Mbeki's Silence as Mugabe Roars

Back in March I wrote about Robert Mugabe and what were then the pending elections in Zimbabwe (here and here). The gist of my argument, especially in the first piece, was that whatever appearances Mugabe was making of being kinder, gentler and more tolerant of dissent were probably chimerical, intended for an outside audience to ingest and to give the elections that he knew he would win one way or another the imprimatur of legitimacy.

I wrote then:

(Regarding the outlook for the elections) On the surface, things seem positive. Mugabe has pulled back his dogs, ordering his barely-controlled young brigands to keep their hands in their pockets for the upcoming parliamentary elections. Pre-election violence is down. Both the cities and the countryside seem relatively placid.

Is Mugabe softening? Is the last of southern Africa’s Big Men feeling the effects of the Mandela-ization of the region, albeit belatedly? Perhaps. But color me skeptical. As with his predecessors on the continent – Mobutu Sese Seku and Charles Taylor and Daniel arap Moi and Laurent Kabila (and the list runs on depressingly) – Mugabe knows when to bet and when to bluff. He realizes that with each passing election cycle he is closer to his last, and that thus maneuvering himself to win this campaign will suffice to maintain his power. Mugabe realizes that Condi Rice is watching and that Tony Blair will not cease with his noisome criticisms. In such a context, Mugabe realizes that it is wise to soften, to give in where he can in order to continue to rule. He knows that once the election is over with, he will have virtually free reign to operate however he wants to whitewash his sins and promote his legacy and exact his punishments.

Unfortunately, my skepticism was warranted. According to today’s Times,

Facing rising unrest over a collapsing economy, Zimbabwe's authoritarian government has apparently adopted a scorched-earth policy toward potential enemies, detaining thousands of people, burning homes and street kiosks and routing large numbers of people from makeshift homes in major cities.

And so it goes. Zimbabwe’s crisis is a bad one, destined to get worse, all for the sake of the ego of a doddering old man besotted with power. And the only plausible solution is for Thabo Mbeki or someone in South Africa with the spine, the bully pulpit, and the wherewithal to speak forcefully and show the resolve to back words with action. The United States is not equipped to do so – hell, we won’t even take serious steps to stop genocide in Africa, never mind intervene in what merely qualifies as cruel and draconian dictatorship – and given its past, it is incredibly tough for England to be regarded as an honest broker in the region, even if Tony Blair has been one of the most forthright critics of Zimbabwe's nightmarish regime. But the African National Congress would not have to put up with any of Mugabe’s knee-jerk allegations of colonialism. Thabo Mbeki does not need lectures from Mugabe on struggle against tyranny. It is increasingly clear, however, that Mugabe does need such lectures. Mbeki’s silence is deafening.