NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Mugabe: How and Why Does He Maintain Power? (1) Robert Mugabe's reign of terror, which lasted in Zimbabwe for over twenty-eight years, dispels the myth of Black Africans being able to effectively govern themselves, better than anything else. The acts of genocide and racial cleansing, to which this bloody dictator resorts periodically, never attract the attention of mainstream medias in Western countries, because the fact that Zimbabwe steadily descends into primeval savagery, after White farmers began to leave this country, does not correspond to the wishful thinking of promoters of multiculturalism and political correctness. The example of Zimbabwe shows White people in the West what is going to happen, after they realize themselves as minority in their own countries, while celebrating diversity little too hard. As William Pierce in his article Horror in Rhodesia says: One gets the distinct impression that the media bosses do not want the real news from Rhodesia to show up where the couch potatoes might stumble across it. That sort of news would not be good for race relations in America, would it? It might alarm White Americans.
It might make some of them think about what is in store for America if the present process of multicultural ization continues (Pierce). We can only agree with the author. The fact is, after Mugabe took over the political power in Rhodesia in 1980 and renamed it into Zimbabwe, the country, which used to thrive under the leadership of Ian Smith, was reduced into the heaps of ruins. The grass began to grow on abandoned railroads, the hospitals were converted into stables, and the schools were being closed as useless.
Mugabe declared tribalism as countrys official policy and after that; his troops had slaughtered 30000 people that belonged to Ndebele tribe, simply because he did not like them. This act of genocide was being largely ignored by the very same politicians, in Western countries, who would never stop whining about the horrors of racial apartheid in Rhodesia, when White government was in control. In this paper, we will examine how Robert Mugabe attained power in Zimbabwe and what allows him to stay in the office, despite the fact that half of countrys population suffers from never-ending hunger. We will also look at situation in Zimbabwe as such that might provide us with the insight on why there is not even a single example of African country becoming economically and socially successful, after the end of colonial era. Let us begin with providing a historical retrospective on the issue. (2) From the legal point of view, Rhodesia has never been subjected to Britain as colony.
By the end of 19 th century, London started to get tired of governing its overseas territories directly. British South Africa Company was in charge of laying down a law in the territories where it operated. As time went by, more and more industrious people from Britain and other European countries began to arrive, which in its turn, boosted up the development of Rhodesian industry, agriculture and commerce. Companys President was representing Crown in Rhodesia, but it was only the formality. After the death of Cecil Rods, Rhodesia has attained independence de jure, while being governed by the private company de facto. Even though country was under Crowns protection, Rhodesian's enjoyed the liberty of designing their own foreign policies.
The Rhodesian White settlers considered themselves as a separate nation, with Rhodesian native people referring to them as white tribe. During the WWI, 5000 White Rhodesian's volunteered to fight on the side of Britain, which back then accounted for 25 % of countrys White population. After the end of WWI, Rhodesia became the most economically developed country in Africa. Despite the fact that White and Black Rhodesian's lived separately, countrys inter-racial relations were based on the principle of tolerance.
Apparently, there is no reason to engage in acts of racial violence, once there is plenty of work for everybody. In 1922, the Crown allowed Rhodesian's to decide for themselves of whether they wanted their country to unite with South African Union or to remain a semi-independent country. Predictably enough, Rhodesian's voted in favor of independence. After the end of WWII, British Colonial Empire ceased to exist.
However, Britain was very reluctant to grant full independence to Rhodesia, which was taken by many ordinary citizens in this country as an insult. In fifties, the process of decolonization started to gain a momentum in Africa. While progressive people in the world supported a so-called national-liberation movements, nobody really wanted to face the reality. This reality was much too obvious not to be noticed every time national-liberation movement would take over the political power in any particular African country, it would result in this country being engulfed in social chaos and endless civil wars, within the matter of months.
In other words Black people proved themselves of being incapable of understanding what the concept of statesmanship stands for. After the end of WWII, the simple mentioning of the fact that races are different began to constitute a racist statement. Racism became associated with crime. We talk about white racism, of course, because Black racism, even today, is considered as natural reaction of oppressed people.
Medias preferred not to notice that Black racism is much worse then White racism, because it utilizes the notion of tribalism. Most of African countries are artificially created geopolitical entities, because citizens in these countries have absolutely no loyalty towards the state, as whole, but only to the tribe, they belong. This is why, just about any African country, which used to enjoy prosperity under the White rule, had regressed back into savagery, within a matter of few years, after oppressed locals were granted freedom. In the article that we had already mentioned, William Pierce tell us why Africans will always suffer from poverty, regardless of how much monetary donations they receive from Western countries: The first thing the Blacks do when they take over a White farm is Africanize it. Even though the White Rhodesian's have had Black workers on their farms for more than a century, the Blacks seem to have learned nothing from the experience.
They are not able or willing to change from the Black way of farming to the White way. The Black way is a very primitive style of subsistence farming. When a mob of Blacks take over a White farm, they wreck the farm house, subdivide what was an efficient farm into inefficient plots, and then quickly run it into the ground. They fail to maintain the farm machinery properly, and it soon stops working.
They eat the breeding stock. They wear out the land (Pierce). Practically everywhere in Africa, the course of events proceeded according to the following scenario independence, civil war, tribalism as state policy, corruption in governmental institutions, famine etc. This had happened in Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Chad, Angola, Mozambique - the ideology of tribal superiority plagued the whole continent. Under the colonial rule, the destructiveness of Black mentality was being dealt with by the mean of law. However, once African tribes were granted independence, they began to exterminate each other on industrial scale, just as it was the case, before European explorers had set their foot on African continent.
The British government (just as governments of other European countries that used have colonies in Africa) could not care less about the fact that newly proclaimed independent countries in Africa were being plunged into anarchy and chaos. Europe was preoccupied with cultivating the complex of white guilt, which is why leaders of many European countries thought that there was nothing wrong in shaking hands with Black presidents, who were nothing but cannibals, dressed in European suits. Without realizing it, Black leaders were often playing the role of Moscow's or Beijing's puppets. Soviet and Chinese Communists were even less concerned about the well-being of Africans then their Western counterparts, while only striving to use African countries as strongholds for spreading Communist poison around the world. Thus, it was only natural for Rhodesian's, who lived in peaceful and economically prosperous country, to start getting worried about the political trends in Africa. We need to mention that from 1960 to 1979, the living standards in Rhodesia were among the highest on the continent.
The unemployment rate was low, which served as attracting factor for immigrants to Rhodesia from neighboring countries. Rhodesian agriculture was considered as one of the most effective in the world. The majority of Black Rhodesian's did not have anything against the White rule, because such rule enabled the continuation of cultural and social progress in Rhodesia, which benefited Blacks just as much as Whites. However, European countries and especially Britain were not satisfied with such state of affairs, because the example of Rhodesia was undermining the validity of racial equality, as political concept, which was forcibly imposed on White people, throughout the world, after the end of WWII, by those who instigated this war, in the first place. Rhodesia had to be destroyed, just as pre-war Germany, because it was simply too successful in solving various social and economic problems. As history shows, every time when it comes to destroying a successful country, Communists and Capitalists become the best allies, despite their ideological antagonism.
This was also the case with Rhodesia. In 1970, Rhodesia proclaimed a full independence, under the leadership of Ian Smith a highly decorated hero of WWII. Immediately after this, UN imposed economic sanctions against Rhodesia as racist state, even though the policy of apartheid has never been given an official status in this country. This coincided with USSR and China beginning to pump Communist fighters for freedom with money and weapons, so that they could inflict terror on peaceful Rhodesian's. Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) used to receive millions of dollars, on monthly basis, from Moscow's puppeteers, in order to be able to disrupt the normal functioning of Rhodesian governmental institutions. Mugabe's rival and leader of Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), Joshua Nkomo was also nothing but the agent of foreign influence and terrorist, who used to resort to the mass shooting of hostages as something absolutely normal.
Terrorists used to invade Rhodesia from the territory of Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia. The government of Ian Smith had no option but to rely on Rhodesian army, while trying to protect countrys integrity. It needs to be said that Rhodesian army had largely succeeded in preventing terrorists from bringing the war to the territory of Rhodesia. Just like todays Israel, Rhodesia was not overly concerned about the international reaction, while attacking the bases of terrorists in neighboring countries in preemptive manner. It is now estimated that Rhodesian military succeeded in physical elimination of 70 % of terrorists from ZAPU and ZANA. Ian Smith had good reasons to believe that Mugabe and Nkomo would only bring suffering to Rhodesian's, if their lust for power was satisfied.
In his article Ian Smith has Sadly Been Proved Right, Graham Boynton makes a good point when he suggests that Smith considered Mugabe as being no different from other leaders of liberation movements: At the time that he (Smith) claimed to be defending civilized standards, Rhodesian's had already witnessed the flight of Belgian refugees from the Congo; Idi Amin had trashed Uganda, and Mobutu See See was about to introduce an even more brutal and dysfunctional regime in neighboring Zaire; immediately to the north of Rhodesia, Kaunda's Zambia was in a mess, riddled with corruption and economically mismanaged, and Malawi was being similarly misruled by the eccentric despot Hastings Banda. So why, Smith argued, would Mugabe be any different? Why, indeed (Boynton). Nevertheless, by 1979, Smith decided to go along with political reforms, as he hoped that this would stabilize a geopolitical situation in the region. This was his big mistake. Mugabe did not simply strive to become legitimized he wanted to become a dictator.
In 1980, he was able to accomplish this. Rhodesia has been officially renamed in Zimbabwe, with Robert Mugabe as its Prime Minister. The whole process was being accompanied by the thunderous applauds, on the part of Communists and Liberals, all over the world. The mainstream Medias, controlled by representatives of chosen people, referred to the end of apartheid in Rhodesia as proof that world is becoming more tolerant. After this, events in Zimbabwe became surrounded with the wall of silence, on the part of very same Medias. (3) After Mugabe became a Prime Minister, he assured White farmers that they had nothing to be afraid of. He was well aware of the fact that these farmers represented a foundation, upon which countrys economy rested.
In 1980 - 1983, Mugabe's foremost priority became physical elimination of his former allies and friends, so that that they could not challenge his authority. Even though many members of ZAPU were initially given positions in government, by 1983, the majority of them became victims of car accidents, bricks falling out of blue sky, food poisoning, heart attacks and other acts of God. In the same year, Mugabe's buddy in arms, John Nkomo was being told that his presence in the country is no longer tolerable and that he has to leave Zimbabwe voluntarily, if he does not want to be struck by the lightning bolt. Nkomo has to be given a credit for being smart enough, because he did not wait to be asked twice. By 1987, Mugabe was being officially proclaimed as father of the nation. Just as any petty African dictator, along with lust for power, Mugabe also had lust for blood.
The article Mugabe In A Nutshell, which is available on the web site of The Times, contains an underestimated number of people that were killed on Mugabe's orders, almost immediately after he came to power: Between 1982 and 1985, Mugabe's armed forces crushed resistance from Ndebele groups in Matabeleland and the Midlands, killing more than 20000 Ndebele civilians (The Times, 2008). The resistance, on the part of Ndebele tribe, was only the excuse. Mugabe simply did not like Ndebele, because people from this tribe have longer heads and narrower lips and nostrils then his own, thus reminding him of his racial inferiority. In 1990 and 1996, and in 2002, Mugabe was being re-elected as President, with citizens support rate at approximately 95 %. Chris McGreal, in his article Vote Mugabe or You Die.
Inside Zimbabwe, the Backlash Begins, provides us with the glimpse on the process of elections in Zimbabwe: The patients at Louisa Guidotti hospital said there were eight men, one carrying a shotgun, another with an AK- 47, others with pistols, and they went from bed to bed forcing out anyone who could walk. Nurses were dragged away from the sick. Motorists driving by the hospital, 87 miles northeast...
Free research essays on topics related to: european countries, lust for power, end of wwii, neighboring countries, prime minister
Research essay sample on Lust For Power End Of Wwii
