Violence and Politics in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe
According to a the head of a South African contingent of regional election observers, the presidential election run-off in Zimbabwe cannot take place given the current and threatened levels of violence. How convenient for President Robert Mugabe, for whom violence and the threat of its usage has always been a useful political tool. Such a pronouncement serves his interests perfectly. And of course it does little to motivate him to try to diminish the use of violence in the near or distant future if cessation of violence means the runoff can go on as planned. Instability borne of Mugabe’s irresponsibility thus works to Mugabe’s advantage if that instability means the elections do not take place and Mugabe maintains and consolidates his control.
Perhaps the observers, who surely do not mean to fuel Mugabe’s despotism, should have insisted that a runoff go in in spite of, and perhaps to spite, the cynical use of violence to manipulate the system. There are, after all, worse things than temporal, politically-inspired violence, and that is a permanent state of politically-inspired violence.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:30 am
“Perhaps the observers, who surely do not mean to fuel Mugabe’s despotism…”
Can we be so sure about this? The observers in question are part of the SADC, which is dominated by South Africa. President Thabo Mbeki has blatantly said that he supports Mugabe. Perhaps he doesn’t mean to support tyrannical despotism, but he’s certainly biased in his judgment. The observers are absolutely aware of the implications of this for Zimbabwe.
See:
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12589:mbeki-openly-admits-support-for-mugabe&catid=31:top%20zimbabwe%20stories&Itemid=66
May 9th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Owen –
Thanks for weighing in.
I certainly can see your point. I am just optimistic, if that is the word, that SADC is more blinkered than it is desirous of tyranny in Zimbabwe. I see them, and especially individual actors such as the observers, as being perhaps willfully blind, as coddling, but not necessarily as supporting Mugabe per se. Perhaps you see this as a distinction without a difference, but I try my best not to be any more cynical about this than the situation already demands of those of us who sit helplessly as observers.
I appreciate you reading.
best –
dc