• home
• archives
• about

It’s Time for Mugabe to Step Down

Before I make my case, I want to first state that I’m by no means an expert in this (or, really any) field and am formulating my opinions based on an array of news and encyclopedic sources that I’ve read over the past few weeks.

Let’s start with the fact that Robert Mugabe became President of Zimbabwe in 1987. Next up, an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Zimbabwe:

Life expectancy at birth for males in Zimbabwe has dramatically declined since 1990 from 60 to 37, among the lowest in the world. Life expectancy for females is even lower at 34 years.^[25] Concurrently, the infant mortality rate has climbed from 53 to 81 deaths per 1,000 live births in the same period. Currently, 1.8 million Zimbabweans live with HIV. 

Of course, some readers might be skeptical of Wikipedia, so I want to invite everyone to click the “[25]” link after the words “34 years.” (The reason it’s [25] is because it’s the twenty-fifth source of information used in the article).

Putting two and two together, it’s clear that Robert Mugabe has been President of Zimbabwe (others prefer the term “dictator”) since 1987 and life expectancy in the nation has severely declined since 1990. Moreover, the infant mortality rate has spiked. In respect to the AIDS rate, you may want to read this article (for those of you who aren’t registered members of NYTimes.com, the article essentially states that the Zimbabwean government misappropriated $7.3 million dollars that were supposed to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria).

Certainly, it’s unfair to blame all the problems of a nation on one leader. After all, governments and economies are tied together in an infinitely-complex web of chaos. Zimbabwe’s government system also consists of a parliament, so I’m by no means trying to assert that Mugabe is single-handedly responsible for all the ills of the country. However, the little research I’ve done suggests that he is, at the very least, a highly ineffective leader.

The economy of Zimbabwe is in shambles. The Wikipedia article reads:

Inflation rose from an annual rate of 32% in 1998 to an official estimated high of 231,000,000% in July 2008 according to the country’s Central Statistical Office,^[62] a state of hyperinflation, and the central bank introduced a new 100 billion dollar note.^[63]

One-hundred billion dollar note? 231,000,000% inflation? These figures are nearly incomprehensible! Mugabe himself faults the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, which placed harsh sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Section 4 of the bill outlines Congress’s findings, which are, in short: Zimbabwe was ineligible to participate in International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Monetary Fund programs due to “economic mismanagement, undemocratic practices, and the costly deployment of troops to the Republic of Congo.” Furthermore, the International Development Association suspended all new lending to the government of Zimbabwe in the summer of 2000. (For those of you interested in reading the full text of the bill, click here).

Now, the United States was all too willing to play the role of sugar daddy for Zimbabwe if the nation would meet certain conditions. In short, those conditions were: restoring the rule of law, maintaining free and fair elections, commitment to equitable, legal, and transparent land reform, fulfillment of agreement in ending the war in Congo, and making the military and national police subordinate to civilian government. If the conditions were met, the United States promised to provide debt relief and other financial assistance as well as establish and “Southern Africa Finance Center,” which would be located in Zimbabwe. Also mentioned was the stabilization of the Zimbabwean dollar.

Zimbabwe’s leadership did not comply with the five conditions outlined in the bill, and, as we now know, inflation has reached astronomical levels, the economy is in shambles, and life expectancy is the lowest in Africa.

Let’s assume Mugabe is not in any way responsible for the near-catastrophe of his Zimbabwe. Let’s even assume he actually intended to help the nation when he became president two decades ago. Even if his intentions were noble and even if he isn’t responsible for the awful state of the nation, he’s still an ineffective president and, for the good of the Zimbabwean people, should step down.

News, Politics | No Comments »

The Sarah Situation

This article from Rasmussen Reports is an interesting read. It states that 69% of Republicans think Palin helped the McCain ticket and 64% name the Alaskan governor as their top choice for Republican nominee in 2012.

My economics professor told the class on Thursday that he and many of his fellow Republicans had voted for Obama because they were tired of the social conservatives who are more interested in legislating morality rather than returning to common sense fiscal policy. His own words were, “The Republican party is split between the libertarian “leave us the hell alone” side and the social conservatives who want to tell everyone what to do–and there’s no way in hell one can win without the other.”

This is a problem for the Republican party. From the current perspective, it seems almost as if they can’t win. They essentially have three choices, save completely reworking the party philosophy from the ground up. If the Republican party returns to its “roots,” and shifts to the right on both monetary and social issues, they will abandon a lot of independent voters. However, if they keep their free-market, small government ideals but adopt a more liberal stance on social issues, they will abandon the religious sect that they’ve relied on since the Nixon years. They may also lose potential socially-conservative Democrats’ votes. Conversely, if the Republican party goes right on social issues but drops their free-market rhetoric, they lose the, as my professor put it, “leave us the hell alone” voters.

As I mentioned in my previous piece, I don’t think they Christian right is going to be able to deliver elections for the Republicans in the future. It’s simple mathematics. The nation is growing more and more diverse, and white evangelical Christians are, before long, going to be outnumbered by the ever-growing African- and Hispanic-American voters, who, as of now, lean heavily Democrat.

Certainly, the figures listed at the beginning of this article are daunting for the Republican party. They may inspire Republican party officials to make a drastic shift to the right–to attempt drafting Palin to run in 2012. Let us not forget, however, that 64% of the 55 million registered Republican voters is only 35 million votes. How can that compare to Obama’s astounding 65,125,043 votes? If he does a good job as president and the economy gets straightened out (either by his actions or natural forces within the market), that number could grow significantly.

Obviously, if I could come up with a winning strategy for the Republicans, I wouldn’t be writing this article but instead being paid to pitch my ideas for 2010 and beyond. However, that is not the case, but I will say that I don’t believe Sarah Palin has a future in national politics. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that she cost McCain the election–I’m not sure he could’ve won, honestly. Bush has given the Republican party a bad name. Obama retracted his promise to take public financing and was subsequently able to outspend McCain by 5-1. We’re in a war that the vast majority of the public disagrees with but McCain supports. The math was just against the Republicans this time.

I think if the Democrats can work together and work quickly, without pushing through too many overly-liberal policies that might scare moderates, then we might be in for decades of Democrat-dominated politics. Perhaps the Republicans should lay low for a while and really think about what they want to do.

News, Politics | No Comments »

Older Posts

Browse the archives »