


An election with only one candidate

Robert Mugabe forced his rival out of the race. But opposition to him, especially across Africa, is mounting. He may be less secure than he looks

See article

Readers' comments



Which is worse? An election with only one candidate, as in many "Third World" countries, or no election with many candidates, as we have in the United States?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GlobalRelations/message/257http://youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=CinetopiaNethttp://youtube.com/CinetopiaNet


Some very intelligent and articulate people have contributed to this discussion. You know who you are, thanks; I for one have enjoyed your perspective.

It's time to come to a conclusion about how to solve the kinds of problems that a Zimbabwe (or any other failed state with tyrannical rulers) presents to the world. Ideally we can come up with a systemic solution that can be universally applied - so that it might also have a deterrent effect on other would-be dictators.

I could lead you step-by-step through my detailed logic, but I think you know what the limitations are with the current and past solutions to Zimbabwe-like problems, so instead I'll jump ahead to a recommendation.

We need the military equivalent of an International Red Cross or M�decins Sans Fronti�res. We need an international NGO that is not supported by governments, but by globally-oriented citizens. This Weapons-Against-Tyrants organization could channel funds from concerned individuals around the world who want to make a positive contribution (as opposed to just mouthing off on a site like this) to provide weapons and other logistical support to worthy opponents of tyrannical governments in countries like Zimbabwe.

Half a billion dollars will be contributed to the presidential campaign in the U.S. this year, as an example of the funds that could be available for a worthy cause. An amount like that, applied to military purposes, would make life very difficult for fools like ZANU PF Strategist II, Macumazan, Mugabe, and his co-conspirators.

Ideas? Comments?


Colin Lees - very well put. I have only 2 objections:
1. Ian Smith missed some very important opportunities to devolve power in a way that could have established a democratic mindset, and federalized democratic institutions. By choosing a dead-end path that had only one potential outcome he chose not to pursue other paths that might have precluded a centralized and ultimately totalitarian regime.
2. The UN charter states its purpose: to avoid war between states - which is difficult enough. There is no Intervention Fairy, unfortunately. The rules have been the same for centuries: if people want to live in a democracy they can create it themselves (through activism and leadership), or they have to move to one - which Zimbabweans are doing in droves. The sooner the "downtrodden and terrorized" realize that their destinies are in their own hands the sooner they can get on with it.


This tragedy is pushing ten years of a savage brutal regime. Almost as sad is the failure of other AU members to denounce the criminal acts of this tyrant. Will take a genocide for others AU members to act?

Colin Lees

I visited Zlmbabwe (then still Rhodesia) several times in the early 70's, during the period of UDI. What a refreshing change this was from the mismanagement of neighbouring Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia) to the north, or the apartheid rule of South Africa to the south. Despite being a land locked country facing international sanctions and having to contend with terrorists regularly infiltrating along two thirds of its borders, it was nevertheless extremely prosperous, boasting a 98% literacy rate and acheiving in excess of 8% growth in GDP annually. The black and white populations respected each other and mixed freely and willingly. Ian Smith was, at that time, the lowest paid leader of any African nation and the country was run like a very efficient business, whilst Robert Mugabe was operating from across the border, sending his armed gangs across it to attack farms and brutally intimidate their black employees.The Smith regime eventually accepted the need to move towards majority rule and came up with a voting formula for amicable power sharing, which saw the first black Prime Minister elected - Bishop Abel Muzarewa. Less than one year on... enter roving Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary to the newly elected Thatcher government. With only a superficial grasp of the situation and out to score brownie points, he prematurely pressurized the white repesentation to make further concessions, which they did, resulting in another election... enter Robert Mugabe as leader.Since then, democracy and the freedoms we take for granted have evaporated. Rigged elections and a brutal reign of terror have seen the death, mutilation or flight of a huge chunk of the country's citizens, black and white, whilst its once prosperous ecomomy quickly collapsed and its currencey devalued to the point of being virtually worthless. The saddest aspect of this whole scenario is that the rest of the world has turned its back, even African countries including neighbouring South Africa, with the attitude of "oh how awful - lets have another cup of tea". If the surviving downtrodden and terrorized citizens of Zimbabwe cannot turn to Britain, Africa or the UN to rid them of this tyrant and restore the country to normality, then to who on earth can they turn? Whilst scenarios like Zimbabwe and Burma continue to fester, our governments are willing to send soldiers to die in an illegal and unpopular war in Iraq, which after 5 years is in a worse state than it was before. This complacency is a worrying trend for anyone residing in the the small independent democracies which were former colonies, for these days many people in poor societies enter politics for the wrong reasons and if our leaders turn or are bought, what then will become of our democratic rights and to whom will we be able to turn when things go wrong?C A Lees, Commonwealth of Dominica


Mugabes position is only legitimized if it is recognised by the rest of the international community. The best thing might be to not to cooperate at all with someone who is a imposter to the position. Pretty soon his ineffectiveness will show him up to Zimbabweans as the emperor without clothes. I can quite understand primitive retaliation from the opposition but they are attempting to maintain some dignity to demonstrate mugabes brutality and I wouldn't call it apathy. If something effective is not done we might just see another genocide. Well it will be then just one act of sensless brutality after another. Turmoil for want of a democracy. Terrorism motivating terrorism won't get you solidarity.


Uuuuuuh, they took his KNIGHTHOOD!!! They are just so CRUEL those Brits! The old man must be in tears! (The rest of us are puking).


Sometimes an act of senseless brutality is just an an act of senseless brutality.

Mbeki's lack of courage and constant indecision has shown that he couldn't recognize a principled position if it stared him in the face and introduced itself.

Sometimes a spineless president is just a spineless president.

Well done Economist for saying it out loud.


The Economist seems not to appreciate or even comprehend the political dynamics that Pres Mbeki has to straddle when dealing with the Zimbabwean question. To be able mediate in that country's quagmire he had ensure that both sides welcomed his efforts.This he has done with sterling distinction that no other world leader was able to match except for shouting from the sidelines. Furthermore, no one will ever deny dogged commitment of SA goverment in not being crass when it comes to these matter. It was our goverment which first proclaimed that that country's runoff elections will not be free nor fair under the prevailing circumstances before everyone jumped on the bandwagon. So please, cut us some slack as no country has intelligibly articualed how our goverment should deal with these question except of cause to remind us we are at a vantage position vis-a-vis our northern neighbour.

As for the statement that Pres Mbeki want a negotiated settlement that would leave Zanu-PF and Mugabe in charge thats a big fat lie. South African position has always been that Zimbabwean leadership magnanimous in trying to resolve the problems of that country stop these one upmanship nonsense. This country has never tried or even contemplate impose whatever wisdom we think we possess on anyone. Our goverment has been involved in trying to help that country to resolve its problems from the begining not because we have been looking for accolades from the world but because we believe in human solidarity.


If Zimbabweans can't organize themselves in overwhelming opposition to a brutal tyrant, why should the rest of the world step in to save them?

Zimbabwe's second tier of leadership is so incompetent that even if Mugabe was ousted by outsiders he would merely be replaced by another tyrant, and we'd be having this conversation again in a few years. If Zimbabweans want a real democracy they will have to step up to the challenge, and stop expecting someone else to save them from their own apathy.

Iraq was an obvious mistake, just like electing George Bush was an obvious mistake. Americans had become complacent and turned-off by politics after the prosperous but messy Clinton years, but no more.

The lesson is universal: Democracy begins and ends with the electorate. We get the leaders we deserve.


The major "criminals" on Zimbabwe other than Mugabe are Mbeki and China as neither is ready to defy this dictator. Maybe it is not surprising that, after the Iraq intervention, most countries are reluctant to take action but African countries should show leadership. The UN should also act and show some backbone.


South Africa's Mbeki is the key obstructionist to the Zimbabwe solution. The SADC must remove him as mediator and replace him with Zuma or a Zuma nominee. Then, and only then, will the SADC and AU be prepared to take the actions required, with the support of the West, to bring down Mugabe and his thugs.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events