A Zimbabwe Story

Police officer is called into HQ with the rest of his unit and told everyone's supposed to fill out mail in ballots right in front of three superior officers. He fills it out, puts it in the envelope and then:

They opened his ballot and saw that he had voted for Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC. He was followed by the Police Internal Security Intelligence (PISI) who attempted to kidnap him that night at his home. He has been on the run ever since. This officer told me another story of another officer in his unit who actually voted his ballot out in the open, on the table, in front of the three senior Police officers, and was immediately arrested and taken to one of the detention centers that are now being called “Reeducation Camps”.

I asked him what “reeducation” means? He told me “People are only taken there to be beaten”.

That's on Joe Trippi's blog via which I see the Friends of Zim site which has much more.

Comments

Hey, but it's not as bad as what happened to Hillary in Florida!

Posted by stevie314159 | June 19, 2008 8:17 AM

Don't let McCain and Harper read about this when they meet up in Ottawa tomorrow. They might get some ideas.

Posted by Chris B | June 19, 2008 8:27 AM

This should probably be on the requests post, but Matt, what would you recommend countries like the US, Canada, Britain etc do? There seems to be a very fine line where any assistance given to democratic movements will be portrayed as neo-colonialism. I think the most effective thing is to offer inducements to neighbouring countries to use their influence. If Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela were to campaign for Tsvingarai, that would go some ways to discrediting Mugabe.

Posted by Chris B | June 19, 2008 8:30 AM

God. What does it say that I read the first paragraph before the blockquote and assumed it was something that happened here in America?

Posted by EarBucket | June 19, 2008 8:48 AM

I don't think discrediting anyone is going to make a difference. Mugabe has already said that he's going to remain president either by ballot or by bullet.

Probably the best bet would be to send in Carter and hope that he can talk Mugabe into stepping down. If not, then we should probably start planning the UN peacekeeping force that will have to be sent in in about five years or so.

This is one scenario where regime change could, maybe, work. You've got the MDC, a local legitimate political party that probably the election, and you've got a weak military and an unpopular leader. It could almost be possible to knock down Mugabe and set up Tsvangirai in his place. From such ideas the road to Hell is paved.

Posted by daveNYC | June 19, 2008 9:01 AM

UN = Useless

John Bolton was right about something

Posted by Tom | June 19, 2008 9:14 AM

How many divisions does Desmond Tutu have?

Jeebus, stop holding out hope that Tutu, or Mandela, or anybody has some words they can say about Mugabe that will make him stop killing the opposition.

How about this.... Convince Mbeki that in 2009, there will be 4 million Zimbabweans in South Africa. Educated people forced to steal and prostitute themselves. And that the civil war/rebellion will spill over to South Africa. And that FIFA will be forced to remove the 2010 World Cup from South Africa. Something that let's Mbeki know that the rest of 2008, and all of 2009 and 2010 will be a disaster for South Africa. Which it will be.

Posted by PDX Pete | June 19, 2008 9:31 AM

This is why I worry about the move to voting by mail in the US. More opportunities for bribery and coercion.

Posted by KCinDC | June 19, 2008 9:49 AM

I agree with KCInDC. I used to favor voting by mail in the US, but that was before I was educated about the prevalence of voting fraud in some states.

Everything that voting by mail is trying to accomplish can be accomplished simply by opening more polling stations, extending election hours (or even making elections a two day period), andmaking election day a federal holiday. Actually you don't have to do all three.

If we really did this right, there would be no need for absentee ballots. You could go to any polling station, consulate, or post office on Election Day, give your voting address, and request an absentee ballot for that jurisdiction. It would get mailed that same day, next day mail, free of charge. There could be a computerized database that people could check to see if you are really registered in that jurisdiction, and also to track if someone tries to vote in two locations. But I realize that this may be too much to ask for, so at least start by adding more polling locations.

Posted by Ed | June 19, 2008 10:13 AM

You have to imagine Mbeki KNOWS what is happening - there are already too many Zim refugees in South Africa. And Germany is already on standby to host the 2010 World Cup. Is he worried about antagonising his base by criticising Mugabe?

I find the refusal of the African countries to do something (anything!) baffling. I guess there is still a lot of respect for Mugabe, as sort of a godfather figure. And he has probably been somewhat successful in portraying this as "the west" against Africans.

Posted by Chris B | June 19, 2008 10:57 AM

What is to be done?

1. Assassinate Mugabe? Who is going to do it and when/how?
2. Issue strong condemnations through the UN? Been there, done that.
3. Sanctions on the leadership? No travel, clamp down on their money?
4. Invade? Not likely.
5. Sit back and watch another African country implode? Probably.

Who forsaw the failure of most African countries to thrive after the depature of their colonial "masters"? Probably most bitter right wingers.

Posted by danceswithgoats | June 19, 2008 11:58 AM

DaveNYC wrote:
"This is one scenario where regime change could, maybe, work."

As much as I am completely and utterly opposed to the idea of the US doing this for a whole host of reasons (the neo-colonialism it would entail being foremost amongst them), this is actually a good point. As you say, you have a country with a relatively weak military and an increasingly unpopular leader. But you miss the most important reason why Zimbabwe would be a good candidate for this (and why Iraq was not):

In Zimbabwe's recent past, it had a relatively strong civil society (Mugabe's turn to totalitarianism occured largely in this decade), the remnants of with are apparently still in enough operation to permit someone like Tsvangirai to pose a threat to Mugabe. I lack the time to fully explain right now, but the existence of a strong civil society is usually a pre-requisite for liberal democracy - this is why, say, Spain's transition to liberal democracy was rather smooth, while the transition in much of Eastern Europe and the former USSR has been marked by outright civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, low-scale civil war and a decade of authoritarianism in Georgia, a reversion to authoritarianism in Russia, widespread corruption in Ukraine, etc.

My point is this: at the moment, Zimbabwe would not fall into chaos like Iraq did if Mugabe was forcibly removed and his army disarmed. But the more that he continues his crackdown, the weaker Zimbabwe's civil society will be as practicing the freedom of association becomes increasingly dangerous. Mugabe's crackdown the last few weeks is designed to accomplish precisely the effect of destroying free association and civil society. In so doing, he will not only make open dissent impossible, but he will have the perhaps unintentional effect of making a peaceful succession to anyone of whom he does not approve nearly impossible. So the longer the world allows Mugabe to remain in power, the less outside military intervention will be a viable option.

But again, neither the US nor any other Western nation can or should be involved in any military intervention except perhaps to provide logistical support. Anything more would simply have the effect of feeding into deep-seated resentment of colonialism that would rally support to Mugabe. Instead, I would argue that we should do what we can to encourage a large-scale intervention by either the African Union (unlikely to succeed, unfortunately) or by Zimbabwe's neighbors and other African countries. If that results in the successful removal of Mugabe, then a UN peacekeeping force would be appropriate and would probably need to remain for only a brief period of time, perhaps a year or two.

Posted by Mark | June 19, 2008 1:08 PM

Ian Smith was right, fuck Mugabe.

Posted by The Ghost of Ian Smith | June 19, 2008 2:23 PM

I've read many of the previous poster's thoughts here with horror, and although I'm sure they are all decent people, please God I pray that they realise that the situation in Zimbabwe is infinitely more grave than the, admittedly fascinating, Democratic primaries...

Please people, this is not a class study in political rhetoric or expedience, this IS a brutal, savage evisceration of democracy, in which people are dying (by the current count at least 4 MDC officials today, alone), so please, please stop with the analysis and do everything you can to persuade your elected officials to pressure your government (whomever they may be) into doing anything within their power to stop this madness.

I am a South African citizen and am shamed beyond measure at my country's impotence to help those north of my border, but despite what Mr Mugabe may say, the West is still the source of his and his cronies wealth, and as such you (as citizens thereof) still have tremendous clout... So, instead of proselytizing I implore you, to do everything you can to help... Please.

Thank you

Posted by Celia | June 19, 2008 3:10 PM