Peter Oborne

Zimbabwe on the brink

The West is gambling that Mugabe’s likely replacement won’t be worse

issue 18 November 2017

History will curse Robert Mugabe. When he took over as prime minister in the wake of the Lancaster House agreement in early 1980, Zimbabwe was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa. Mugabe inherited excellent infrastructure, a strong economy, stable institutions, an independent judiciary, an excellent school system and the goodwill of the world.

In the course of nearly 38 years, he wrecked all of this. He corrupted his country’s democratic institutions, destroyed the economy and debauched the currency while making himself and a tiny circle of cronies and relatives spectacularly rich.

The complacent British view is that Mugabe started out well but went wrong. Sir Nicholas Soames, son of the last governor, Lord (Christopher) Soames, spelt this out on the Today programme on Wednesday morning. According to this widely held Anglocentric thesis, everything went reasonably well until Mugabe set his thugs on the white farmers in the late 1990s. It’s true this was an economic calamity for Zimbabwe, but the ugly truth is that the Mugabe regime was involved in corruption and violence right from the very beginning.

Mugabe was determined to consolidate power and eradicate all opposition to his political party, Zanu-PF.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in