Zimbabwe's Military in Apparent Takeover, Says It Has Custody of President

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/world/africa/zimbabwe-mugabe-mnangagwa-chiwenga.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

by dingoonline • 9 years ago

81 83 9 years ago

partycoder2• 9 years ago

Robert Mugabe has been president of Zimbabwe since 1987. That is, 30 years.

igitur2• 9 years ago

And initially he was a very good leader. But lately, if you listen to his speeches, he is downright senile. And he can hardly walk on his own. That's why the general convention of serving a maximum of 2 or 3 terms is so important.

mhogomchungu• 9 years ago

How effect is this if its possible to be elected into office at a very late age.

thisisit2• 9 years ago

As they say - Either you die (or step down in this case) a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

There are multiple cases in developing countries where the family/friends takes over in case of someone powerful going senile.

misja111• 9 years ago

Long before he turned senile, he turned corrupt. He has ruined his country economically.

This is the real reason for a maximum of 2 or 3 terms. Power corrupts.

grandinj• 9 years ago

If by "good" you mean "adept at removing his enemies and any constraints on his power", then yes, he was very good

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

initially he was a very good leader

When? What did he do that was good? He didn't implement democracy; that would have been good.

anon9896• 9 years ago

When was he a good leader? When he was sanctioning the genocide of the Matebele people in 1983?

Gustomaximus• 9 years ago

I've seen a few comments from 'initially he was a very good leader' followed by some criticism. I didnt know the answer so google wiki and while a lite verison of events it might help people understand things better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Prime_Minister_o...

Largely to me it seems he started with genuinely 'good intentions' that didn't work out, vs being a 'good leader'. Good to me includes both vision and execution.

anon9896• 9 years ago

He was the prime minister and effectively the leader of Zimbabwe since 1980.

thisisit2• 9 years ago

"While denying that the military had seized power, they said that Mr. Mugabe and his family “are safe and sound, and their security is guaranteed.”

“We are only targeting criminals around him who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice,"

This doesn't look good.

lb1lf• 9 years ago

According to (whoever controls...) the official Zanu-PF twitter account, Robert Mugabe and his wife has been detained.

The former vice president, Mnangagwa (who was sacked by Mugabe last week, so that his wife Grace could take the #2 spot) is acting president, according to an army statement.

Also, reports of gun and artillery fire from northern Harare - the district where Mugabe and his cronies live.

Also, predictably, the army claims this is not a coup, and that they are merely acting to preserve the constitution and the republic. (That being said, if one is to stage a coup somewhere, one could find a less deserving country than Zimbabwe; let's just hope the army has the good sense to hand over power to civilian authorities ASAP.)

anon9896• 9 years ago

That is not their official twitter handle. I wouldn't take what they tweet as an official statement from ZanuPF

tasssko• 9 years ago

I know people that live in northern Harare and they haven't heard any gun and artillery fire. They live within a 3-5km radius of RM and his cronies also they haven't seen any tanks - yet. All very curious, but something is up.

Lazare3• 9 years ago

This doesn't look good.

Who for?

The situation in Zimbabwe is bad enough that things could hardly get much worse. Worst case, one corrupt dictator gets replaced by a different successor than would otherwise have been the case. It's not like a military junta could be less democratic or more corrupt than the existing regime, after all.

KGIII2• 9 years ago

I'd not be so sure. It can almost always get worse.

vuyani• 9 years ago

I wish our neighbors well! its been a long time over due.I really hope it will be a peaceful transition, as SA has their own problems they need to deal with(cANCer)! We cannot have a refugee crisis and a civil war on our borders

NaliSauce3• 9 years ago

Shouldn't he have been removed quite some time ago for violating the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

yorwba• 9 years ago

Removed by whom?

NaliSauce3• 9 years ago

I suppose that's one of the UNs weakness in that they lack the ability to enforce a lot of conventions.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

There have been several coups or other undemocratic assumptions of power recently: Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, China (Xi seems to have made himself dictator-for-life), Turkey, and to a degree in Japan, in at least one Eastern European country, and even in France (which AFAIK now has an indefinite state of emergency curtailing rights of citizens).

I wonder how much and in what way they are related to the U.S. changing its long-standing policy from being the guarantor of international order, and from being an advocate for democracy as a universal right. Some examples in my list started before the current US policy went into effect, but perhaps the US is accelerating a trend, merely responding to it, or even taking an active hand (during the Cold War the US played an active role in such things, from Congo/Zaire to Chile to Iran to Indonesia to many other places). Perhaps others are taking active hands now that the US is out of the picture (to a significant degree) as guarantor.

That trend, away from democracy, is very serious and is the headline here for me. Generations fought, struggled and died to establish the legacy of democracy and human rights that we inherited; what are we building for the next generation? It feels like we are just gambling away the family inheritance.

relyio2• 9 years ago

France has lifted its state of emergency two weeks ago after a new anti-terror law was passed by the government. While I wasn't fond of it, I am not sure it is fair to call it "undemocratic".

It was hard to get out of that state of emergency precisely because it was 1/ popular 2/ politically dangerous (what happens if a major scale attack happens right after it is being lifted?).

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

Thanks for the update.

I am not sure it is fair to call it "undemocratic".
It was hard to get out of that state of emergency precisely because it was 1/ popular 2/ politically dangerous (what happens if a major scale attack happens right after it is being lifted?).

If we define 'democratic' in the literal sense, majority rule, then I agree. But that's mob rule and not what people mean when they talk about democracy. Civil rights - protection of the minority from the majority - are assumed to be essential, and the state of emergency (if I understood correctly) suspended those rights to a degree. Civil rights exist specifically for situations like this one.

The way I remember it is the saying: 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'.

tzahola• 9 years ago

Saudi Arabia? China? Neither was a democracy to begin with.

Also it’s funny that you’re referring to the US - the greatest supporter of Saudi Arabia - as the noble protector of democracy and human rights. Seems like someone drank too much Kool-Aid?

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

Saudi Arabia? China? Neither was a democracy to begin with.

True, and I used the term "undemocratic assumption of power", which is also true.

I didn't say they were democracies, though I understand why someone might take that implication. My point was that these governments are moving away from democracy to having power more consolidated and away from the rule of law to the rule of one person. In contrast, the leaders could have moved toward democracy, announcing reforms in that direction.

Also it’s funny that you’re referring to the US - the greatest supporter of Saudi Arabia - as the noble protector of democracy and human rights. Seems like someone drank too much Kool-Aid?

I didn't mean to imply any nobility or altruism about it, and I purposely omitted that kind of language to avoid provoking a tangential debate on it.

Beyond a doubt the U.S.'s behavior, going back to its beginnings as a world power over a century ago, has been self-contradictory and complicated; sometimes the U.S. works in favor of democracy and sometimes against it. But also beyond a doubt, promotion of democracy has been one strong aspect of it, and it's been bipartisan until now. Reagan was a strong supporter (and yet undermined others). GW Bush claimed democracy promotion was part of his reason for invading Iraq, and they fully expected to establish a nascent democracy there and in Afghanistan. In this White House, establishing and supporting democracy is no longer discussed and is openly disparaged, and the White House openly admires dictators who consolidate power (including in China and Saudi Arabia).

mrpopo3• 9 years ago

First of all, please don't call the U.S. the "guarantor of international order". It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world. It is not, it has been all political alliances and power-play. Sometimes the U.S. backed democratic leaders, sometimes not (c.f. Pinochet, Park Chung Hee...).

Second, I myself consider the degradation of the current state of affairs in the world to be due to the global slowdown of economic growth. Less growth means less disposable income, means more social unrest and the rise of autocraty to maintain order.

audiometry• 9 years ago

Not just less growth, but also an increasing wealth-gap. Wealth gap will lead to increasingly dangerous conditions.

lgbr3• 9 years ago

While the US often acts reprehensibly, such as in the case of Chile, Iraq, and so on, the overwhelming majority of the international influence the US exerts is positive. The entire stability of Europe, Japan, South Korea (although Park Chung Hee was a dictator), and a handful of other countries was built by the US government. Counter-examples are easy to list, but somehow the more numerous positive examples are forgotten.

And what are you basing the "global slowdown of economic growth" on? Gross World Product has been growing at around 3% since the second world war, and hasn't slowed down recently at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product And particularly, Africa is growing faster than anywhere else.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

don't call the U.S. the "guarantor of international order". It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world

Order is not democracy or freedom; the US had the role of maintaining international order - preventing chaos. My comment pointed out many times when the US did not support democracy, including some of the same examples used by the parent.

However, I'll point out here that while imperfect, democracy expanded rapidly under 'Pax Americana' from WWII until recently. Almost all of Europe and all of the Americas are now democratic; there are some African countries, India, East Asia, SE Asia, and more. It has been an incredible time for liberty, despite the many and substantial setbacks.

StanislavPetrov2• 9 years ago

I wonder how much and in what way they are related to the U.S. changing its long-standing policy from being the guarantor of international order, and from being an advocate for democracy as a universal right.

I wonder how much it related to the U.S. deciding to become a global military empire after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead of declaring victory and seeking to create a world where the rule of law was respected.

Lazare3• 9 years ago

There have been several coups or other undemocratic assumptions of power recently: Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, China (Xi seems to have made himself dictator-for-life), Turkey, and to a degree in Japan, in at least one Eastern European country, and even in France (which AFAIK now has an indefinite state of emergency curtailing rights of citizens).

Saudi Arabia and China have not had coups, and are not democratic countries, so any change is "undemocratic", but that's not a chance and means little. Xi's actions are hardly different that Deng's or, before him, Mao's. Lumping them in with Turkey, which is experiencing a slow motion coup, is bizarre.

Conversely, Japan and France have neither had coups nor an "undemocratic assumption of power", so clearly don't belong in the same list as Turkey. Lebanon I'm not really familiar with, and I don't even know what Eastern European country you're talking about, so I can't comment on them, but the rest of your list makes no sense. Nor does Zimbabwe fit on your list; the coup is a best neutral in terms of democracy, and could be a step towards greater democracy.

I wonder how much and in what way they are related to the U.S. changing its long-standing policy from being the guarantor of international order, and from being an advocate for democracy as a universal right

Unless you're talking about the second President Bush's much maligned (and mostly unsuccessful) foreign policy, I have no idea what you're talking about. The US has not traditionally advocated for democracy as a universal right, and it spent much of the Cold War backing dictators and, in some cases, overthrowing elected governments.

That trend, away from democracy,

By which you mean "Turkey"? (And maybe Lebanon; again I'm unfamiliar with the situation there.) I see no trend.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

I agree that the list includes a diverse set of situations; however, I didn't say 'these countries started as democracies and became non-democracies'. In every case, there are shifts of degree in the wrong direction (and I'll add here that recently there are few shifts the other way). But it's essential to note that these things are matters of degree.

In China, for example, the tradition of a rotating presidency, which party members had a role in choosing, has become a lifetime dictatorship; and rule of law has been replaced by rule of man. Free speech has become increasingly restricted. In contrast, Xi could have taken steps to devolve power more; he could have stepped aside, and introduced a law enshrining the tradition of limited terms for presidents (instead of discarding the tradition), or empowering the legislature. He could have announced open elections at the village level, and opened up speech and the press, as some of his predecessors did.

Japan has consolidated power at the executive level and taken steps to restrict some speech, and I already discussed France's emergency powers. Zimbabwe's coup is undemocratic. You may hope it will work out well, and so do I, but there was no democracy involved. These all are changes of degree, to less democracy.

Some comments in the parent are factually incorrect:

Xi's actions are hardly different that Deng's or, before him, Mao's.

The actions of Mao, Deng, and Xi are starkly different. Deng is known almost as the anti-Mao (though he would never say that), for undoing the totalitarian ideological disaster of Mao, for putting China on a road to stable governance, and for opening it up economically and politically. The Tienanmen Square protests of June 4, 1989 were a culmination of Deng's political openness (obviously he changed course that day, but they were far more open when he stepped down than when he started). Deng purposely avoided taking on Mao's cult of personality, even to the extent of being cremated and having his ashes scattered in the sea so there would be no mausoleum like Mao and Lenin (IIRC). Deng began the tradition of limited terms for presidents, which Xi now has discarded; Xi also has pursued a cult of personality, in contrast to Deng. The foundation of Xi's legitimacy is the wealth of right-wing capitalism, in great contrast to Mao's foundation in the utter rejection of and work against such things, and his communist social and economic ideals and experiments.

The US has not traditionally advocated for democracy as a universal right

I'm not sure what to say here. While the U.S. certainly has not always acted in accord with its words, it certainly has advocated exactly that repeatedly, loudly and strongly for generations, from Wilson, at least, through Obama. It's in the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of the country - "all men" are endowed with these rights, was the argument for independence.

zimzim3• 9 years ago

background: President is old and have succession problems. In recent years his wife trying to grab more and more power to be the next president but not everyone in the ruling party like that. last week she (from the mouth of the president) fired "number 2" in the country. since then everyone who was "friend" with number 2 was fired too. when they tried to get rid of the army general (friend of number 2) he refused to leave his office in claim that president wife doing undemocratic things. yesterday he did the "takeover". its not yet clear if the president will switched with the number 2 guy (the friend of the general).

anon9896• 9 years ago

"when they tried to get rid of the army general (friend of number 2) he refused to leave his office"

That was never confirmed

zimzim3• 9 years ago

Its not the kind of things you can get confirmation. He was called a traitor in official letter yesterday.

erikb• 9 years ago

Really interested to read more about this. This is really the most critical point of the succession question: Who can get the military to follow him. Both the highest general and the government leader have strong claims for military leadership and there is no pure logical answer if highest general and government leader don't agree. All depends on what happens between the different parties.

Flenser• 9 years ago

There's a good summary here: https://www.thezimbabwean.co/2017/11/standoff-zimbabwe-strug...

From today: listen to this from around 8:10 (it starts at 6am, so skip to 2:10) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09drjhz

norswap• 9 years ago

That was my interpretation too, until the end of the article when they said the military men who seized national TV actually spoke harshly of the general close to number 2.

Those were the same military men who said that the military had custody of Mugabe, so it's somewhat confusing.

anon9896• 9 years ago

The military is behind Chiwenga (friend of number 2), they only spoke harshly of, 'the criminal elements within ZanuPF. By 'criminal elements' they are referring to the G40 (anti- number 2 camp who got number 2 fired). The military has detained a lot of these 'criminal elements' and apparently Mugabe is also under 'house arrest'

felipelemos• 9 years ago

It's good to remember that he is in power since 1980. Calling a dictator as a President doesn't make him one. And this doesn't make the takeover good or bad, btw.

gaius3• 9 years ago

Pre-Mugabe Zimbabwe was known as "the breadbasket of Africa" for the productivity of its farms. Mugabe brought economic collapse and famine, while living a life of luxury and stashing billions overseas. Hopefully whoever comes next will be a better leader.

zimzim3• 9 years ago

It was a different country. how well can ex-slaves and bushman run a country? democracy is not rooted in every culture, greed is :\

EDIT: just to be clear not every person in charge is ex-slave or something, but as a country even if they started financially strong it does not mean they had the culture to support it

tankenmate• 9 years ago

Greed per se is not the problem, it is greed above all else. The number one problem in Zimbabwe is corruption. Only once there is a strong body, be that courts, a corruption commission, or similar, that has the power to hold those in power to account then little will change. Zimbabwe badly need an effective rule of law that provides justice to all.

TausAmmer• 9 years ago

Where there is leader(governing group/body/system), there is power trip, have not seen otherwise. There will never be something different.

pjc502• 9 years ago

Ah, colonialism. Construct a system designed to prevent people from having autonomy or self-governance while shipping their value overseas, then smear them as primitives when they take over and have difficulty with autonomy.

danmaz74• 9 years ago

Let's hope so, but this looks more like an internal power struggle from the existing regime, so I don't expect any of the two factions to want real change (except about who gets the power and billions).

i_feel_great• 9 years ago

These African countries always remind me of Darwin's Nightmare[0]. There is an interview with Raphael at 1:20:41 in which he says he wants a war because he can earn more money then.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcnTWAyzhbg

WillReplyfFood2• 9 years ago

A new strong man will appear. He will talk about a fresh start, a new aera, the press will celebrate him, his followers will demand part of the loot- transparency iternational celebrates his existance, the cycle goes on and on.

Zimbabwe's Military in Apparent Takeover, Says It Has Custody of President

Related Stories