Quite remarkable.

Even mildly witty. Perhaps, though, none to wise. On the other hand, mockery of a tyrant is often a useful form of deflation. We can but hope that the same brutal treatment meted out to their fellow party members is not inflicted upon them as a response. It should be recalled that when Mugabe faced fierce central urban opposition his “Slum clearances” of Operation Murambatsvina affected almost two and a half million Zimbabweans. To bet against Mugabe being capable of such thuggery today would be unwise, given that the military have given him their whole hearted backing and the violence meted out upon MDC supporters is both well documented and on-going. In this respect the MDC’s efforts to goad him could be predicted to have less than pleasing consequences.

The indications are positive, at least, in so far as Mugabe’s force of intimidation has clearly been weakened. Let us hope that this is the third step in his downfall (the first and second being his losses) rather than the inspiration for a final bout of barbaric brutality.

Making a massive fuss out of his triumph, of course, in a fashion which is rather reminiscent of Hillary Clinton crowing over victory in Michigan, a state where Obama was not even upon the ballot. Except, obviously, this is far more consequential.

As ever though, after the oppression comes the party and Zanu (PF) are seemingly having a lovely knees-up to rejoice in their leader remaining in power. If you didn’t read the fine article on Zimbabwe’s problems and the ruling party that was published in yesterday’s Saturday Times then you really should. I unfortunately cannot fault his stingingly anti-interventionist critique of the call to arms heard at present in certain circles {in much the same way that Mia Farrow requested Blackwater save Darfur} but hold out some hope of Simba staging a coup.

Which is a long-shot but the best hope we have. Irrespective of legitimate authority within Zimbabwe the real power rests with the generals, who have declared themselves unwilling to serve under a leader outside that Zanu (PF). Especially the loathed MDC. This does not, however, exclude an internal challenger from within the party, which is what Mugabe has.

As for Mr. Tsvangirai, well I’m simply surprised (and glad) that he hasn’t ended up dead. I hope that this will remain the case as Mugabe wishes him to serve as a figurehead for futility instead of a martyr against tyranny but I have my doubts. Mugabe seems interested in consolidation in his quickly solidifying position of President for Life and doubtless the death of his principle rival comes under the grim remit of this brutal process.

Miliband is clearly making the most of his position. Today he has taken on Mugabe in a fashion that reminds me rather of the aggressive stance taken by Zuma, the next in line to the South Africa. Given his target’s careful and longstanding positioning as opposed to “Imperialism” of the west an all out assault, albeit a rhetorical one, is problematic but Miliband seems to have pulled it off.

A wise move.

It will hopefully cause Zimbabwe to collapse completely and from there it can be rebuilt. Mugabe’s “War Veterans” will struggle to force everyone back into work. The strike is indefinete so it is not a matter of simply riding it out but it is likely that inflation strikes so hard that after a day it would be too late to catch up anyway.

Let us hope that this proves enough to topple him; it’s a tactic that’s been suggested by many socialists already and no doubt not something that the MDC really wanted to resort to. There are certainly disadvantages to the tactic but given that there is no food on the shelves anyway I hardly see what harm can be done by averting a wage. Harm other than that inflicted upon Mugabe’s argument that the people are on his side, that is.

But then, the election displayed that quite decisively anyway. Once again, all us ruthless western imperialist neo-colonialists can do is wait and hope.

Reading Morgan Tsvingirai’s article in the Guardian today was enlightening.  In particular, this:

We have assured Mugabe that the new government will not pursue him legally through government offices. The work ahead is monumental and we need no further self-made distractions. Recrimination is not on the new government’s job list. Our agenda is to restore the rule of law and good governance; to face up to our dire health problems, including an HIV-Aids epidemic; to reconstruct our once cutting-edge education system; to bring our abundant farmlands back into health; to tackle rampant inflation and over 70% unemployment; to encourage foreign investment and public works spending; to depoliticise our security services; to stamp out corruption and graft. Every day the new government is denied, these problems each get worse.

The new leadership is committed to nurturing democracy in Zimbabwe and to begin rebuilding our shattered country. It is time to make a stand.

(Emphasis Mine)

This is undoubtedly the right line to take.  Much as it might comfort those afflicted by his regime to see him tried and hung like the criminal he is, threatening to do so will achieve nothing.  An execution would do nothing but christen the new government in blood - hardly a positive when the MDC are trying to set a contrast - and do no practical good.

More importantly at this stage; it’s already unlikely that Mugabe will let go over power without a fight.  He certainly won’t if he knows that he’ll face trial for what he’s done.  The MDC needs to do as much as possible to return democracy to Zimbabwe.  If that means letting the man who took it away get away, then that’s a regrettable sacrifice - but one far less regrettable than him continuing to rule.

I managed to miss this somehow. Apparently, the Guardian has found someone brave, desperate or disillusioned enough witih Zanu-PF to leak details of Mugabe’s crisis cabinet. If the article is right, all the fears about Mugabe utterly refusing to concede in any fashion are perfectly justified:

“In the JOC meeting there were two options for Mugabe: to declare victory on Sunday or declare martial law,” said the diplomat. “They did not consider conceding. We understand Mugabe nearly decided to declare victory. Cooler heads prevailed. It was decided to use the [election commission] process of drip, drip where you release results over a long period, giving the opposition gains at first but as time wears on Zanu-PF pulls ahead.”

Interestingly, it appears that there were some figures within the JOC who favoured a less hardline approach, who were over-ruled. Could Mugabe face further break-aways from Zanu-PF if he’s too intransigent, or if the situation looks favourable for defectors?

EDIT: And, just on cue, the rumours of a behind-the-scenes retirement deal for Mugabe are pretty comprehensively crushed. Whether that’s because they never happened, or because they did, but collapsed, and no-one’s willing to talk about it, is another question. And given the secret nature of secret talks, one that’s unlikely to be answered, unless someone finds another fly…

Perhaps I wrote prematurely last night about the state of blogs and the mainstream media when it came to foreign reporting. Observe: the BBC is carrying a relatively long article reviewing Zimbabwean bloggers’ reactions to the elections there.

This is the first time I’ve seen the BBC News site - rather than their own bloggers - do this, on anything. There are, as far as I can tell, a few possible implications. Either:

- That this is a specific response to the situation in Zimbabwe. Western journalists find it very difficult to get visas in Zimbabwe. The BBC has thus been forced to resort to re-using large chunks of information from Zimbabwean bloggers. This is the nearest equivalent they can find to their usual trick of going out to talk to people on the streets, and doesn’t mark much of a change in attitudes to the internet.

- That this demonstrates that the BBC feel the bloggers have something at least as intelligent as their reporters to say, and should be listened to. This could mark an increasing respect for the blogosphere as an organ of debate, and be a sign of its further growth.

- That this demonstrates that the BBC feels the bloggers are genuinely representative of something and need an article for the sake of decent reportage.  Again, this would mark progress for the blogosphere, I suspect.

Of course, a combination of any of these three is possible, and probably more besides. It’ll be interesting to see if the BBC runs any similar articles in the future, supporting my second and third possibilities, or not, probably supporting the first.

Or, of course, I could just have missed stuff on the BBC website, I suppose. Time for a dig - but if not, an interesting occurance…

I realise that, since returning, my posts on this website have almost exclusively been on Zimbabwe. Apologies to those not particularly interested, but frankly I’d rather write about this than British politics, at present.

Anyhow, I’ve found some of those sites I mentioned. Coming largely from the Zimbabwean diaspora or Zimbabwe itself, they’re often different, at the least, to Western coverage.

Case in point: the Zimbabwean Pundit. Carrying the tagline, “The World as Seen From the Eyes of a Zimbabwean,” it’s written by (as far as I can tell) one of the many Zimbabweans who supported Mugabe for many years before turning against him. Make of it what you will, and have a look at the posts criticising the Western media in particular.

Moving on: Zimbabwean news-site in exile. Goes into more detail than the British broadsheets, up to a point.

Sokwanele.com is one of the largest opposition websites I could find, and among the easiest to naviagte. They have a blog, and are running their version of election results alongside the Electoral Commission’s. The contrast is enlightening…

Kubatana is a collaborative blog run by Zimbabwean activists. Again, often interesting reading.

There are more, but time is rather limited. Look on the blogrolls, they should keep you going…

Oh, and the official sites would be useful, I suppose:

My interview, it seems, is not until 3.30. I therefore have some time.

Look here.

The Electoral Commission claims the 24 parliamentary constituencies to declare so far in the country were split equally between Zanu-PF and the MDC. There are 186 to go.

It’s clearly too early to comment in depth. So far, though, this seems vaguely plausible: Mugabe’s wins were among the rural constituencies where, if he was going to win any votes, he’d win them. It is quite possible that Zanu-PF did win those constituencies on the popular vote.

However - this delay is suspicious, deeply so. It could be indicative of two factors: gross under-competency and rigging. Both are possible, if not likely. Counting has been going on by candle-light, Zimbabwe is a large country, there may be a shortage of counters, etc, etc. It’s possible that human error is, in part, responsible for the delay.

But if the authorities were going to stuff ballot boxes, or lose several thousand opposition votes in one go, or figure in all those dead people on the electoral roll, now would be the time they’ll do it.

Of course, there could be another reason for the delay. At this very moment, Mugabe could really do with opposition activists doing something stupid and making the first, violent move. That would give him a pre-text to accuse the MDC of cheating, and launch a crack-down without actually finishing the election.

Delaying the results this much could serve to do that. Grassroots MDC supporters must be getting increasingly frustrated at the delay, when they know Zanu-PF could be using it to rig the vote. The temptation to just do something must be fairly strong. Could this delay be targetted at making just a few angry voters do that something?

Interesting also are the reactions of independent bodies. SADC (SouthernAfrica Development Community) are split over the election - the majority of members claim the election was, “peaceful and credible,” while two reject it as, “deeply flawed.” Are certain SADC members being more honest or looking deeper than others - or was the election simply different in different parts of the country? I do wonder.

The Independent Results Centre in Harare, meanwhile, is claiming a heavy victory for Tsvangirai - 57%, enough to avoid a run-off. While this does seem a likel result, I do wonder how reliable their data is. Presumably it’s based on exit polls - which, given the presence of police at some polling stations, might be somewhat hard to judge by…

But we’ll see.

Before I rush off to sleep, very briefly…

The contrast between the treatment the Zimbabwean election has received in the mainstream print media and the blogosphere is, I think, somewhat enlightening.

Most of the mainstream media in Britain covered Zimbabwe in some level of detail. The BBC has reported it fairly prominently, even if the analysis leaves a lot to be desired. The (ex-)broadsheets and “serious” papers have had it over the front-pages, in the columns, even the glossy photo-reports occasionally. Political magazines have gone in at least as far, if not further - the Economist has, as discussed, run quite a bit on it.

The British and American blogosphere has, meanwhile, been pretty silent. Unless I’ve missed something, the most has essentially been, “Robert Mugabe is a bad person, boo-hiss.” There’s been little useful commentary or analysis, for which I’m forced to revert to print-media and their websites.

This, perhaps, highlights one of the areas where the mainstream media still retains a slight edge over bloggers. Newspapers, magazines and television stations hire reporters and analyists who research and focus on far-flung foreign affairs, and so who can write on them. It’s their job.

Bloggers, meanwhile, often have another job, and can be quite busy people outside of blogging. In general, their expertise will be domestic politics, which, entirely naturally, the focus on - at the expense of foreign affairs, which, however fascinating, need researched and read up on.

Ah, but, you might say, but - bloggers here do focus on British politics, yes - but bloggers in other countries will focus on their domestic politics, and so we’ll get coverage of domestic politics everywhere. And, to a point, that’s true. I’ve begun read a number of African blogs, for example, which I’ll link to when I’m next downstairs. Blogs are beginning to come through, even in the most repressive of societies - off the top of my head, Generacion Y does an excellent job of finding places to post in Cuba…

But there are limits, very big limits. Computer access is very limited - to most of the population, at least - in many countries still. Many bloggers abroad do suffer heavily from censorship and oppression. If nothing else, there is a language barrier - I have some French, but beyond that I’d struggle with a foreign language blog. And so on, and so on.

The mainstream media, meanwhile, is able to provide regular, relatively reliable coverage in a language I can understand. Thus, for the moment, it has the edge.

Matters are changing, and will continue to do so. As computer access world-wide improves, I expect more and more blogs will spring up all over the globe. Grassroots coverage will become truly global, and there’ll be an alternative to getting irritated at the editors of the Economist.

Until then, though, the editors of the Economist and their ilk have a distinct advantage, at least in certain areas of the globe.  Until then…