Hilzoy writes, of the disaster that is Zimbabwe's economy:
The BBC quotes Robertson as saying: "I just wonder when they will try and reverse the laws of gravity, because this does not work." It's a pity Mugabe doesn't seem to realize that.Last January, I posted a compilation of catastrophes that had befallen Zimbabwe during the previous week or two: doctors and teachers on strike, water shortages, sewage treatment plants crumbling, people unable to go to work because the bus fare was too expensive, upper- and middle-class Zimbabweans resorting to urban gardening in desperation: you name it. Since then, things have gotten much, much worse, and yet somehow, mysteriously, the government is holding on.
Sometime, something will have to give; I only hope that whoever replaces Mugabe when it does has some shred of concern for the Zimbabwean people, who have suffered enormously.
How enormously? Mugabe is not only politically illiberal and corrupt; he is literally a textbook case illustration of how to ruin an economy. I channel Izzy Mutanhaurwa:
3. In 1997 the economy peaked at US$8.5 billion, exports at US$3.4 billion and employment at 1.4 million. At that stage we were: -a. The largest exporter of tobacco in the world after the USA.b. The sixth largest producer of gold.
c. The biggest market for South Africa in Africa.
d. The second largest economy in the region and with the third highest GDP per capita.
e. Life expectancy was about 60 years and we had a literacy rate of 85 per cent with 95 per cent of all children of school going age in school.
f. Inflation was 12 per cent.
g. The exchange rate was 12 to 1 against the US dollar.
Zimbabwe today has an economy that has shrunk by half to just over US$4 billion, exports by two thirds to US$1.4 billion. Employment has declined by 45 per cent and industry by 60 per cent. Agricultural output this year will be 70 per cent down on the level achieved in 1997. Mining output is down and falling rapidly. Tourist arrivals have fallen from over 1.2 million in 1997 to less than 300,000 this year.
Life expectancy has halved, income per capita has also declined substantially. National population has fallen from an anticipated 16 or 17 million to just over 10 million today with 4 million Zimbabweans outside the country and some 2 to 3 million incremental deaths over and above normal mortality. 60 per cent of all children are not in school and all State controlled institutions are in dire straights.
For a country not at war or under sanctions, these are the most precipitous declines in economic and social welfare ever witnessed. They represent a calamitous state of affairs with no sign of any resumption of either stability or recovery. In fact the decline has accelerated in recent months very dramatically.
The US dollar is now trading at 20 million old Zimbabwe dollars to one in the open market compared to 1 to 2 in 1980 and 12 to 1 in 1997. Nothing tells you more about the collapse in the economy than that single statistic.
If Robert Mugabe had set out with the deliberate goal of trashing his country's economy, he could hardly have been more effective. You might say he's pioneered his own field: undevelopment economics. Starting with a disastrous land reform that placed land into the hands of political cronies, rather than those who knew anything about farming, or needed sustenance, he has turned a huge net food exporter into a net importer . . . when they can get the hard currency to import. Each successive foolhardy economic policy, designed to cover up some of the problems that have sprung up due to his last terrible, horrible, no good, very bad economic idea, has made things hideously worse. He has brought on hyperinflation, decimated the country's financial system and industrial base, crippled its agricultural output, mired the government in unrepayable debt, and reduced virtually all of his citizens to appalling poverty.
All of which prompts Brad DeLong to say:
Thabo Mbeki to the white courtesy phone, please. A Security Council resolution and an OAU resolution placing Robert Mugabe under the Ban of the Globe would, I think, be very welcome right now.
Unfortunately, though I have no better idea, I can't see how this can do much good. Zimbabwe is already effectively economically isolated due to the currency market controls that have left its economy functionally bereft of other currency. I doubt that the kleptocrats hve much left to steal and ship to their Swiss bank accounts. Making the gesture is better than doing nothing, but I fear that the only real end will be when Zimbabwe collapses into utter chaos.
All is not bleak. Zimbabwe's woes have been a real benefit to the lion population of southern Africa. Thousands of desperate refugees have tried to trek on foot to South Africa, and the main routes pass right through lion-filled countryside. Dinner's ready!
On the plus side, Mugabe is 84, if not by now 85, so there may soon be some input by human nature on this vengeful fool.
Incidentally, South Africans are in a very tough spot, too: Zimbabweans already enter South Africa at an estimated 5,000 per day (although some cross back & forth for economic reasons).
If Zimbabwe collapses completely, though, South Africa faces an in-migration for which they are completely unprepared.
(PS to Peter -- I thought more Zimbabweans crossing the Limpopo had suffered crocodile and hippo attacks than lions.)
(PS to Peter -- I thought more Zimbabweans crossing the Limpopo had suffered crocodile and hippo attacks than lions.)
That could be ... hippos look cute but apparently can be very dangerous.
As for Mugabe's death, it could usher in more sane rule. On the other hand, I've heard claims that the only likely "successor" is Somalia-style anarchy.
You know things are bad when the local Archbishop asks Britain to re-invade the place...
While foreign regime change is probably not a good idea or even possible given recent experience, I'm inclined to think someone is going to have to be ready for some kind of nation-building (The UN? Any volunteers?) if the country goes back into anarchy when Mugabe dies. And let's hope whoever does that brings along a copy of The Bottom Billion to read on the trip over.
So what's the solution once Mugabe falls? Presumably, you blow up the mint (or at least stop the printing press). But what next? Megan?
I hope they don't try this in Australia.
After his fall comes the power struggle.
I am hoping for South African intervention to overthrow Mugabe...
Mugabe is illiberal? I don't know ... in U.S. usage, he pretty much wrote the book on liberalism.
Demonization of the rich? Check.
Expropriation of the rich's capital and transfer to politically favored groups? Check.
Inflate the currency as a quickfix solution and to punish those darn savers? Check.
Unlimited punishment of a race because of old grievances? Check.
Turn down GM crops to save face at the expense of the people? Check.
No limitations on majority rule over minority groups? Check.
Sorry, liberals, you gotta take responsibility for the guy doing what you would do if your powere were unchecked.
As long as we're talking about rulers with disastrous economic policies, don't forget Fidel-lite:
I am hoping for South African intervention to overthrow Mugabe...
I've seen that issue discussed, and the consensus opinion is that intervention won't happen, for a variety of reasons:
1. African countries have a policy of not interfering in a neighbor's affairs without multinational backing. Ethiopia's recent invasion of Somalia got a lot of criticism even from countries that normally would have backed its goals.
2. Mugabe still has a lot of supporters within Zimbabwe, especially the "war veterans" who are being given confiscated lands, and they are well-armed. There'd be strong resistance to a South African invasion, and a prolonged guerilla war is likely to follow. After what's happened in Iraq, no sane country wants to deal with a guerilla war.
3. Tied in with 2, there is some question about the ability of the South African military. It looks strong on paper but its fighting ability may be questionable. Among other things, a high percentage of soldiers are said to be HIV+.
4. There's no clear choice of leader for South Africa to install in place of Mugabe.
4. For various reasons, including tribal ties and feelings of pan-African solidarity, there's a non-trival degree of support for Mugabe in South Africa itself.
Peter is correct; South Africa lacks the military capability to effect regime change in Zimbabwe. Mbeki even alluded to this in a Financial Times interview when he said - or words to the effect that - South Africa "did not have a big stick" to force change in the affairs of its neighbour. Furthermore, what levers South Africa does control, such as electricity, would be manipulated at the expense of ordinary Zimbabweans. Mugabe has shown himself quite adept at insulating himself from the relentless implosion of his country.
The best we can hope for is that Mugabe dies or simmering discontent within Mugabe's Zanu PF party boils over into a palace revolt. Yes, that may simply usher in a new kleptocratic administration but as unbelievable as it may seem to outsiders, there are still some capable people in government. Despite the government's penchant for printing money, Zim Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono is actually a sensible and capable central banker and I have no doubt he would implement the difficult policies needed if the political climate allowed.
The huge outflow of economic refugees has drained Zim of its best and brightest but I also know that many of these Zimbabweans, and many South Africans included, have their bags packed to rush back in to do business if the politics is resolved. The country has a long way to catch up but the promise is still considerable, in mining, agriculture, tourism, trade with South Africa and the rebuilding of the manufacturing sector.
Lastly, we often despair of Zim's (now-depleted) urban middle class who stood by and let Mugabe ruin the country. Too many Zimbabweans remember the massacres of Matabeleland under Mugabe's direction in the early 1980s - this is a population still cowered into submission. But by the same token, the vestiges of civil society remain and if the political crisis is resolved, the country's prospects are by no means hopeless.
Thanks, James, that's very informative.
I don't understand this: every political commentator to the left of Pat Buchanan urged us to get rid of the previous Zimbabwean government and put in Mugabe. Now they don't like the result? When people like Megan and Hilzoy say: "What I advocated was actually very bad for the people of Zimbabwe. Here are the reasons for my stupid mistake, which has caused untold suffering; here is how I will make amends; and I promise not to advocate such disastrous policies in the future"; then I'll start listening. Until then, I say that politically correct Americans asked for Mugabe and they should enjoy him.
Adding to y81, Robert Mugabe has finally implemented all the policies that he promised to implement in the 1970s during the revolutionary war. At the time he had the full support of the international community, not to mention a majority of Zimbabweans at the subsequent elections. The Zimbabwean population themselves were perfectly capable of overthrowing the hated Smith regime. The progressive left got what they wanted, the Zmbabwean people got what they voted far, so what is the problem? Mugabe himself is not a threat to the international community and I can think of no reason why the South African taxpayer should reverse the consequences of US and UK progressive stupidity.
When people like Megan and Hilzoy say: "What I advocated was actually very bad for the people of Zimbabwe. Here are the reasons for my stupid mistake, which has caused untold suffering; here is how I will make amends; and I promise not to advocate such disastrous policies in the future"; then I'll start listening.
I would scarcely blame our blog hostess. Mugabe has been in power for almost 20 years, which means that Megan was no more than a teenager when he took power.
The odd thing is--given the disgusting adulation with which the French treated Mugabe during his visit to Paris a few years back--that this time when the usual suspects blame the atrocities of a black African dictator on the alleged misdeeds ofwhite Europeans and/or Americans, they'll actually have a smidgen of a point. Not much, mind you, but infinitely more than usual.
Mugabe is a dictator. Dictatorship, like Monarchy, is a long discredited form of government. This is why people are reluctant to give G.W. Bush dictator-like powers.
Megan appears to be rebuilding her self-confidence by citing one of the worst governments in the world as proof of the merits of free market economics.
Perhaps in her next article she will review Adolph Hitler's deficiencies as proof of the need for religious tolerance.
Tell us something we don't already know, Ms. McArdle.
Life expectancy has halved
Is this really true? Life expectancy in Zimbabwe has dropped from 60 to 30 under Mugabe?? Sounds kinda exaggerated to me...
For a country not at war or under sanctions, these are the most precipitous declines in economic and social welfare ever witnessed.
The Khmer Rouge did more to destroy the economic and social welfare of Cambodia during the first month of their rule than Robert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe in the last decade.
Megan appears to be rebuilding her self-confidence by citing one of the worst governments in the world as proof of the merits of free market economics.
You really are a relentless one-trick pony, aren't you, HH? We get it, you can't stand libertarians. I'm sure we all can't wait to see how you use Megan's next post as a springboard into the same diatribe. And the next. And the next. And the next...
every political commentator to the left of Pat Buchanan urged us to get rid of the previous Zimbabwean government and put in Mugabe. Now they don't like the result?
From 1980 through 2000, Zimbabwe was a capitalist country boasting racial tolerance that was the envy of South Africa until 1994. In fact its example to some extent made the transition in South Africa possible, by showing that black majority rule did not have to lead to chaos and misery. The reason living standards have fallen so far as they have in the last 7 years is precisely that they had risen so high.
Mugabe is a dictatorial creep, but he was the unchallenged leader of the black-majority revolutionary movement in 1980 and you can't brush those kinds of national-movement leaders aside or you'll end up with decades of civil war, which they ultimately win anyway. Just ask a gentleman named Ho Chi Minh. If right-wing Rhodesian whites hadn't tried to establish an insane racist state, they wouldn't have had to face someone like Mugabe.
The Khmer Rouge did more to destroy the economic and social welfare of Cambodia during the first month of their rule than Robert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe in the last decade.
I doubt this is true. GDP in Cambodia in 1975 cannot have been as high as was GDP in Zimbabwe in 1997. That said, Mugabe hasn't rounded up the entire population of Harare and sent them to the countryside to dig canals that flow the wrong way, so you could be right.
Brooksfoe
From 1980-2000 there was a growing disenchantment with Mugabe within Zimbabwe that erupted around 2000. Mugabe then produced land reform, which Zimbabwe did need, but instead of doing it properly he gave all of the land to his political cronies instead of people who knew how to farm. Thus, famine. He also completely destroyed a couple of villages that voted against him in the election.
He's an aging autocrat whose doing what every aging autocrat does when he's about to lose power, become more autocratic.
Agreed, Parmenides, and it's useful to note that one of the major reasons autocrats become more autocratic as they get old is that their cronies, seeing their patron's death impending, start demanding immediate large payouts while they still can. Happened with Mobutu too.
Pace Brad DeLong, South Africa is not going to intervene to overthrow Mugabe. If they were going to, they would have already. But Parmenides, do you think that after Mugabe dies, Tsvangirai may take over simply by virtue of being the only leader left standing with name recognition and an organization (which could presumably be quickly reconstituted), while the remains of Mugabe's machine dissolve into dynastic feuds?
You really are a relentless one-trick pony, aren't you, HH? We get it, you can't stand libertarians. I'm sure we all can't wait to see how you use Megan's next post as a springboard into the same diatribe. And the next. And the next. And the next...
I've been following his tirades in the recent threads for what amusement may be had of them. Conclusion? I think the guy is actually a talking deer tick. Consider the similarities: Deer ticks are small, petty, annoying, and sometimes carry Lyme disease. They have an extremely hard exoskeleton that allows them to be crushed by a size 12 hiking book without suffering any apparent harm, and the tend to drop out of trees for no apparent reason, only to continue living by sucking parasitically on the blood of a host -- or in this case, host server.
The one problem with this theory is that if HH really IS a deer tick, the only things that will finish him off in a hurry are insect poison, and fire. And I'm fresh out of both at the moment, at least in any fast-acting forms that are operable over Internet protocol.
given the disgusting adulation with which the French treated Mugabe during his visit to Paris a few years back
How the French treated Mugabe during his visit to Paris for the France-Africa summit in 2003:
>>Pierre-Andre Wiltzer, the French minister for co-operation, said: "When there are things to be said, one should say them face to face. And that's the reason why we were keen for Mr Mugabe to come."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030220/ai_n12678692
In another article, Jacques Chirac shook Mugabe's hand perfunctorily. No bear hugs or any crap like that; Chirac clearly wasn't interested in the guy (he is after all Anglophone). The visit went ahead because a number of other African countries had said they would boycott the summit if Mugabe were not allowed to attend. The French initially planned to respect the EU travel ban on Mugabe, but given the prospect of losing their summit, they negotiated and got the agreement of other European countries (including Britain) for Mugabe to come to Paris for 2 days. Not pretty, perhaps, but not exactly "adulation".
Mugabe was greeted by protestors, but few of them were French, since French public attention towards human rights violators in Africa was directed more at people like then-dictator Gnassingbe Eyadema in Togo. Eyadema doesn't mean much to you? Guess what! Mugabe didn't mean much to the French! These things tend to break along ex-colonial lines, and we still care less about the French-speaking human rights violators, while they care less about the English-speaking ones. (When was the last time you heard anything about Guinea?)
It appears that Megan's libertarian deer are annoyed that pests have arrived in their forum, disturbing their contented nibbling on the trivial verbiage of their "hostess." Imagine the audacity of someone challenging libertarian views, in the presence of a libertarian blog hostess, instead of respectfully posting witty versions of "Yeah, what she said!"
Libertarians should not fear minor insect pests like ticks. They should worry about the far greater threats of resource depletion, ecological collapse, fifth-generation warfare, global crime syndicates, and disease pandemics. Unfortunately, the crudeness of their theory limits their response to these oncoming dangers to a frozen stare.
The market optimizes locally, and the challenges civilization faces are increasingly global. Tearing down existing regulatory frameworks is exactly the reverse of what is required to manage market "externalities," such as global warming. Yet the Market God remains a powerful idol, and its worshippers are easily angered by doubters of its omnipotence.
Getting back to the subject. My guess for post-Mugabe is civil war (see 'Bottom Billion').
If Tsvangirai is still alive by then he might be able to take over.
Other than that I think you'll see a quick slide into civil war or some sort of mediated political settlement that will limp on for a while.
On a somewhat related note, I am linking to the following article on the Zimbabwean inflation. The article is apparently unintentionally ironic, and if I had read it without the header, I would have just assumed it was from The Onion. Given that not many seem to even understand inflation, perhaps we should not be too hard on the Mugabe government's apparent ignorance.
Zimbabwe "Tackles" Inflation Problem With New Notes
Zimbabwe had 300,000 tourists. *Tourists*!?
To quote from that article:
But correspondents say that as long as Zimbabwe has a shortage of staple foods, including maize, food shortages are likely to continue.
How can they be sure?
Hope Mugabe does not die in peace!
If there is any justice somebody will shoot the bastard.
gonyalgia barkometer pseudospiracle zoocystic atrabilarian actinotrocha catamite firewarden
http://cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/16/rogge.profile/ >New IOC chief seen as 'Mr. Clean'
http://www.youthlinkdundee.org.uk/
stretchberry untedious pinnate splotchiness ergamine trichinosed recohabitation micromethod
http://www.geocities.com/pdstampinfo/ >Public Domain Stamp Collecting Articles
http://www.tactical-ems.com/
If Mugabwe passes on, will his Zanu-Pf Thugs start turning up in South aFrica, euorpe, britian and other places demanding asylum with their stolen moneys from the peeoples of zimbabwe. If so, will they be sent back to zimbabwe to stand trial for crimes against humankind?