Purely off the top of my head - mass deaths/massacres/famine/genocide. That kind of thing. I know very little about Zimbabwe so happy to be corrected, but my impression has been that while he’s fecked the economy and ruled as a dictator, he hasn’t been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his citizens. Unlike, say, Idi Amin, Mengistu and Omar al-Bashir.
Same. I want to know what actual locals think too.
This isn't the Trump thread mate!
Hundred percent.
Bob's were very loyal to him. Until he started setting up grace to take over instead of emmerson
Who are the Bob's..?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Only tens of thousands of political opponents massacred. Must try harder.
Correct. At least 25000 ndebele were massacred under the pretense of being dissidents.
This I never heard of. But learned a new word today, Gukurahundi.
Not sure if 'good', but Singapore's dictator perhaps?
Sir Alex Ferguson
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore is most commonly cited in response to this question. Some would say Ataturk as well although his legacy is bitterly divisive.
Kagame in Rwanda.
Mobutu, al-Bashir, Taylor, Botha in SA... All have him beat I would think. Just off the top of my head mind... Could probably come up with another 5.
First part true. Second part not true. Apartheid was always going to fall. He may have helped speed up the process though. That's the reason south african politicians keep praising him. They focus on what he did in his early years in terms of liberation, not on the devastation of the last decade or two.
You're probably right. It's crazy because after he came to power Mugabe abondoned basically every single ideal that he claimed motivated him during Zimbabwe's liberation struggle. SA politicians are almost all cut form the same cloth so of course they have to praise him.
This is basically it. Interesting how often freedom fighters(with all the right intentions) struggle with democracy after freedom is won.
This is an interesting take on things. One I disagree with, seeing it suggests that the struggle for freedom (both non-violent) and armed was redundant as freedom would have come anyways. And... That has never happened in the history of always
That's not what I said. I said apartheid was always going to fail irrespective of Mugabes role. I suggest you read my post, and the context of my post a little more carefully.
I assure you I read it multiple times.
I actually lived though the end days of apartheid. International pressure, internal conflicts, local rebellions, embargoes etc brought the country to its knees. Mugabe or not, the Nat government would have caved at some point.
Some are even being invited back to zim apparently.
That didn't just happen in a vacuum, it happened because of people like Mugabe and other freedom fighters who put the pressure on apartheid regimes at home and abroad. Apartheid would have lasted much longer, and it's natural conclusion would have been impoverished bantustans for blacks. It was a really great engineered system of oppression, no way it just happens to fall.
Serves who right?
You clearly didnt read my posts. I didnt say he didnt have a role. I said it would have fallen without him (which I stand by), but he did help speed it up.
Tito
Me too.
Reza Shah of Iran...1925-1941.
