NationStates Jolt Archive


Mugabe allowed to pick his successor

Khadgar
01-11-2007, 21:06
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7073116.stm
Zimbabwe's president has signed into law an amendment to the constitution that allows him to choose a successor if he decides to retire mid-term.

Robert Mugabe's choice would then be voted in by parliament which is dominated by his Zanu-PF party.

The constitutional amendment bill, which also allows presidential and parliamentary polls next March, had the backing of Zanu-PF and the opposition.

Mr Mugabe has said that he will seek another term in next year's elections.

Analysts say they expect Zanu-PF to dominate the joint elections in March 2008 and for Mr Mugabe to then put a hand-picked successor in place.

Spirit of consensus

The constitutional amendment was approved by parliament in September with the backing of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as a sign of goodwill.

Mr Mugabe, 83, has led Zimbabwe since independence from the UK in 1980.

The country is in the grip of a deep economic crisis which has seen inflation soar to more than 7,800%.

But more consensus has emerged recently between the MDC and the government following talks mediated by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki.

The MDC said it supported the changes because the amended constitution would put an end to appointed MPs and make the commission in charge of re-drawing electoral boundaries more independent.

That's right kids, who needs democracy? Well, Zimbabwe hasn't for a while, but they atleast kept up the pretense. Also loving his gold framed glasses in a country where the economy is so fucked a loaf of bread is a month's pay.
Neu Leonstein
02-11-2007, 00:54
I can't help but wonder why Mugabe was not let into the hallowed halls of the new left's heroes. He did everything Chávez et al are doing now, but years before them! He got rid of an unfair land ownership situation and the flattened income distributions. He made sure the poor can afford everything by instituting price controls. He got rid of the last links of colonialism by being hostile to the west. Occasionally he even acted like a regional power, helping out the poor countries around him.

But Chávez gets posters, Mugabe gets ignored? How unfair!

I realise people probably have gotten very tired of me comparing the two, but I just want to know how one can overlook the similarities? Mugabe was Africa's Chávez, wasn't he? The great popular hero, fallen from grace after his simplistic economics started to bite him in the ass - and the great, popular and democratic movement became the tool of a police state.