Perhaps Mugabe was just posing for the camera in the hopes that the glaring international spotlight would soon subside and he could go then get back to being a ruthless dictator.  Perhaps he was throwing his friend Mbeki a bone for helping to block UN sanctions against him.  Perhaps he sees an opportunity to emasculate Morgan Tsvangirai by drawing him in to his circle and, by consequence, reducing Tsvangirai’s appeal to those many Zimbabweans who so vigorously oppose Mugabe and all of the ill that he has done for their nation.  Perhaps Mugabe is just looking for any way possible to cling to power (taking a lesson from Kenya’s president Mwai Kibaki) and he sees a power-sharing deal as his surest way forward. 

Or perhaps Mugabe truly does care about the fact that Zimbabwe has become the purest definition of a failed state; that his citizen’s money no longer buys them anything; that many of his citizens don’t have enough food to eat; that over eighty percent of his citizens are unemployed; that democracy and rule of law have dried up in Zimbabwe.  Maybe Mugabe knows that he has failed his country and truly needs the help.

Even the venerable patriarch of African leadership Nelson Mandela spoke out about Mugabe’s ‘failure of leadership,’ not an easy thing for a fellow member of Africa’s liberation generation to do.  And world leaders seem to be falling all over themselves over the past few days to condemn Mugabe for his latest actions.

It seems impossible at this point that even Robert Mugabe could maintain his grip on power in Zimbabwe under such mounting pressure.  It is only a matter of time before the old man finally—mercifully—fades away.

And it couldn’t happen a moment too soon.

“We can’t ask the people to cast their vote on June 27 when that vote will cost their lives.  We will no longer participate in this violent sham of an election,” Tsvangirai said.

The MDC and independent rights groups claim that as many as 85 MDC supporters have been killed in the weeks leading up to the scheduled runoff election.  Mugabe’s government was reluctantly forced to admit that Tsvangirai had gained more votes than Mugabe in the March election but it wasn’t enough for Tsvangirai to win outright, forcing a belatedly-scheduled runoff election between the two and an opportunity for Mugabe’s supporters to organize, threaten, intimidate, and murder those who supported the MDC.  A major MDC rally had been scheduled in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, today but Mugabe’s supporters blocked the assembly preventing it from happening.  Perhaps that was the last straw.

Tsvangirai and his supporters were defeated by a ruthless, heartless tyrant who doesn’t care for one moment about the people that he supposedly liberated nearly thirty years ago. Mugabe’s only concern today seems to be making certain that he dies in office and avoids any possibility of being prosecuted for his multitude of crimes.  He is a huge disgrace but, unlike in years past, other African leaders are starting to take notice. 

The MDC has been subjected to a lot of violence during the run up to the election and South African mediators have been in discussions with both sides. 

Although it’s difficult to see Mugabe going for it, perhaps some sort of unity government is in the works.  We hope to know more soon.

Stay tuned.

In recent weeks some 20,000 foreigners have been chased from their homes—and nearly four dozen have been killed (some even burned alive as others looked on passively)—as the government of South Africa has struggled to stop the attacks.  The situation is akin to a pot boiling over.  Many native South Africans believe that these immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, and other places on the continent are stealing their jobs and causing crime in their communities.  Once the attacks began a few weeks ago it was like dominos falling—a disconcertingly easy start to some venomous acts of violence.

Writing about this xenophobic violence on The Root, Johannesburg-based journalist and author Charlayne Hunter-Gault, reminds us that it (as well as the post-election violence in Kenya earlier this year) is reminiscent of the racially-driven violence in the civil rights-era United States.  Hunter-Gault seems to be making the point that the pot is boiling over in Alexandra because it is a sprawling, overcrowded and often putrid township filled with despair and lack of opportunity that is separated by only a few miles from one of Johannesburg’s pristine, and mostly white, suburbs.  It is a classic example of the “haves” and the “have-nots” and a reference to the reality that, even in post-apartheid South Africa, the country is still very far from an equal opportunity environment.

Hunter-Gault is an Africanists who believe that the news out of Africa is too negative and that, if we look hard enough, we will see plenty of positive developments on the continent and a bright future for its people.  While I may not be a student of this school of thought I can respect it.  I agree that there is good news to report in Africa and that that news, in particular, tends to go underreported.  I’m continually amazed at the resiliency of so many Africans (including, by the way, the South Africans—both natives and immigrants—who endure life in Alexandra).  Africans from every corner of the continent are ignored and handicapped by their own governments and by the world at large while, despite it all, they continue to survive (and sometime thrive) against enormous odds.

But it is terrifying clear that this recent spate of xenophobic violence in South Africa has been largely driven by the continent’s large number failed states and bad governments.  The violence is a clear manifestation of just how much the region’s bad governments can harm its people.  The flood of foreign refugees to South Africa is a result of recent war in Mozambique, the disastrous rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the economic stagnation of Malawi, and so forth and so on.  South Africa, by comparison to the rest of the region, is a paradise.  In reality, of course, South Africa is ill-equipped economically and politically to handle such a huge influx of foreigners which makes such xenophobic violence a relatively easy thing to develop.

So, while people like Charlayne Hunter-Gault may see this xenophobic violence in South Africa as a symptom of the nation’s continued inequality—similar to the riots and violence that broke out in the United States over racial equality in the 1950s and 60s—and perhaps nothing more than the growing pains that South Africa was expected to suffer on its way to ultimate success one day, I see it as a more troubling display of just how much the existence of poor governance on the continent continues to harm the people of Africa.

Because the United States’ economy is so strong and because it has a need (and, sometimes, even an open desire) for immigrants from Mexico and other places to engage in low-wage jobs that most Americans will not do, illegal immigration into the United States does not have the same disastrous result that it has in South Africa where nearly twenty-five percent of the population is unemployed and half live below the poverty line.  Those may be good numbers by African standards but they clearly are not good enough to sustain huge number of immigrants from across the continent.

This violence in South Africa is a clear and tragic example of the urgency for African nations, and the global community, to work at improving the governments of Africa and the economic outlook for its people.  The fact that so many Zimbabweans, for example, would rather swim across the crocodile-infested waters of the Limpopo River and make their way to the squalid, dangerous, and overcrowded township of Alexandra in order to scratch out an illegal existence in South Africa rather than stay at home should give us some indication of just how bad things must be in Zimbabwe.  The same is true of other immigrants, from Somalia to Lesotho.

Until these nations make it easier for their own citizens to survive the situation is likely only to get worse.

Some estimates suggest that as many as three million Zimbabweans have streamed, mostly illegally, across the border into South Africa in recent years to escape the eighty percent unemployment and six-figure inflation rate that is Robert Mugabe’s legacy in Zimbabwe.  If that number is even partially correct it would be clear that Zimbabwe’s plight is also having an enormous repercussion on South Africa’s own well-being.  So why on earth wouldn’t Thabo Mbeki want to do everything in his power to solve this massive problem?

The fact that Robert Mugabe is a hero of Africa’s liberation struggle, and that struggle shaped Thabo Mbeki’s worldview, certainly might have a lot to do with Mbeki’s refusal to treat Mugabe with anything but kid gloves.  But that could hardly be the whole story.  Mbeki’s likely successor, Jacob Zuma, has come out strongly against Mugabe and his chicanery in Zimbabwe.  Is Zuma any less enamored by Africa’s liberation heroes of the past than Mbeki is?  Probably not.

Of course Zuma’s harshness against Mugabe might just be because Mbeki, his bitter rival, is not harsh enough.  And Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy” did help to produce changes in the electoral system in Zimbabwe prior to this recent election that Mbeki might still hope will ultimately play out in a positive way.  But it is difficult to understand why, particularly at this very critical point, Mbeki doesn’t take the bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground while he has the opportunity.

It is another prime example of an African leader failing the African people yet again.

Botswana’s Festus Mogae was elected as Botswana’s president in 1998, after serving as the country’s Vice President since 1992.  He was re-elected to a five-year term in 2004.  Last summer Mogae announced that he would retire the following spring before the expiration of his term and, nine months later, he is stepping down.

On Tuesday Mogae will hand the presidency over to his vice president in yet another smooth transition for a nation that has never known anything else.  Mogae is leaving office early partly because he wants to retire and party because he wants to allow his vice president the opportunity to run as an incumbent in next year’s election.

If every African politician followed Festus Mogae’s example the continent would be a much better place.  While Botswana is hardly as well off as the richest nations of the world, it is one of Africa’s true, long-term success stories.  It has one of the most robust economies on the continent and one of its most progressive social systems.  While HIV/AIDS has been a major problem for Botswana, the government has taken aggressive measures to turn the tide against the disease.

Perhaps Botswana’s unique colonial history has helped to make the difference.  The British instituted a mostly self-governing system that transitioned nicely into the post-colonial, independent government.  Whatever it was, Botswana’s political history consists of a series of boring transitions of power that have helped give the country its noted stability and high credit rating.

Perhaps after he leaves office Festus Mogae can head to Zimbabwe to give a lesson on the finer points of real leadership to Robert Mugabe. 

One can only hope.

Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that Mugabe has lost the election by a landslide so if he comes out “victorious” it is difficult to say what might happen.

Tense times indeed.  Hopefully we’ll know more soon.

In the meantime, check out this article which ran over the weekend on the National Review Online.

Maybe it’s the fact that the old man is finally facing some real competition from two relatively viable competitors, including one formerly from his own party, Simba Makoni, and long-time nemesis Morgan Tsvangirai.  But, even if the vote is relatively free and fair, no single candidate will likely receive the necessary majority to win the election without a run-off.  And if and when a run-off election does happen, it would seem highly unlikely that Mugabe wouldn’t use every trick in his devious arsenal to assure that he remains Zimbabwe’s president for life.

Given the dirty tricks that he’s already employing—denying food to his political enemies, using the police to intimidate voters, and rigging the system to set up outright vote tampering, among other things—it seems as if Mugabe might be trying to “win” this election even without a run-off.

One of the saddest chapters in recent African history is that of Zimbabwe. Thanks to the work of one man, Robert Mugabe, that once-prosperous and hopeful nation is suffering from 100,000% inflation, 80% unemployment, food-shortages and utter desperation.  With the possible exception of North Korea, no other place on earth owes such a debt of ingratitude to one person.  He has single-handedly ruined his country and paralyzed Zimbabweans, the very people who he claims to have liberated twenty-eight years ago.  The irony of that, of course, is lost on the old man.

There is certainly hope for Zimbabwe one day soon—Mugabe can’t last forever—but it doesn’t seem likely at all that the tyrant will go down quietly.

“Better half a loaf than no bread” just sounds a bit too much like a greedy politician looking for his share of the spoils but, again, perhaps I’m just being harsh.  Still, there is no denying how disappointing it is to see Kenya go from its solidly democratic election of five years ago—an election that provided a forceful mandate for the country’s first new government in a quarter century—to a coalition government made up of two bitter rivals that was forced upon Kenya as a result of clear election fraud and the subsequent violence that resulted from it.

Kenya’s new coalition government can be spun in many positive ways but there is no denying that it is a giant step backward for democracy in the country.

I’m pleased that a resolution to this crisis was reached (although the premiership still must be ratified by two-thirds of Kenya’s parliament.)  And I’m pleased at the seemingly willing attitudes that both Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki have recently shown toward working together for Kenya’s reconciliation and future.  And I’m pleased to hear the details now coming out about how strongly the United States, in particular, pushed Kibaki to resolve the crisis.  But I can’t help but wonder how in the world President Kibaki and his party are supposed to work alongside Prime Minister Odinga and his party?  How are these two politicians who were at each other’s throats only weeks ago realistically going to come together for the good of the Kenyan people?  How could this solution be better than actually having a free and fair election in the first place?  Or redoing the flawed election?

It simply cannot be.  There will be difficulties in Kenya going forward because of this new coalition government and it is almost certain that the people of Kenya will suffer in some way as a result of these difficulties.  While we should all be pleased that the fighting has largely stopped and that the healing and reconciliation can begin in Kenya, beyond those things, this result is a major step backward for Kenya’s democracy, no matter how it gets spun.

Maybe I’m wrong.  Perhaps having a president and a prime minister from different parties is actually the way forward for Kenya.  Who knows?  If that’s the case, maybe John McCain and whoever the Democrats nominate can skip the general election and become the next president and prime minister of the United States.

The tribunal’s ruling today provided an official imprimatur for yet another deceitful election and, ultimately, another crooked government in Africa.

Nigerian President Umaru Yar’udua may very well have won the election last April, even without his cronies openly stuffing the ballet boxes, but when will African democracy get the opportunity to be held to a higher standard—to the same standard that democracy gets held to in most other places on earth?

While President Yar’udua was hailing today’s decision as “a victory for Nigeria’s democracy and for rule of law” it was in reality, of course, something quite different.  It was one more in the host of major stumbling blocks that litter Africa’s bumpy road toward democracy.

When fraudulent elections are allowed to stand—in Nigeria, in Kenya, in Zimbabwe, or anywhere—they embolden the criminals who steal elections and they ultimately prevent the seeds of real democracy to grow.  Just as it is no longer appropriate for African nations to blame their troubles on colonialism or the Cold War, it is also no longer appropriate to accept tainted elections as “good enough” for Africa.  This attitude must change, both on the continent of Africa and elsewhere in the pro-democracy world.  Where is the outrage when elections are stolen in Africa?  It must just seem like business as usual.

The way forward for Africa and the solution to its myriad of problems with economic growth, disease, poverty, stability and, the continent’s very ability to compete as a member of the global community begins and ends with good governance.  And good governance begins and ends with the freest, fairest, and most honest elections possible.

Let’s hope that one day soon tainted elections are no longer good enough for Africans either.