 1996, Mugabe and Marufu were married in a Catholic wedding Mass at Kutama College, a Catholic Mission School he previously attended. Nelson Mandela was among the guests"


I dont know much bout this man but i thought i would get some useful facts for you people, how true they r i do not know but read plz , i know its long but plz read since some r very useful to some of ur questions. all facts r from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe

[Hiero]

"In recent years Mugabe has emerged as one of Africa's most controversial leaders. His critics accuse him of being a 'corrupt dictator', and an 'extremely poor role model' for the continent. Nevertheless, Mugabe retains considerable popularity throughout Africa.

Yeah and i bet his critics are real credible.

I think Mugabe did good to move towards removing thoose in a economical powerfull position who gained that position from colonailism. Most White property owners in Zimbabwe we leaving of the remnants of colonialism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Wait a minute, before you said "I don't think Mugabe has ever claimed to be a Marxist, nor have his detractors ever labelled him a Marxist. Indeed the only person I have ever heard call Mugabe a Marxist."

Indeed when I made that statement I had only heard one person call Mugabe a Marxist. Now I have heard two people say it, though you're statement (should you provide a source) is likely accurate.

Therefore Mugabe either was or "dabbled" in Marxism during the sixties. Though I have seen no indication that he still considers himself a Marxist and it is pretty safe to conclude that if he did still consider himself a Marxist, the media would highlight this. After all, they labelled most "tinpot" dictators Marxist at one point.


Now "everyone has dabbled in Marxism"? Which is it?

I suspect during the sixties and at other times, many guerrilla movements would have proclaimed that they were Marxist to try and secure funding from Moscow.

Indeed you said Mugabe was part of "ZANU" which was allied with China. This suggests that is Mugabe was anything, he was a Maoist.

No one can objectively tell what Mugabe's view on Marxism is unless we hear it "from the horses mouth." In my opinion, being part of an organisation that was funded by a "Socialist" country, does not necessarily make some a Marxist.


Do you "gather" that from the same sources that you "gathered" this statement from: "I don't think Mugabe has ever claimed to be a Marxist, nor have his detractors ever labelled him a Marxist. Indeed the only person I have ever heard call Mugabe a Marxist"?

Give it a rest. Point to one source, post 1990, that has "labelled" Mugabe a Marxist. Generally when people read the news, that news refers to what is happening now, not what happened 40 years ago.

If Mugabe was a Marxist, don't you think the media would constantly refer to this? ....."another Marxist dictator blah, blah, blah."


I'd like to see an objective report that shows that Black farmers that worked the lands weren't given them. Do you have one?

There are very few "objective" reports about Zimbabwe. We have three options, Zimbabwean propaganda, Corporate news or the BBC. It is very unlikely that any of these will give us "the full picture."

Though I think it is fair to say that Mugabe would have helped out his "buddies." Unless of course he is a wonderfully benevolent and altruistic ruler?

[lovebombanarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:19 PM
I was unaware of Mr Chavez' attitude towards Robert Mugabe. I have lost all respect for him from learning that- I was under the impression that Hugo Chavez was a compassionate, caring leader however I can no longer believe this.
you have to remember that chavez has to act pragmatically if he doesnt want to be deposed by the us. this is the reason chavez has also made ties with totalitarian china...not because they have ideological links, but because he needs international support so as not to be deposed.


but yes, mugabe is certainly a dictator, and an enemy of the poor

[Luís Henrique]

1. Mugabe is a petty dictator, and an incompetent one to boot. His "land reform" was ill-planed and ill-executed, and, yes, he mostly favoured his political clients - ex-guerrillas from ZANU.

2. The claim that he is racist because he "oppresses" white farmers is ridiculous. The "white farmers" are in fact colonialist latifundiaries, descendants of the colonial landgrabbers who dispossessed the African original populations of their lands. Moral questions apart, a land ownership structure where 1% of the population owns 70% of the land - nevermind how awesome farmers those 1% are - is a brutal hindering for economical development, even in the most commonsensical capitalist ways.

3. Political leaders shake hands with other political leaders, hug other political leaders, kiss other political leaders, and tell blatant lies about other political leaders good will and friendliness. That's how it is, that is how it is going to continue to be in a foresseable future, and perhaps that's even how it should be. Arafat didn't become a Zionist because he shook hands with Peres, Peres didn't become a secular gay corrupt islamic communist terrorist because he shook hands with Arafat. Let's live with that, please?

Luís Henrique

[ReD_ReBeL]

Ahh Luis Henrique u seem to know bout this bloke, can u plz tell me wht the situation in Zimbabwe is like for Povetry? and if his land reforms did help the majority of black peasants?

[Pandii]

Originally posted by lovebombanarchy+December 11, 2005 09:03 am--> (lovebombanarchy @ December 11, 2005 09:03 am)
[email protected] 8 2005, 04:19 PM


but yes, mugabe is certainly a dictator, and an enemy of the poor [/b]
Here here!

Hey may have done some 'good' things, but I think over all, his ruling of Zimbabwe has been extremely poor. I don't think, as leftists, we should support his actions.

[Comrade_Scott]

mugabe is a prick. he has lied to the people of zimbabwe.. he started out as a liberator and rightfully so but soon turned courupt and transformed into a brutal dictator he is now just a lost old man wating for a good lap dog succseser who will not prosecute him is all. hopefully he will be thrown out of office. he is no friend of the left having housed ethiopias "left wing" dictator the commies and anarchists should boo and dispise him. but thats just me and my views :P

[MarxSchmarx]

Although the author conflates Marxism with single-party rule, he is right about one thing:

Mugabe has been a prick long before he went after whitie, when the west started caring.


Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, presides over what might be the most rapid disintegration yet of a modern nation-state, it has become de rigueur for journalists, politicians and academics to offer what has become a near-universal analysis: Mugabe, who has ruled his country uninterrupted for 27 years, was a promising leader who became corrupted over time by power.

This theme was popularized not long after Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms in 2000. Four years ago, in response to those raids, the New York Times editorialized that "in 23 years as president, Mr. Mugabe has gone from independence hero to tyrant.''

Earlier this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, "I'm just devastated by what I can't explain, by what seems to be an aberration, this sudden change in character.''

The characterization of Mugabe as a good man gone wrong extends to popular culture as well. In the 2005 political thriller The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman played a dashing, multilingual exile from the fictional African country of Matobo, whose ruler was once a soft-spoken, cerebral schoolteacher who liberated his country from a white minority regime but became a despot. Mugabe certainly understood the likeness; he accused Kidman and her co-star, Sean Penn, of being part of a CIA plot to oust him.

But this conception of Mugabe -- propagated by the liberals who championed him in the 1970s and 1980s -- is absolutely wrong. From the beginning of his political career, Mugabe was not just a Marxist but one who repeatedly made clear his intention to run Zimbabwe as an authoritarian, one-party state. Characteristic of this historical revisionism is former Newsweek southern Africa correspondent Joshua Hammer, writing recently in the Washington Monthly that "more than a quarter-century after leading his guerrilla army to victory over the racist regime of Ian Smith in white-minority-ruled Rhodesia, President Robert Mugabe has morphed into a caricature of the African Big Man.''

But Mugabe did not "morph'' into "a caricature of the African Big Man.'' He has been one since he took power in 1980 -- and he displayed unmistakable authoritarian traits well before that. Those who were watching at the time should have known what kind of man Mugabe was, and the fact that so many today persist in the contention that Mugabe was a once-benign ruler speaks much about liberal illusions of African nationalism.

Mugabe's formative political education began in 1964, during a decade of imprisonment for subversive activity against the white minority regime that ruled Zimbabwe, then known as Rhodesia. While imprisoned, Mugabe earned degrees in law and economics by correspondence courses from the University of London and became a revolutionary Marxist. After he was released, he helped lead a civil war against the government.

All the participants in the Rhodesian war used vicious tactics. But Mugabe displayed a particular ruthlessness that ought to have indicated what sort of ruler he might become. In 1978, four black moderates announced that they had reached an "internal settlement'' with the white regime, paving the way for democratic elections. One of these leaders, Ndabaningi Sithole, dispatched 39 envoys to meet representatives of Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, another guerrilla leader. The envoys were captured, murdered and, according to Time magazine, "their bodies were then laid out by the guerrillas in a grisly line at the side of the road as a warning to local tribespeople.''

The following year, in protest of the election that then-prime minister Ian Smith had organized with black leaders willing to lay down their arms, Mugabe's organization released a death list naming 50 "Zimbabwean black bourgeoisie, traitors, fellow-travellers and puppets of the Ian Smith regime, opportunistic running-dogs and other capitalist vultures.'' During those elections, Mugabe and Nkomo's forces killed 10 black civilians attempting to vote. Mugabe's men also blew up a Woolworth's store and massacred Catholic missionaries.

Mugabe was clear about his preference for authoritarian rule. Years before taking office, asked what sort of political future he envisioned for Zimbabwe, Mugabe expressed his belief that "the multiparty system ... is a luxury'' and that if Zimbabweans did not like Marxism, "then we will have to re-educate them.''

Today, with Zimbabwe suffering the highest inflation and lowest life-expectancy rates in the world, it is fashionable to call Mugabe a "caricature'' of an African despot. But Mugabe became that caricature immediately after assuming office. He confiscated about a dozen private companies associated with the rival ZAPU party and expropriated farms that were owned by associates of Nkomo (his erstwhile liberation ally), a harbinger of what he would do to white farmers 20 years later. At a political rally in 1982, Mugabe said about his own political party: "ZANU-PF will rule forever.''

In 1984, Mugabe imprisoned Methodist Bishop Abel Muzorewa, who had won the 1979 multiracial election boycotted by Mugabe, for 10 months without charge, falsely accusing him of conspiring against Zimbabwe.

And over several years in the early 1980s, Mugabe executed what arguably might be the worst of his many atrocities, a campaign of terror against the minority Ndebele tribe in which he unleashed a North Korean-trained army unit that killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people.

Yet, even in the midst of these various crimes, Mugabe never lost his fan base in the West. In 1986, the University of Massachusetts Amherst bestowed on Mugabe an honorary doctorate of laws just as he was completing his genocide against the Ndebele. In April 2007 , as the campus debated revoking the degree it ought never have given him, African-American studies professor Ekwueme Michael Thelwell, who had been in favour of honouring Mugabe two decades ago, told t he Boston Globe: "They gave it to the Robert Mugabe of the past, who was an inspiring and hopeful figure and a humane political leader at the time.''

Similarly, in 1984, the University of Edinburgh gave Mugabe an honorary doctorate (revoked in July of this year), and in 1994, Mugabe inexplicably was given an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth.

What explains the revisionist account of Mugabe?

Partly, it is what might be termed the West's "orientalist'' view of Zimbabwe. According to this interpretation, it was only when Mugabe started going after whites that the world began paying attention. The anti-white violence of the early 2000s took no more than a dozen white lives and the lives of many more black farm workers -- peanuts compared with the thousands of Ndebeles slaughtered in the mid-'80s.

The British media, which nurture a residual interest in a former colony where many people of British ancestry still live, helped turn Mugabe into an international villain when he began killing white people. In the eyes of Westerners, tribal violence -- in which blacks kill other blacks -- is par for the course in Africa, and, besides, Mugabe actually killed far fewer of his people than many other African despots. That Mugabe did not immediately ruin Zimbabwe's economy or force the whites out -- as Idi Amin did in Uganda -- is a large part of why the West did not portray him as a villain. By African standards, he really was not all that bad.

Still, this does not account for the overt whitewashing of Mugabe's horrific past. Throughout the Rhodesian civil war in the 1970s, many in the media attempted to portray Mugabe as akin to Nelson Mandela, the quintessence of the heroic, international statesman. The media already had its villain -- Rhodesia's intractable whites -- and portraying Mugabe as just another African strongman bent on turning his country into a one-party dictatorship would have complicated the story of good versus evil.

Mugabe was also a brilliant and eloquent spokesman for black African grievances against colonial rule and for post-colonial aspirations of independence and self-sufficiency. And it's true that after taking office, he preached racial reconciliation rather than retribution, surprising many whites.

But a fully honest accounting also would have recognized Mugabe to be, whatever his virtues, an authoritarian thug hell-bent on acquiring -- and attaining -- power at all costs. Mugabe's destructive behaviour over the past seven years has not been "an aberration'' but is perfectly consistent with the way he has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980.

James Kirchick is assistant to the editor in chief of the New Republic and reported from Zimbabwe in 2006 .

[Red Rebel]

Mugabe was a great revolutionary; however, his ability as a statesmen is lacking.

[Philosophical Materialist]

I think Luís Henrique above gave the best précis befitting this situation.

[Lenin II]

Marxist?
Even when he was 'good' when he was in his guerilla fighting days to my knowledge he never claimed to be a marxist.

Not true. He did claim to be a Marxist, though I don't hear much of that from him anymore. Time has clearly shown him for what he is.


As for land distribution it seems to mainly consist of given his other war buddies who have joined the beauacracy with him more land.

That is very true. Most of the land went to incompetent farmers and his cronies. That is why people are starving now. Zimbabwe also as the highest inflation rate in the world…what is it, like 7 million% or something?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/ChavezMugabe.jpg/250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

Getting back to the original post, for Lenin’s sake, it’s just a freakin’ picture! World leaders dress up in suits and merrily cavort all the time.