Mugabe’s days are numbered

With the arrest again today of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of Zimbabwe’s main opposition party the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), taking place on the heals of a gathering of African leaders in Tanzania who are meant to discuss Zimbabwe’s troubled political situation, it seems certain that Robert Mugabe’s days are numbered.  Britain and the European Union have immediately criticized Tsvangirai’s recent arrest, largely because it follows a previous arrest of Tsvangirai and other MDC officials two-and-a-half weeks ago for engaging in a peaceful prayer vigil in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital.  Following that arrest Tsvangirai and his associates were severally beaten by Mugabe’s police force and one was killed.

Mugabe himself was planning on leaving Zimbabwe for Tanzania today, perhaps he is worried that the MDC—who have gained a remarkable amount of support worldwide in recent weeks—might be planning a coup.  Who knows what Mugabe is thinking?  He is, after all, not a stable person.

Insiders say that the Southern African Development Committee, the group of leaders meeting in Tanzania, will likely recommend to Mugabe that, for the good of the region, he retire when his term expires next year.  But is that good enough?  Should Mugabe be allowed to peacefully retire to some country estate after twenty-eight years ruining a country and making it virtually unlivable for Zimbabwe’s citizens?  Is it enough to just have a quiet word with the man who has become the poster boy for dictatorial rule and bad government?

I don’t think so.

Comments

[Nick Frankovich]

In Craig Timberg’s telling, the Ugandan government has tried two iterations of its AIDS-prevention campaign. The first was a matter of telling Ugandans to be faithful to one partner and of warning them in stark terms about the risks associated with promiscuity.

By contrast, the second iteration, ABC -- abstinence, be faithful, condomize -- sent a confused message. A person can’t be A and B and C simultaneously. One interpretation of ABC would be that A is for the unmarried, B for the married, and C for -- well, is C supposed to be a fail-safe measure for the married to use, just in case? Or is C for the unmarried when they stop abstaining?

The logic that ABC imposes is this. You should start out by resolving to be abstinent; resolve at least to be faithful to one partner if you fail to keep resolution A; and then resolve at least to use a condom if you fail to keep resolution B. The ABC campaign appears to have been invented by a committee of Westerners divided between conservatives and liberals. In the spirit of compromise, they came up with a pitch in which their two visions aren’t integrated so much as lined up in an order that implies a defeatist attitude about the possibility that people will practice sexual restraint.

But they did, at least when they were urged in strong language to do so, and fewer Ugandans contracted AIDS as a result. You think the Ugandan government could return to its original formula, which worked?