Restoring democracy in Zimbabwe

[monsta666]

The usual rules
Heard about the bloodshed and the rigged elections in Zimbabwe? What do you think of these turn of events and what can be done to restore democracy? As always, any opinion is fair game as long as you support it with arguments. Stay respectful of others and don't use abusive language. Please I can't stress that enough!

====
The story so far

After a period of civil war Zimbabwe finally secured it's independence from Britain in 1980. One of the important agreements prior to this independence was the Lancaster House agreement. This agreement settled all the land disputes namely shifting power from the white man to its native owners. It also laid out plans to ensure the first election was a democratic one as the British would oversea these elections. In this first election Robert Mugabe won and became the first (and only) president of Zimbabwe.

However once elected Mugabe was unwilling to let go of his power and has rigged a number of elections to retain his power. During this time mass corruption has harmed the country enormously and has resulted in many people suffering greatly. In 2000 many farmers were forced out of their land due to land redistribution policies. Most of these lands then went to Mugabe's supporters.

A few months ago, there were general elections in Zimbabwe between the ZANU party (Zimbabwe African National Union) lead by Robert Mugabe and the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) party which is lead by Morgan Tsvangirai.

In the first round election Morgan Tsvangirai secured the most votes taking 47.9% of the total votes. This wasn't enough however to establish a majority vote (over 50% is required) so a second round election was required. This is where the problem starts.

After the first round Robert Mugabe started his campaign of violence and intimation attacking anyone who supported the MDC party. This violence included the burning of fields and even the mutilation of certain MDC supporters. As a result of this blood shed the second round was postponed repeatedly. Things got to a head when Tsvangirai withdrew from the election fearing his personal safety. Despite Tsvangirai's withdrawal the second round election went ahead and on June 29th Mugabe secured a landslide victory winning 86% of the votes in the second round. This victory was widely condemned as a sham election. As the situation stands Robert Mugabe will remain president of Zimbabwe.

=====
International reaction

The UK and USA have shown the greatest resistance to the policies in Zimbabwe. However the reaction is a little bit more mixed in Africa. Zimbabwe's neighbours South Africa show the greatest unease and have condemned many of Mugabe's actions. They are unwilling to take more drastic action however. The Chinese on the other hand have actually supported Mugabe and have even attempted to support him with arms. This move was unsuccessful however as South Africa refused to accept China's shipment of arms to Zimbabwe (the weapons need to go through South Africa before reaching Zimbabwe).

====
The question

What can other countries do to stop this excessive blood shed and restore democracy to the country? Should countries cease trading with Zimbabwe or is more drastic action required i.e an invasion?

 

[oppai-ga-suki]

This is a though subject, some people might say that its that countries problem so they should take care of the problem on their own. Themost logical choice of action for other countries is to set up an embargo and hope that the decreased supply of necessities weakens the tyranical government. Although embargo would be a good choice it risks harmming the innocent because they will be getting even less of what little they got when trade was normal. Another choice would be to send troops there but I think that that will never happen because its a civil war. Oe thing that the US has done is train and give weapons to the rebel forces like e did in the middle east so they could defend themselves from the USSR.

 

[franzoir]

Im one of those people that will say its the countries problem so let the inhabitants deal with it. I do not say this because i dont care its because im simply drawing upon history. Development of a fuctional state is fundamental to any country and the inability of countries to do this account for alot of the world problems. Looking at the history of western countries, when it comes to the development of the state, the path is stained with blood but 100 years later democracy is running smoothly.

Problems with Zimbawe and africa as a whole is that the problem that we see today stem from colonisation with historical event such as 'race to africa' where western countries tries to grab as much of africa as they could. Therefore it is a natural asssumption that western countries have a responsibitlity since they are the source of the problems to begins with. However this is where i disagree, you cannot have a functional state dealing with a dysfucntional state problems because 9/10 they will compare that state to their own system which is a common practice among the west using themselves as a model and in doing so exacerbates the problems.

So when i see people from Zimbawe crying out for help to the west, honestly, they are talking to the wrong crowd. They should be organising themselves at grassroots level and prepare for a revolution if they really want change. If you really want freedom you would be prepared to pay the ultimate price.

A counter argument to my train of thought is that because the level of exposure that media gives us, we should not stand idly by while people suffering. However even with this ive heard Gordon Brown say so many times 'i call for Zimbawe to do this' and this has become mere lipservice now, if western countries really wanted to help they would of done so by now.

In conclusion, Zimbawe should draw inspiration from the american constitution where it states that if you are not happy with the government to present it is up to the people and noone else to rise up and solve the problem. So basically, self determination is what is needed. Only after Zimbawe and countries alike set up a functional state conducisive to the peoples needs, should they send aid. Otherwise, they might as well wipe their ass with the money because all they are doing is fuelling the viscious cycle and prolonging the inevitable.

P.S Im not against intervention, just 9/10 they fail and make the problems worst because lack understanding of the countries circumstances.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE Themost logical choice of action for other countries is to set up an embargo and hope that the decreased supply of necessities weakens the tyranical government.

It's not a specifically Zimbabwean problem, but it happens almost everywhere in Africa.

Africa is currently a large tank of natural ressources (Diamonds, uranium, some ore...) and a very powerless continent.
So it's the prize of a power struggle between the main powers of the world : the Old Europe, with historical links through colonisation, the USA and China, who's litteraly buying Africa.
So the one who's too harsh with some countries has a lot to lose. Because at least one of the other powers will be very nice.

Moreover, it's sometimes easier to deal with a dictator you can corrupt than with a democracy who can change its mind after an election.


QUOTE Oe thing that the US has done is train and give weapons to the rebel forces like e did in the middle east so they could defend themselves from the USSR.

Training the Talibans, it worked so well.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (franzoir @ Jul 09 2008, 09:08 PM)So when i see people from Zimbabwe crying out for help to the west, honestly, they are talking to the wrong crowd. They should be organising themselves at grassroots level and prepare for a revolution if they really want change. If you really want freedom you would be prepared to pay the ultimate price.
I generally agree with you. If people wish to see change they must be prepared to repel even if it means risking their lives. Saying that I don't think a wait and see policy from other countries is really good either. If countries continue to trade with Zimbabwe we may actually be funding these regimes (albeit indirectly). Look at China they do not have a care in the world what Zimbabwe are doing and were prepared to arm Mugabe's men with weapons. So other countries can have a big effect on what goes on in Zimbabwe.

Looking at recent history perhaps we can learn something from the South African apartheid regime. The apartheid regime finally collapsed around the 1990s due to years of war and rebellion. But what happened before? In the past various trade restrictions were placed on South Africa. This stopped the government from obtaining money to maintain its system. Furthermore certain countries funded certain repel organisations to go against the government. So it was a two way thing. Like Dalriada suggests this tactic also has it's own dangers.

 

[franzoir]

QUOTE (monsta666 @ Jul 09 2008, 04:09 PM) Saying that I don't think a wait and see policy from other countries is really good either.
I understand what you mean about wait and see, and im not oppose to indirect action such as economic sanctions. However with this you risk the little that is trickling down to the people will stop.

Where i have a problem is with direct actions such as invasion.

Thing with South Africa is western countries have more interest in South Africa than sub sahara africa and is the only reason other countries were willing to help because it served in their national interest. Since countries have expressed interest in trading with Zimbawe they are prepared to look the otherway when it comes to the illegitimate government. However will loudly publicised that they do not condone what is doing on in Zimbawe.

This pretty much sums up politics in general, much is said but little is done

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (franzoir @ Jul 10 2008, 07:24 AM)I understand what you mean about wait and see, and im not oppose to indirect action such as economic sanctions. However with this you risk the little that is trickling down to the people will stop.
It's a tricky area. On the one hand trading with Zimbabwe means you are funding the regime indirectly. On the other hand if we stop trading with them then the people will lose their jobs, so it's a two edged sword. When I look at the state of the country and compare it to what it was like in the past I feel it will benefit the country in the long run if countries setup an embargo.


QUOTE (franzoir)Thing with South Africa is western countries have more interest in South Africa than sub sahara africa and is the only reason other countries were willing to help because it served in their national interest. Since countries have expressed interest in trading with Zimbabwe they are prepared to look the otherway when it comes to the illegitimate government. However will loudly publicised that they do not condone what is doing on in Zimbabwe.
Here I would disagree. The western countries lost out when they stopped trading with South Africa. Indeed Britain continued to trade with South Africa, even defending them during their apartheid regime because they were interested in their personal interests. When things got bad enough however they changed their stance and stopped trading with them. Now as Zimbabwe is a smaller nation than South Africa it should be easier to stop trading with them (we wouldn't be losing as much).

 

[oppai-ga-suki]

QUOTE (monsta666)It's a tricky area. On the one hand trading with Zimbabwe means you are funding the regime indirectly. On the other hand if we stop trading with them then the people will lose their jobs, so it's a two edged sword. When I look at the state of the country and compare it to what it was like in the past I feel it will benefit the country in the long run if countries setup an embargo.

I do not think that the country will benefit from an embargo in the long run and I say this from experience. Im from Cuba which to this day has an embargo and in a 10 year period (not sure if you can call 10 years long term) i have seen the entire country decline. What little things are imported have to be bought in "pesos convertibles"( Castro's monopoly mon.... I mean dollar equivalent). Most people in Cuba make around 300 "regular pesos" a month which is fairly aournd 12 dollars which can be easily spent on a "paladar"( restaurants paid with pesos convertible). Probably the ony thing that is sustaining the country is its avility to grow alot of its own food. I dont think the embargo has had much effect on the government but it has had an effect on the inoccent people that live there.

 

[Hiroyuki]

I think whether an embargo will affect a country politically depends a lot on the situation. If the regime relies on the support of other countries then an embargo may influence the government, otherwise probably not.

The situations of Cuba and South Africa are very different: in Cuba the government came to power by a popular revolution whose whole point was to reject outside control over the country, whilst with SA it was still effectively run by colonial forces who were oppressing the indigenous population. So sanctions against South Africa did have some effect by cutting the governing group off from their roots and supporters, whilst against Cuba the effect would be the reverse since it would be perceived as a desire to reimpose the foreign control which had led to the revolution in the first place.

As for Zimbabwe, in some ways it's like Cuba in that Mugabe came to power as part of the movement for independence. On the other hand though the transition was ultimately peaceful and the UK even supervised the initial elections, so there isn't the same hostility to outside influence by the population. In the end I think Zimbabwe isn't like either Cuba or South Africa, so I'm not sure what lessons can be drawn from them.

I think the situation is ultimately important more on a regional scale than a global scale. Zimbabwe used to be a big exporter of food to neighbouring countries, but due to the redistribution of farmland to Mugabe supporters who are not professional farmers production has dropped so much that it has become a big importer of food, which is very damaging to the region as a whole. So there should be a big motivation for neighbouring countries to do something.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Hiroyuki @ Jul 11 2008, 11:19 PM)The situations of Cuba and South Africa are very different: in Cuba the government came to power by a popular revolution whose whole point was to reject outside control over the country, whilst with SA it was still effectively run by colonial forces who were oppressing the indigenous population. So sanctions against South Africa did have some effect by cutting the governing group off from their roots and supporters, whilst against Cuba the effect would be the reverse since it would be perceived as a desire to reimpose the foreign control which had led to the revolution in the first place.
An embargo will have little effect on it's supporters. It will just effect the supporters income. It should be noted that in South Africa's case embargoes placed by the UN had a big effect. In any case if a country really wanted to cut outside interference it would actually WANT to block outside trade. Japan actually did this during the Edo period and didn't trade with any foreigners.


QUOTE (Hiroyuki)In the end I think Zimbabwe isn't like either Cuba or South Africa, so I'm not sure what lessons can be drawn from them.
Zimbabwe like South Africa was a former British colony. So Zimbabwe is more similar to South Africa than Cuba. Admittedly the ties are weaker. Nonetheless I believe an embargo will have a significant effect on Zimbabwe due to the government's corruption. Saying that like oppai-ga-suki suggests there is a good chance an embargo will do more harm than good. So perhaps a middle ground needs to be found. Namely limiting trade to essential goods. That way Mugabe gains less money but the people don't suffer too much.