2

Robert Mugabe has basically become a pariah dictator in his country of Zimbabwe. There is now distrust, hostility, and complete separation between him and Europe.

His actions over the past decade have shown that his only concern is short-term gimmicks and political maneuvers to maintain control. He has done extremely controversial things which were clearly controversial when he did them. He clearly didn't care.

He has forcibly taken control of much European-descended property. He issues threats and epithets against Zimbabweans of European descent. He clearly doesn't care about international opinion. He has even characterized himself as Hitler.

He easily has the manpower to do it. He enjoys controversy. He doesn't care about outside opinion. He hates Zimbabweans of European descent. I can honestly not figure out why he hasn't ordered their deaths. What am I missing?

  • 3
    To be clear, "he has even not characterized himself as 'Hitler'"? I think you may have a typo (most world leaders have a habit of not characterizing themselves as Hitler; it's pretty much a favorite hobby among world leaders). – cpast Jun 20 '15 at 21:32
  • 1
    @cpast: The typo is the word "not": Mugabe has characterized himself as "Hitler". See cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-africa-still-rules, where he is quoted as saying, in 2003, "I am still the Hitler of the time". I would propose an edit but it isn't at least 6 characters. – Nate Eldredge Jun 20 '15 at 22:29
  • 1
    What do you think would be the consequences of such a step? There's a difference between "doesn't care about international opinion" and "doesn't mind airstrikes / invasion". – Nate Eldredge Jun 20 '15 at 22:33
  • 3
    I think only one person can answer this question. – user1530 Jun 21 '15 at 3:06
  • 2
    Well, it looks like that you do not understand the difference between land redistribution/controversial politics and genocide. Luckily, it looks like Mugabe does understand it. Is that enough of an answer for you? I mean, for any sane person the fact that you believe that Mugabe is a genocide and the fact that there has been no genocide should not prompt a question asking what is wrong with Mugabe, but a question about what is wrong with your beliefs.... – SJuan76 Sep 21 '15 at 8:22
6

You seem to be conflating the concepts of "dictator" and "genocidal maniac". Those are not the same things.

As for his actions against white Zimbabweans; well, you must understand that pre-1980 Zimbabwe (called Rhodesia, or Southern Rhodesia before 1965) was not just a racist nation with racial segregation laws, but that about half of the country was allocated to white minority by law. Even in 1997 much (about 70%) of the country's fertile agricultural land was still owned by whites (by then just 0.6% of the population).

This isn't to say that the land reform programs were a good idea by any standard, but they're not borne out of blind hatred against whites like your question suggests. After 1980 Mugabe's government took pains to ensure fair treatment for whites. The original plan to re-distribute land was by legal and fair purchase, not by forced seizure. This didn't really take off due to lack of funds, but if Mugabe was truly as anti-white as you suggest he would have acted much sooner against the whites.

It wasn't until the mid-90s that things really went down the crapper. Mugabe had traveled the familiar route that Mao, Qaddafi, Castro, and many others had walked: from fighting an oppressive regime, to becoming the slightly crazed head of an oppressive regime themselves obsessed with staying in power. The economy was struggling and opposition against Mugabe was growing, and he increasingly started to use the white population and Western countries as scapegoats for Zimbabwe's problems, eventually resulting in the famous – and disastrous – programs where land from white farmers was confiscated and given to (usually inexperienced) black farmers.

Much of this seems to be distraction and 'scapegoat-ism' to keep in power just as much as anything else; just as Mugabe's increasingly anti-Gay rhetoric is.

He has even characterized himself as Hitler.

No, he hasn't. The full quote:

I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one objective, justice for his own people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people, and their right to their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for.

This was in response to some British newspapers comparing him to Hitler. He just told them to stuff it. It's not exactly subtle, but he certainly didn't "characterize himself as Hitler".

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .