Zimbabwe a success

Cook

Banned
Mugabe had some reasonable success during the 1980s. If you could get him to step down in 1988, he would probably be remembered as a good leader...

If Robert Mugabe had died in 1988, he would be remembered for a bitterly murderous campaign against his political rivals and their ethnic kin that resulted in the deaths of some 20,000 people and the torture of tens of thousands of others. His legacy would have been the despoiling of parliamentary government and the permanent enshrining of ethnic bitterness and rivalry in Zimbabwean politics.
 
If Robert Mugabe had died in 1988, he would be remembered for a bitterly murderous campaign against his political rivals and their ethnic kin that resulted in the deaths of some 20,000 people and the torture of tens of thousands of others. His legacy would have been the despoiling of parliamentary government and the permanent enshrining of ethnic bitterness and rivalry in Zimbabwean politics.

Disagree.

People were quite happy to ignore Mugabe's many, many flaws. The West and the international human rights community only took notice of him when he started treating white people as badly as he had treated black people.

Reagent's right, if Mugabe had stood down anywhere between 1985 and 1995 he would have been considered a Mandela-lite.
 
Zimbabwe's financial and economical problems lay with Mugabe getting involved in wars in the Congo then tearing up the core section of his nations economy without making any plans to replace it with something that could work as or more effectively, and to allow the assets of his nation to be hoarded largely by a small group of elite people within the ZANU-PF all of whom appear to have more interest in enriching themselves instead of the country.

Getting rid of Mugabe and destroying ZANU-PF's monopoly on power might go some way to solving the issue.
 
Reagent's right, if Mugabe had stood down anywhere between 1985 and 1995 he would have been considered a Mandela-lite.

With, perhaps revisionist historians sullying his name when they review his actions outside of a nationalist hero-worshiping mindset.
 
With, perhaps revisionist historians sullying his name when they review his actions outside of a nationalist hero-worshiping mindset.

Yes, but in the global consciousness, he'll be considered a hero, certainly on the level of a Nyerere, Machel, or Kenyatta.
 
Last edited:
The post-UDI sanctions actually helped the economy diversify. Prior to 1965, the Southern Rhodesia economy was overly dependent on the export of tobacco. With the sanctions, agriculture diversified and industrialized due to import substitution. So between 1967 and 1972 the economy actually enjoyed a boom, this can explain the record number of white immigrants arriving in the country in 1972. However, in 1973 the oil crisis hit Rhodesia hard (as it did most non-oil producing developing nations). Also, until 1975 the guerrilla threat had been mostly confined to the area west of Kariba dam, the sparsely populated Zambezia escarpment. Even here the threat had been fairly negligible as most of the nationalist leaders had been imprisoned since 1964 (Mugabe, Sithole Nkomo etc).

However, in September of 1974 when the Portuguese announced their intention to grant Angola and Mozambique independence, South Africa's policy towards black Africa radically shifted. Until then the South African government had considered the Portuguese colonies along with Rhodesia to form a "cordon sanitaire" around South Africa and Southwest Africa. The South African government paid little heed to unfriendly African nations. Beginning in 1974 however, they sought to surround their country with friendly or at least neutral black-ruled countries (like Malawi, Swaziland). To that end Vorster put pressure on Rhodesia to release the nationalist leaders from prison, hoping that a friendly multi-racial state would emerge in Rhodesia. Now completely dependent on South Africa, Ian Smith's government gave in and released the nationalist leaders.

The first thing the Zimbabwean nationalist leaders did was head to Zambia and now-independent Mozambique to establish bases with which to fight the Rhodesian government. Rhodesia was surrounded and had no choice but to give in by 1980. The economy also suffered heavily due to the loss of Portuguese Mozambique as a conduit to the outside world. One has to remember that the Portuguese government had cordial relations with many more Latin American, African and Asian countries that South Africa did. Also, the ports of Lourenço Marques and Beira were much shorter conduits for Rhodesian trade.

As for Mugabe, he showed his true colors early on by allowing attacks on the Ndebele minority. In 1987 he reneged on the Lancaster House agreement which had guaranteed whites 20 seats in the House of Assembly. What kept his regime going throughout the Cold War was the fact that it was able to court both sides of the iron curtain.

Finally, once the iron curtain fell, one has to remember that the third world suffered greatly. Until then, the Communist Bloc and the West had both vied with each other to buy influence in African and Asian countries. In Africa, this was especially true, African leaders (usually dictators) pitted cold war rivals against each other in return for aid. Much of it went to line their own pockets, however usually just enough of it trickled down to keep the citizens happy. With the end of the cold war, the flow of aid ended (U.S. aid to Africa peaked in 1985). Much of the aid had been military aid, this too dried up, making the survival of the despotic regimes precarious (Mobutu in Zaire). At the same time this was coupled with a precipitous decline of world commodity prices after 1975 and a rise in energy prices that would last in 1983 (in 1983 oil prices collapsed). Due to the combination of less aid and lower commodity, by the late 90s all commodity prices were at record lows and most African countries heavily indebted.

By the late 1990s discontent was brewing in Zimbabwe. The seizure of white farms beginning in 1999 can be seen primarily as a diversionary tactic. Mugabe wanted to be seen to be doing something constructive. Also, he did not want to end up out of power like Kenneth Kaunda in neighbouring Zambia. The irony of this was by the late 1990s Zimbabwe's black population was among the most highly urbanised and educated in Africa. Most simply wanted wage jobs, not farmland. By taking over the large commercial farms, Mugabe also destroyed many of jobs of rural blacks, who were wage earners. Instead, the farms ended up in the hands of people with little funds to invest in anything bust subsistence farming. Though Mugabe knew he'd face little opposition from other African countries and he could portray himself as a martyr stating that "sanctions" were what was destroying the economy. Ironically though, countries like Zambia, Nigeria and Mozambique courted white Zimbabwean farmers granting them land, knowing that commercial farming provides wages and export earnings.
 
Disagree.

People were quite happy to ignore Mugabe's many, many flaws. The West and the international human rights community only took notice of him when he started treating white people as badly as he had treated black people.

Reagent's right, if Mugabe had stood down anywhere between 1985 and 1995 he would have been considered a Mandela-lite.
Well, 1995's pretty late, the rot was setting in as early as 1990. But. Ya.

Zimbabwe went from being one of the best run black african states to its present hellhole status.

While Abel Muzorewa's compromise government probably could never have survived, it would have given Zimbabwe an even better chance at surviving.

My brother, a physician, was there in the late 80s, and he raved about how Zimbabwe actually had black doctors in the medical school, even as department heads. Which was almost unheard of for most of subsaharan Africa. That Zimbabwe had the best educated black workforce (outside of South Africa), and that they were going places.

Unfortunately, with 'Bob on the Wall' (I don't know if anyone but my other brother used that term - based on his picture EVERYWHERE), the places the country were going were not good. Sigh.
 
Well, 1995's pretty late, the rot was setting in as early as 1990. But. Ya.

Zimbabwe went from being one of the best run black african states to its present hellhole status.

While Abel Muzorewa's compromise government probably could never have survived, it would have given Zimbabwe an even better chance at surviving.

My brother, a physician, was there in the late 80s, and he raved about how Zimbabwe actually had black doctors in the medical school, even as department heads. Which was almost unheard of for most of subsaharan Africa. That Zimbabwe had the best educated black workforce (outside of South Africa), and that they were going places.

Unfortunately, with 'Bob on the Wall' (I don't know if anyone but my other brother used that term - based on his picture EVERYWHERE), the places the country were going were not good. Sigh.

If he had retired any time up until 2000, Mugabe would have been a hero, trust me. Zimbabwe was chugging along nicely, and things only started going south when the economy started going south in the late 1990s and the first real opposition to Mugabe began to emerge.

The only reason Mugabe is considered this monster by the West is because he went after white people. There are dictators who are as bad as Mugabe, if not worse then him - Mswati, Biya, Obiang, Dos Santos, yet they don't have EU sanctions placed on them or if they are members, get expelled from the Commonwealth.

The rule for African dictators is basically, leave your visible minorities alone (whites, Indians, Lebanese etc.) and don't commit genocide too openly. Oh, and if you have oil, expect a red carpet welcome at the White House next time you are in Washington.
 
Last edited:
If he had retired any time up until 2000, Mugabe would have been a hero, trust me. Zimbabwe was chugging along nicely, and things only started going south when the economy started going south in the late 1990s and the first real opposition to Mugabe began to emerge.

The only reason Mugabe is considered this monster by the West is because he went after white people. There are dictators who are as bad as Mugabe, if not worse then him - Mswati, Biya, Obiang, Dos Santos, yet they don't have EU sanctions placed on them or if they are members, get expelled from the Commonwealth.

The rule for African dictators is basically, leave your visible minorities alone (whites, Indians, Lebanese etc.) and don't commit genocide too openly. Oh, and if you have oil, expect a red carpet welcome at the White House next time you are in Washington.

African dictators

This is true! :(
 
a bit late

Josiath Tonongara survives his auto accident and takes over Zanu-PF and offers the olive branch to ZIPRA, Murozewa and Smith. This prevents the white flight, and reassures the Mtebele that they can trust and get along with the majority Shona. It was their mistrust of Mugabe that caused their mini-rebellions and the subsequent Gurkarundi.
 
Could a Mandela type figure have won control of the Patriotic front in 1979?

In any event some land redistribution was unavoidable, could it have been done so actual farmers took over land that had been expropriated by colonists in the late 19th and early 20th Century

Avoid Mugabe. Avoid Mugabe. Avoid Mugabe. Avoid Mugabe.

If it weren't for him, Zimbabwe would not only be in much better shape, but there might also be less of an income disparity: Zimbabwe's white middle class might have done fairly well, but everyone else was pretty much dirt poor, or close to it.
 
Top