Get your Mugabe on
The paper today seemed full of story about Africa. Well, not really about Africa--they were about Mugabe. You've probably heard of him. Worst dictator ever. That sort of thing. The problem is, is that it just isn't true.

Well, it's a lot true. In fact, the facts are correct. Mugabe is a thug. I'm not condoning Mugabe's thug like action over the past decade, but there is more to the story than is recognized here. It is a much different issue than you probably believe, judging by the tales in the Globe and Mail today, anyway. As Paul Knox writes, "Meantime, Mr. Mugabe, "re-elected" last year, drives his country and its 13 million people to the brink of ruin with expropriations of private land, rampant corruption and flagrant human-rights abuses." And this is one of the more tame descriptions that I've read.

The problem for me is that it wasn't very long ago that Mugabe, and Zimbabwe, was regarded as one of the success stories of Africa. They had a thriving economy (well, until the IMF implemented liberalization), decent infrastructure, elections, relatively peaceful turnover from colonial rule etc., etc. Then, all of a sudden, the rhetoric changes. Zimbabwe is a disaster, in economic ruin, rampant corruption, etc., etc.

So what changed? First, and most importantly, Mugabe overstayed his welcome. He has been unquestionably in power for too long and needs to step down. Needed to step down years ago, actually. Secondly, and most notably, the rhetoric changed when Mugabe started to implement a plan that he had been promising for decades. That plan was land redistribution.

You have to understand about Zimbabwe that after colonial rule most of the country belonged to a few individuals and families who owned massive amounts of the country. And these people didn't "earn" the land in that libertarian type of way. It was uncontrovertably one of the effects of colonialism. One of Mugabe's initial platforms was to have some of that land redistributed fairly, i.e., such as granting property rights to people who were living on or farming land that technically didn't belong to them. Even the landowners granted, and still grant, to some respect that some redistribution was in order.

However, for most of Mugabe's time in power, land redistribution was put on the back-burner, for the most part. It was simply too contentious an issue. There was some land that was turned into National Parks and such, but the bulk of it was untouched.

Recently, that changed. Maybe it was a heritage thing-Chretien-style. Maybe it was building complaints among his party and his people that this hadn't been done. Maybe it was something he didn't want to touch until he knew he was at the end of the game. Who knows? Whatever it was, Mugabe began the land redistribution program in earnest.

Now, of course, the redistribution program is a disaster. How much of a disaster it really is and how much is blown out of proportion may be more of an open question that it seems. I can only imagine the number of potential problems. People who don't want to leave. People getting a bad deal. Unfair distribution systems. There's so much in there that would be problematic and I'm not surprised that it didn't go smoothly.

But I want to make this clear. Even if it should have happened 25 years ago, it was a program that everyone thought was going to happen and should happen. It's not a surprise. It's not simply a power/money/land grab. It is a program with a rational and fair basis behind it, despite its obvious and predictable problems.

So the world position on Mugabe can be illustrated like this: Great leader --> implements land reform --> Worst dictator ever. It was only when Mugabe started implementing the land re-distribution program (taking away land from "farmers" who were of course white) that he suddenly develops this reputation. Screw your country, doesn't matter. Screw white people, that's a problem.

Hmm. What I don't know about Zimbabwe could fill volumes of books that I haven't read, but I do find it very suspicious.

The other thing I'd like to point out about Zimbabwe is that the leader of the opposition party MDC, Morgan Tsvangari is a creep. I don't trust him with a ten foot pole. He's a thug and his party the MDC is responsible for its own human rights abuses, which shouldn't be forgotten. Let's also not forget his role in one of the weirdest political stories I've ever heard (and which he is, quite rightly, on trial for). During the lead-up to the 2000 Zim election, a videotape came out where Tsvangari is shown quite clearly hiring people to kill Mugabe. Now, to be fair, he was also quite clearly set-up. The Canadian involved appears to be one of the world's most untrustworthy characters. Still, no matter the circumstances, politicians should not get invovled with worldwide famous untrustworthy characters to plot to assassinate. Any which way you spin that, it shows unbelievably bad judgment.