Yesterday, when I pointed out that ordinary Zimbabweans were probably better off under Ian Smith than they now are under Mugabe, I received the horrified accusation that I was defending Rhodesia's racist regime. Hardly; a baby is better off having its throat cut than being burned to death, but this is not a good reason to kill babies. We shouldn't have to choose between racism and riots, and I deny that these are the only two possible equilibria.
But Timothy Burke says it better than I do:
There remains little that most outside interests can do. Even most sanctions don’t strike me as being potentially effective. I had to really stifle a thunderbolt of rage at one posting on a scholarly listserv that I read when one scholar proferred the argument that although Mugabe is a tyrant, it’s really the fault of the United States and Great Britain, and that the real political challenge is to keep them from interfering. That’s a tragic case of stupid addiction to old dogma, dogma that was analytically wrong-headed in the first place. If I could think of a way for the US and UK to usefully interfere beyond what they’re doing already, I’d encourage them to do it. Western intellectuals and scholars concerned with Africa often still treat sovereignty as an obsessive and magical political objective, as if its mere fact insures a better world.Or more dubiously, treat some African states today as if they have yet to achieve sovereignty. I think it’s perfeclty fair to say that there are postcolonial states in Africa who have never had a functioning government, nor have ever achieved any kind of central control over the territory marked for them on the map. Zimbabwe is not one of those states. The people in power now, who have been in power for twenty-eight years, have long had a great measure of control over their territory. Zimbabwe is the opposite of the conventional “failed state”: its rulers have very significant capacity for violence and political control across most of their national territory, even with the economy in tatters. It’s demonstrates perfectly that the mere achievement of sovereign power and strong governmental authority guarantees nothing, improves nothing. When some contemporary Zimbabweans mutter that the last twenty years or so of Rhodesian power were preferable to the last decade of independence, it’s hard to disagree. That this statement alone is more likely to horrify concerned Western liberals than any number of ghastly utterances by Zimbabwean authorities in the last decade says a lot about the limited perspectives of those liberals. It’s not that we should have to choose between Smith’s Rhodesia and Mugabe’s Zimbabwe: the former was forever stunted, the latter an unending disaster. The problem is with those who believed and sometimes continue to believe that the mere fact of succession by Mugabe over Smith was progress in its own right.
Update these comments are taking an ugly turn. People concluding from their sketchy reading of news articles about a handful of African countries that the entire continent is therefore incapable of self rule need to do a lot more reading.
What's important to remember is that Mugabe is preferable to Smith because no matter how terrible the former's regime, the fact is the former's regime when compared to the latter makes progressives feel better. And that's important.
When making the comparison between Mugabe's regime and the colonial government under Smith, one must remember that progressives prefer the former for the simple reason that it makes them feel better, regardless of any reality on the ground.
As you said earlier this is comparing slitting a babies throat versus burning it alive. This question is only going to attract the colonialist, anti-colonialist readers who really feel that this means something. But its academic, right now the country of Zimbabwe is failing. Failing so well it is a "textbook example" that seems to be a problem to redress?
The key to success isn't so much who is running the country (sovereign or otherwise), but how it's run.
Specifically the thing that struck me most about Mugabe was his disregard for property rights and his love of power for its own sake. From this all other bad things followed. From what I've read, Zimbabwe used to grow enough food for themselves as well as export... until Mugabe took away the farms from the land owners by force. If he respected others and increased the government infrastructure such that property rights grew both in strength and among the population, and enriched the rights of the people versus the government instead of vice versa, he could have been a great president.
Um, Michael, Tim Burke is a progressive. In fact, because he's a leftist at Swarthmore, he's a liberal fascist!
Playing the racism card helps to distract from the real show - yet another government stunned and amazed that brazenly ignoring economic laws and individual rights leads to less-than-desirable outcomes.
Well, not to be a Mugabe apologist -- but for a very very long time it had seemed that he _was_ in fact _considerably_ preferable to Ian Smith. The general happiness at his coming to power wasn't just some navel-gazing by "progressives!"
One might also argue that the very danger Mugabe is in now -- the fact that Tsvangirai could in fact win the election -- is a product of the state he ran more or less democratically for a long time, and not something you could've seen in Ian Smith's Rhodesia.
Mugabe was, for a while, popularly elected I believe. I think the denouement here shows the value of one of Megan's middle 'my politics' rules: " I think almost no one adequately appreciates how much heavy lifting hidden cultural norms do in our political and economic systems."
"The problem is with those who believed and sometimes continue to believe that the mere fact of succession by Mugabe over Smith was progress in its own right."
Mugabe didn't follow Smith. He followed Abel Muzorewa.
Obviously we need a separate term. Say we continue to use "failed state" for places (Somalia, and quite possibly Congo) that effectively have no government control over the territory. Then we need something else to describe places (Zimbabwe, North Korea, with Burma workign hard to join) where the government has control, but is reducing the population from poverty to starvation to death. Not because they cannot do any better, but because they just don't care about anything except holding power and indulging themselves.
wj,
What is interesting is comparing the failed states to places like Zimbabwe. The Congo was once much like Zimbabwe is. Mobutu ran things much like Mugabe is running things. The country collapses as the leaders oust those with technical expertise (quite often whites) for Africans who are all too often political cronies and have little to no experise. It isn't too far fetched to predict that Zimbabwe will end up like Zaire, and Mugabe will meet an end not too dissimilar to Mobutu.
...So to finish my response, perhaps a good term of distinction is "failing state", in contrast to states which have already gone through the process, the aforementioned "failed states".
Of course, at that point, the happiness merely reflected expectations, and had no basis in experience.
"I think almost no one adequately appreciates how much heavy lifting hidden cultural norms do in our political and economic systems"
It's true that cultural norms are important, but they can also be shaped by government. Singapore has done this in its ham-fisted, nanny-state sort of way.
More importantly, really bad policies will lead to problems regardless of culture.
I think there are many cases where one can agonize over a variety of economic efficiency vs. social justice (for lack of a better term) tradeoffs. Mexico under the PRI, Juan Peron (not Evita), maybe Castro.
Sanjay above has a point. Despite the probable superior economic performance of some/many colonial regimes -- Peter Bauer many years ago published some prety strong evidence on this point -- the citizens haven't been crying out for a return to colonialism.
But Mugabe has become a thug and was never that far from one even from the start, when he sought to repress his rivals and their supporters (e.g., Joshua Nkomo and Ndebele) in a manner that I suspect greatly diminished their "general happiness."
Let's turn this around for a moment. If the argument is that Zimbabwe is better off under Mugabe, what are the premises we're basing that on? As I see it, they are:
(1) All Zimbabweans now have the right to self-determination.
(2) No-one is discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.
If these held true I'd be inclined to side with the Mugabe crowd. The problem is, I don't think either of these stand up to serious scrutiny. It's hard to see how anybody is further ahead under the current system.
The whole argument is a little distasteful though, to be honest. Next topic: what is your favourite form of cancer? Discuss.
As an afterthought, I think I'd be more interested in discussing how power should have been transitioned than how it failed in this case.
Was this an avoidable problem? Was there a better way to handle the transition of power from Smith? If you're building a democracy from scratch, and you have the resources Zimbabwe did as well as the cultural tensions, what needs to be in place for this to be successful?
In short, build a better sim-Zimbabwe. And...go.
I'd welcome links to research done on this if anyone knows of any. They wouldn't have to be specific to Zimbabwe.
It's not a choice between racism and riots: Its a choice between racism on one hand, and racism plus riots on the other. You seem to be completely discounting the high levels of anti-white racism within the Mugabe regime.
"If I could think of a way for the US and UK to usefully interfere beyond what they’re doing already, I’d encourage them to do it."
Where's Jason Bourne and James Bond when we need them? I know, they're fictional characters, the US and Great Britain don't have assassins, and don't dispatch them to kill annoying people in far-away places.
But they should.
.
Look. It's real simple. Kill the bastard, now.
We could easily do it with an unmanned drone within a couple days.
Zimbabwe, like North Korea, has devolved past a failed state (where the central authority has only limited reach and some of the populace have automony - perhaps even freedom), into a Total Gulag.
This is a prison where terror rules, and the only escape is to leave, or die.
Sort of puts a negative light on the dissolution of "Executive Outcomes", doesn't it?
The best statement on Africa I ever heard was from a West African intellectual who said the west should stop treating them like children. His point was to hold africans to high standards and not to excuse the Mugabes.
From my personal experience there is a strong sentiment in much of africa for a neo-colonialism however improbable that might seem.
Our left wing media supports Mugabe! He can do very little wrong in their eyes. There is recent evidence. With the floods in Souhteast Asia, our neocommunist media insisted on referring to Myanmar, the official name of the country, by the old name, Burma. Can you imagine any ultra-left wing media in this country referring to Zimbabwe as Rhodesia?
Some here are getting to the real issue in Zimbabwe, but most of us dance around the topic because it's distasteful.
The real issue: Zimbabwe is run by a group of thugs.
That's the simple explanation for why Zimbabwe has become a hellhole for all its citizens. Mr. Mugabe, assisted by (and more recently captured by) his generals and cronies set about upon gaining power to consolidate that power and ensure a fine life for themselves.
First they demonized the opposition and cowed it into submission.
Then they demonized other minority tribes within the land and cowed them.
Then they demonized the remaining whites and took their land.
All the while they demonized the Brits, Americans and Europeans in general as useful foils.
And all the while, each and every decision Bob and his cronies have made has been in answer to one simple question: "how are we going to enrich ourselves today?"
The deals with the Chinese, the taking of white farms, the selling off of mineral rights and then nationalizing them, the institutionalization of inflation, the theft of public property, the raiding of the banks, all have been done because it benefitted Bob and his boys.
There isn't anything magical here, it's human nature, and it takes a particular kind of academic progressive/liberal to ignore human nature. Fortunately the West has plenty of those, and so we continue not to understand the problem.
Bob and his cronies are thugs. They will continue doing what they do until they are either removed from power (usually by worse thugs) or are dead.
This comment has been deleted because of its unfortunate racist overtones
Whaddya mean, probably? Unless the "probablility" in question is the likelyhood that a particular resident of Zimbabwe is an aquaintance of Mugabe. For those who are not so lucky...why is it only "probably"?
"It's not a choice between racism and riots: Its a choice between racism on one hand, and racism plus riots on the other. You seem to be completely discounting the high levels of anti-white racism within the Mugabe regime."
Quite so, but let's also not forget the massacre of about 60,000 Ndebele people by Mugabe's Shona forces in the early Mugabe years as he moved quickly to establish a one-party state after achieving power. And then there's Bob's bizarre anti-gay rants, which get a pass from otherwise hypersensitive progressives. Mugabe's Zimbabwe is a classic instance of "one man, one vote, once" just as colonialist cynics predicted at the time. Muzorewa's short-lived government was a much more promising development, but was unfortunately unacceptable to Jimmy Carter, who showed the same prescience in southern Africa as he did in Iran.
This comment has been deleted because of its unfortunate racist overtones
It's Africa, they buy little, make less....who cares?
Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Amin of Uganda, and Mubutu of Zaire are classic examples of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Having amassed all political power in their respective countries they betrayed the trust of the people. Absent a couple of divisions invading from a neighboring country I don't see anyway to remove him from power - or rather, remove that power from him. Said neighboring countries seem perfectly willing to let Zimbabwe go to hell in a handbasket at this point.
Mark D,
An interesting case study in de-colonization is India. It is one of the most successful cases, besides Ireland.
Mugabe was, for a while, popularly elected I believe.
Err, no. Not unless by "popularly elected," you mean imposed upon the country by Andrew Young and Jimmy Carter after failing to win the first national election, in which he and his supporters engaged in widespread cheating, election fraud, intimidation, and ruthless violence against the blacks supporting the other major electoral faction.
In other words, Mugabe came to power pretty like he is hanging on to it -- through a toxic cocktail of liberal apologies, white guilt, and merciless violence.
But, hey--he's black, so that makes him better than Ian Smith, who only oversaw the rule of law, stability, prosperity, universal education, peace, a trade surplus, food self-sufficiency, rising living standards and anti-communism.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
George Dixon,
Then who will buy their oil (not Zimbabwe in particular, but Africa in general as that was your statement)?
Conditions in Czarist prisons and exile in Czarist Siberia were far better than the Gulag. That's not an argument for the excellent conditions in Czarist Siberia.
One would think that, after the love affair of many leftists with the Soviet Union, we would have learned that the overthrow of repressive régimes does not always lead to a brighter future.
Really going out on a limb with this post, Megan. FISA?
I have to say this is one of the most gruesome and racist threads I have seen on this blog.
"I have to say this is one of the most gruesome and racist threads I have seen on this blog."
I have to say that I'm getting tired of people trotting out "racist" every time they hear uncomfortable facts. Tends to stifle productive debate.
A little more "gruesome" debate about Africa might eventually lead to less gruesome events there. Sorry if it makes you squirmy.
I think it would behoove all of us to remember that in the dystopian happyland inhabited by leftists,progressives,liberals,socialists,and all their assorted cousins,it isn't about results or facts or objective reality or even success or failure....it is about power as and end in itself...not as a means to other ends...and once that power singularity is achieved,any attempts to lessen it or remove it or moderate it is to be resisted 'by any means necessary'....that is why they will always alibi clowns like Mugabe or Castro or Chavez or Lil Kim...regardless of the wretched conditions the people they rule and control have to endure...any tin pot tyrant who tries to set western values out with the garbage is going to win their approval...that is pretty much axiomatic these days
Gee Dave, lets see if you can detect any racism in this statement. I picked an easy one for you, hopefully you'll make it out:
"We're talking about Africa, folks. The place is absolutely hopeless and not able to be redeemed.
Let's just stop all foreign aid and involvement and let these poor folks make themselves extinct, shall we?"
Or this one:
"Mugabe was welcomed with open arms by Zimbabwean, much like David Dinkins was welcomed by New Yorkers, and Barak Obama will be welcomed by most Americans."
I vote to kill the bastard. Cruise missile through his window at 3am. And the same treatment for any who take over in his place without learning from the lesson.
Same thing in Sudan.
Same thing in a lot of places.
Not regime change, like in Iraq. That's messy and expensive. More like an enhanced governmental evolution through JDAM.
The UN way of doing things is a proven failure. It's time for the US to use its technology and military and political and economic power to make the world a better place, whether other countries like it or not.
Yeah, it sounds extreme. But any other option is to turn a blind eye to genocide and mass suffering.
Besides, lefties don't give a damn about OUR sovereignty. So to heck with everybody else's then.
Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Amin of Uganda, and Mubutu of Zaire are classic examples of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I would add former Kenyan president Daniel arap-Moi to that list. The only thing that saved the Kenyan people from a spectacular Zimbabwe-style bloodbath (at least, a bloodbath that would make Western media take notice) was Moi's failure to completely subdue opposition from the Kikuyu tribe. Not that Moi did not spend much of his time in power trying to spark tribal warfare between the Kikuyu and other Kenyan tribes.
The real issue is not that Zimbabwe is run by a group of thugs or that Mugabe is a Marxist. The truth is that a Christian schooled, British educated son of a tribal chieftan, elected to power, has reverted to tribal rule. Slowly at first, then with genocide of an opposing tribe,then destruction of private property rights, then crushing of what had once been strong courts and newspapers, then deliberate starvation of urban objectors and beating and killing of political opponents. It is like reading V.S. Naipaul's "A bend In The River".
Through all this, African leaders, especially South Africa's Mgabe, express no open criticism, take no action whatever. Nor does the UN. But the "human rightists" wring their hands, moan about how awful it is and lament that the US and Britain should really be trying to something about it.
Why are we not willing to say," Why aren't "emergent" African nations doing something about the evil cancer within them?" Or are most of them infected with the same tribal affliction?
This statement is not so much racist as all that. It only highlights the folly of voters choosing a very poor candidate to lead them based exclusively because of his skin color.
If anything, that statement is anti-racist. I would bet the commenter who made it would have no problem voting for Condi Rice, who is actually black, unlike Obama who is half-white.
But you should hear the vile racist comments of "progressives" toward Condi, Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. Real gutter language.
As bad as Mugabe may be, would Somali-style anarchy be any better?
No. Conservatives immediately foresaw in Mugabe a disaster from the moment he took power, and have been denouncing him for decades. He has always appeared to at least some outside observers as a disaster in the making; he took power during a disputable election involving a terror campaign by his supporters, consolidated power by perpetrating genocide agaisnt the tribes of his rivals, openly espoused Marxist rhetoric, and held very close political and military ties such nasty regimes as North Korea and Cuba. In short, he always appeared to be a monster to anyone not predisposed to hearing heroism and good in Marxist rhetoric.
This was never ever a case of a basically decent fellow being corrupted by the acquisition of power. Mugabe started his career as a thug and a terrorist, and he remains a thug and a terrorist. The basic villainy of the Smith regime in no way exculpates him.
The general happiness by certain so 'called' progressives which follows in the wake of every left-wing tyrant coming into power, and the general apologies that they offer as his crimes become more and more obvious is something a good deal worse than mere navel-gazing.
What's racist about it Rickm? This is a discussion about whether the colonial era of Rhodesia was better for the inhabitants of Zimbabwe than the existing regime under Mugabe the tyrant.
As a former member of the "Colonial Regime" and a third generation white Zimbabwean I am actually appalled by the complete ignorance displayed by some of the comments. Obviously, minority rule was not acceptable under any circumstances, and everyone knew that, but we also knew that a rapid transition to majority rule would result in eventual chaos - just a matter of when.
What I am seeing in some of these comments is that it is better for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die horrific deaths (murder, starvation, aids etc etc) and for the country to be driven into ruin under the rule of a brutal dictator... as long as he is black, or at least anything but white!
Zimbabweans black and white love their country and by-and-large lived happily together in post-colonial times. A murdering tyrant was allowed to destroy a beautiful and prosperous country for personal power .... but hey, that's OK at least he's black!
It's a sick world we live in....
We shouldn't? Aw, poor Megan!
What if we do? Oh, you deny it! I see. Way to face reality boldly.
Do you have any example of a modern African state that was stable and prosperous, that was not run by whites? Does this suggest anything?
once again Rick - is much of Africa a hopeless place? Have African governments consistently destroyed their people's welfare and livelihoods, in between engaging in tribal or ideological wars of extermination?
Did not Paul Wolfowitz (who you probably hate too) point out to the World Bank that when he studied economics in the 1960s the consensus was that Africa was going to be hugely sucessful (good education standards, infrastructure, raw materials, governance) but the development economists were very worried about Asia, which had none of the above?
Is it racist to note that African "liberation" governments have universally squandered that legacy?
Is it racist to note that western liberals have consistently aided and abetted the efforts of racist and tribal supremacist african leaders as they squandered their inheritance?
once again Rick - is much of Africa a hopeless place? Have African governments consistently destroyed their people's welfare and livelihoods, in between engaging in tribal or ideological wars of extermination?
Did not Paul Wolfowitz (who you probably hate too) point out to the World Bank that when he studied economics in the 1960s the consensus was that Africa was going to be hugely sucessful (good education standards, infrastructure, raw materials, governance) but the development economists were very worried about Asia, which had none of the above?
Is it racist to note that African "liberation" governments have universally squandered that legacy?
Is it racist to note that western liberals have consistently aided and abetted the efforts of racist and tribal supremacist african leaders as they squandered their inheritance?
Oh...and by the way, we don't have to worry anymore, the "progressive" Brits have at last taken action... they have banned the Zimbabwe cricket team from playing there....
And Glory hallelujah...today they are going to take Mugabe's knighthood away from him!
All is well now.
Sad fact is that there is not a single country in sub-Saharan Africa where the average inhabitant is better off today than he or she was in 1958 or so, before the Europeans lost their collective nerves and bugged out. All the high hopes, all the money spent by the West, for nothing so much as the enrichment of a few.
The embodiment of H.L. Mencken's dictum that "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want: and deserve to get it good and hard."
I'm not sure why but Edmund Burke comes to mind as someone who could distinguish between a revolution that produced a good result and one that didn't. As memory serves, he was one of the few champions of the American revolution in Great Britain that saw through the problems of the French revolution right away.
Also, whenever someone suggests picking our next president on the basis of selecting the lesser of two evils I'm going to keep this example in mind.
Why was the white Rhodesian government an "incredibly awful evil"? The country was better off in virtually every way before 1980. Obviously the white population was better off, but so was the black population. Everyone has suffered under Mugabe.
Why does it matter what skin color predominates in the government of a country? Shouldn't governments be judged by their performance and not their demography? The population of Rhodesia was better off than pretty much any other African country before 1980, not just better than their current plight.
Do you have any example of a modern African state that was stable and prosperous, that was not run by whites?
Botswana.
Sad fact is that there is not a single country in sub-Saharan Africa where the average inhabitant is better off today than he or she was in 1958 or so,...
Again, Botswana. Also South Africa, where the average person is doing a lot better than in 1958 despite the fact that the upper echelons of society are doing worse. Don't underestimate the unpleasantness of conditions for Africans under colonial rule.
Lost in much of the discussion about post colonial Africa is the importance of external factors in propping up dictators. Africa was treated as a chessboard in the Cold War, with both sides propping up their favored thugs. After the Cold War there is still intervention on behalf of international corporations. The reason is plain to see - if you've got resources it's worth propping up the local thug to gain access to them.
External interference is far from being the whole story, but it's a significant enough factor that the folks throwing up their hands and acting like Africa's problems are entirely homegrown are missing the big picture.
People concluding from their sketchy reading of news articles about a handful of African countries that the entire continent is therefore incapable of self rule need to do a lot more reading.
Agreed. The second-most-unhelpful perception of foreign affairs holds the actions of small, however powerful, groups of criminals and psychopaths against entire populations; the first, of course, being the anthropomorphization of countries and collectivization of continents.
Theodore Dalrymple, the writer, is a physician and spent several years working in Zimbabwe, when it was still Rhodesia. He wrote a very interesting essay about his experience there and predicted the baneful influence of tribalism. The essay is here.
This is a pretty textbook argument by the right: colonialism / some former white government was better that the current government that the colonized participate in. The right might want to consider "give me liberty or give me death" - Ian Smith's Rhodesia didn't give liberty (no blacks in university, no democracy for blacks), but it certainly gave death. Mugabe, the tyrant he is, is becoming more and more like Smith each day. But he did open the universities, and allowed black people to hold office (although, in the past few years, it was just his friends).
Theodore Dalrymple, the writer, is a physician and spent several years working in Zimbabwe, when it was still Rhodesia. He wrote a very interesting essay about his experience there and predicted the baneful influence of tribalism. The essay is here.
Is it racist to note that western liberals have consistently aided and abetted the efforts of racist and tribal supremacist african leaders as they squandered their inheritance?
No, it's ignorant at best, stupid at worst. Nigeria's leaders have no support from western liberals. Neither did Sese Seko, Bokasa, or a whole host of other tinpot dictators. The consistent sources of external support for those people has been outside economic interests.
Megan,
Your update said this was getting ugly. What is uglier than deliberate starvation of the citizens of Zimbabwe by the Mugabe's dictatorship? The extermination of Ndebele tribes when he first got power? The burning of homes with their wives inside of opposition political leaders?
Neocolonial Africa has been a mess of thugs: Idi Amin, Mubuto of Zaire. Mbeke of S Africa, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Angola 27 civil war, Stevens in Sierra Leone, Taylor in Liberia. Tribal slaughter in Rwanda by the majority tribe. The examples are all over the failure of self government in Africa.
Colonial rule was more orderly and had increased production of food and educated civil servant class among the natives.
The rush to independence did not lead to well run countries. Most did devolve to one-man rule and single party rule. Police states or just anarchy.
The African countries use of starvation as a tool to exterminate tribes and control population.
Compare that to British colonial rule and there is a world of difference.
I knew it. I bet at the beginning this would turn into a colonial argument. Killing Mugabe won't fix it, it may make it worse because you just made him a Symbol! Disgracing Mugabe may work, but if your gonna leverage him out of power than the African union needs to unite and force him out. Period, if the people can muster the courage, effort, and desire I believe. No, I know that the US, UK, Europe can provide the resources. And there would be no excuse for us not to.
Thank you for your example of Botswana as the shining African success story, togolosh. Is that all you could come up with?
Apparently Botswana's average life expectancy is 34 years. That is tied for the shortest in the world.
Sounds great.
If Mugabe isn't regarded as a disgrace by now, then he never will be.
The only way he will be "leveraged" out of power is by killing him. Even then, without a military occupation, he'll just be replaced by one of his like-minded followers.
The African Union will not do this. Europe certainly won't (even if it could). The US is a mite busy at the moment. Between China's veto and general ineptitude (or if you prefer, corruption), the UN will not become involved. His own populace is cowed, disarmed, and starving.
Zimbabwe will continue to be a terrible place for the forseeable future.
Looking back, we have to acknowledge that decolonialism has been extremely damaging to the residents of the third world.
This does not imply that colonialism was all wine and roses. But it was certainly much better than the current state of affairs.
"The African countries use of starvation as a tool to exterminate tribes and control population.
Compare that to British colonial rule and there is a world of difference."
Of the top of my head: 1) Irish potato famine 2) Several famines in India, most notoriously the 1876-78.
What are interesting are comments such as this: "Neocolonial [sic] Africa has been a mess of thugs: Idi Amin, Mubuto of Zaire. Mbeke of S Africa, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Angola 27 civil war, Stevens in Sierra Leone, Taylor in Liberia. Tribal slaughter in Rwanda by the majority tribe." Which purport to prove that blacks are as a matter of race too primitive to govern themselves.
But all that you've shown is that post-colonial Africa is in many ways a mess. I could just as easily (more easily really) draw the inference that colonialism is exploitative and destructive and provides the conditions that cause post-colonial societies to fail. Add to that the problems of climate, tribal difference, a general lack of industrial potential and the absence of middle classes, and one can construct a compelling explanation of African governmental disfunction that touches not at all on the question of race.
So again reciting the sordid history of some African governance proves nothing, except that the history of some African governance is sordid.
Are discussions of IQ permitted, or will they be deleted because of their unfortunate racist overtones?
Are discussions of areas outside of Africa with majority Black populations permitted, or will they be deleted because of their unfortunate racist overtones?
Many former British colonies were much better off in that state.
the 40-50 years since has often been accompanied by a dismal decline in incomes and living standards and civil life.
It is not racist to point this out. It is not imperialist to point this out.
Even though S.Africa and Rhodesia - or even the Shah's Iran - are thought of as pariahs, the alternatives are often worse. India is one of the more notable successes, but are most Pakistanis or Bengalis better off now?
The record speaks for itself.
Jozef, it is perhaps better to be racist about it. Places like Hong Kong or Singapore are no doubt better off now than they were under colonial rule.
But the canard of colonialism's basis for failure in Africa can be seen by looking at countries in the region that were never colonies or ruled by whites, such as Liberia, or by looking at the failure of places like Haiti. Or the inner cities in the US or les banlieues in France.
Of course, people would rather have Africans die by the tens of millions than have a discussion about what might improve things.
The truth is Africa wasn’t any more free to find its path in the post colonial period than in the former colonial period. Transition was sacrificed to the 3rd world Marxist revolutionary model. Pragmatism was disposed of with a preference for and grand utopian schemes. Militant political movements sprouted up around ideas of racial, ethnic, and cultural purity. There was no place for the cosmopolitan societies of colonialists and mixed races that grew up around the trading cities. For most that were deemed too European in ethnicity, culture, social position, or education, escape was the only solution. All who had the slightest taint of the colonial period had to run for their lives. All the terrible isms of the 19th century were sent packing back to Europe, and all the terrible isms of the 20th century were visited on Africa.
Hopefully, Africa will eventually find some measure of social direction and prosperity. In many places there remains very little progress of any sort. The colonial world is long gone. The pre-colonial world is both gone and impossible to revive. The post-colonial world was stillborn. What remains are societies that have lost much of their former selves, have also lost their connections to the outside world, and don’t have the necessary social and cultural institutions to make their way into the future.
In the mean time the capitalist vs. socialist debate doesn’t mean a damn thing to these people. Often they don’t have the institutions to implement either system. The Peoples Revolutions quickly turned into ethnic and tribal feuds. Capitalism has done little better. Without educated masses and a disciplined work force the global market are often only interested in extracting raw materials.
The Mugabe is just the latest bizarre example to remind us of a much wider set of problems. In his case a mad ideologue has managed to dismantle most of his country and add it to his personal pathology. Now that he is old perhaps he aspires to take what is left of the country into the afterlife with him. I doubt if that is literally true, but it might as well be so.
Casual debate on the subject often follows it’s own bizarre pattern. It’s a bit like entering some 40-year-old time-warp between utopian dreams of socialist states on one side and enthusiasts for market capitalism on the other, who believe societies with no infrastructure can plug into the world economy.
As for this debate, I find little purpose in expressing a preference for either Smith or Mugabe. It’s a bit like fussing over whether you prefer reds or whites in the Russian revolution, or maybe you have a preference for Mark Antony over Octavian. The problem with history is that it tends to be a done deal, and events happened under conditions far removed from the present. History may be embraced in an instructive manor, but don’t get too attached.
Funny, but I didn't see that quote as purporting to prove anything about race. I thought it purported to prove that post-colonial Africa is a mess.
Likewise, while the British response to the Irish potato famine was utterly inept and probably tainted by race, there was certainly no attempt to use starvation as a weapon against the Irish. I'm curious as to why you would claim that it was.
The question of why Africa has failed is very complex one, but we don't have to bring race into the question of the nearly unique failure of Africa. We can ask, what is about Africa that is unique, without it being in slightest about race. Maybe it's about climate? What of Brazil then? What of India? Or Indonesia? Maybe it is about lack of natural resources, as you say, 'a general lack of industrial potential'? But I don't think it is that either. I don't think geography is destiny.
Certainly its not unique in colonial exploitation. It's not unique in being a post-colonial society. It is not even unique in being a post-colonial tribal society, although there I think we are hitting alot closer to the mark as the other post-colonial societies where tribal identity remained intact are hardly doing well either. I think the real issue is as you say, the sorridness of African governance, which was sorrid before European colonialism, sorrid (though perhaps to a lesser degree some would argue) under European colonialism, and sorrid after it. But I think it is a mistake to say that Europeans 'broke' Africa, because it was as far as I can tell never 'fixed' to begin with. It's safe to say that they really didn't help, nor have they really helped by leaving, nor on the whole have they really helped by trying to help.
To be honest, I don't think that there is anything wrong with Africa that wouldn't be wrong with Europe if you'd suddenly thrust Europe circa 600 BC into the modern age. I don't think it is anything about race. A white tribal, iron age, animistic, martial society would have fared no better trying to cope with its world being turned upside down. Africa is being now what it always was, only with machine guns instead of spears. Africa is being now what we were not that long ago, and what we are still when the veneer of civilization collapses. It isn't about race, but fixing it has to stop pretending that somehow we broke it and look at real root causes. Likewise, we have to stop thinking that there is nothing cultural we have that is superior to what they have. If even someone like Jared Diamond can finally see through that twaddle, despite popularizing it, then certainly we all can.
That is a very good post.
A really good post. If you have more to add to that, someone ought to give you a guest spot on one of the more visible blogs because I would like to hear it. How do we move the debate out of the trap that it is in? Where do you think we should go from here?
Please tell me how evil life was for a black Rhodesian?
The only evils perpetrated on blacks I saw growing up in Rhodesia during the war against communist terrorists were thousands of black Rhodesians being murdered, mutilated, raped, bayoneted, burned and beaten by Mugabe's communist trained, armed, fed and backed "freedom fighters" during the Rhodesian bush war.
The moral relativism in some posts here is sickening. Was Rhodesia superior to Zimbabwe? In every damn way!
Mike K, thank you for the link to Dr. Dalrymple's essay, it's very helpful in this debate. He makes clear in a way that few understand how Mr. Mugabe's brand of intolerant tribalism, mixed with 20th century socialism, was inevitable after colonial rule.
I don't have any grand solutions for how to transition imperial colonies into functioning nation-states, and it's clear that few in the world have.
What we have presently is one nation-state, Zimbabwe, that is in agony. The people of that state don't deserve the police-state that they now live in. The neighbors don't wish to intervene, the old imperial powers dare not intervene (other than useless tut-tutting), the United States is rather busy at the moment and so can't intervene, and the various international organizations are, quite frankly, useless when it comes to intervening.
Robert Mugabe is a thug, as are the generals who at present are the power behind him. They like things just as they are. Any proposed solution that doesn't take this into account simply will not work.
There are a couple potential solutions:
1) the wild geese scenario. Someone builds (buys and pays for) a small team that can get into Harare, whack Mugabe and the generals, and get out. That's very likely not going to work even if you could find your dirty dozen for hire, since Mugabe, like most good thug dictators, has excellent personal security (dictators have learned not to skimp on such things). And even if you did whack him, the most likely result is that another thug takes over.
2) the UN intervention scenario. In an ideal world the UNSC would pass a resolution and one or more SC members would lead a military intervention. That's obviously not going to work, since the Security Council will never agree (China is a guaranteed veto) and no one except the US has the ability to stage a military intervention from far away. And as I noted, we're busy. And we don't live in an ideal world.
3) Zimbabwe finally implodes, and some general you've never heard of before takes over. The MDC are shot down in the streets even as General Whatshisname promises 'free and fair elections at some indeterminate point in the future'.
Guess which scenario is most likely. Yup, we'll be wringing our hands a few years from now when Megan posts an update on 'whither Zimbabwe?'
I have some Rhodesian cousins and a couple of Rhodesian friends so I could be accused of bias here (I'm actually an aussie). But I am left thinking that a lot of (mostly U.S.) readers know little about Brit colonial history and even less about how it was applied in Rhodesia.
Contary to what many think, Rhodesia never had apartheid, or a whites-only electorate. The electoral roll was set up to require levels of property ownership to get on to it. As a result any citizen could vote if they qualified. Naturally most of the black population couldn't, but- and here's the important point- as the economy rapidly grew, every year more and more qualified. And Rhodesia had one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
This begs the question- if the old electoral roll was left to mature under the old style colonial system, would Rhodesia be a full democracy 28 years later, or at least well on the way? I think it might well have been.
I guess all of this is a moot point. The much derided Ian Smith conceded power to majority rule in 1978, with the election of Abel Muzorewa in 1979. Mugabe refused to compete in that election because he knew that the vote would be free from his armed intimidation. The Carter administration refused to recognise Muzorewa and forced a new election with the U.N providing security instead of the Rhodesian army and police. And the rest is history. Mugabe has never won an honest election in his career. To look at how much he was hated- right from the start- you only have to look at the numbers of african people who volunteered to serve in the Rhodesian military during the bush war.
Smith's government wasn't perfect, but then, it wasn't what some today make it out to be. Smith even knew when to concede power.
Based on the evidence, there are plenty of white countries which aren't capable of decent self-government, either. Russia, for starters.
Honestly, who do we even bother considering, let alone acting upon, the fate of this poor, wretched nation?
BBC World View interviewed a Zimbabwean last evening, wondering what could be done to help her country. She replied that, no, African peace-keeping forces couldn't help, since their military value was suspect; the UN couldn't help because, well, it's the UN. The UK? Of course not, colonial masters and all that.
Well, what, then? The US! But, the interviewer asked, wouldn't "white" US troops be viewed with suspicion? Yes, the woman said, but if they entered and left the country quickly they should be "allowed" in Zimbabwe. Right.
Forget this country. Write it off. Next!
Actually, as far as colonialism goes, the Brits pretty much got it right. They set up courts and schools, trains, post offices, and the rule of law. Former British colonies include some countries that seem to be doing okay: the United States, Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Hong Kong. Even in Africa, I think an argument can be made that former British colonies like South Africa and Nigeria are more functional than former French, Belgian, German and Italian colonies. All colonialism isn't equal. The Belgians killed millions in Africa and it's possible that the Spanish were better in the Caribbean than the French. Look at the island of Hispaniola. Haiti is a basket case while the Dominican Rebublic seems to be much more funtional.
While self-determination is a great thing, I think it's a bit racist to say that people are better off being ruled by native incompetents than by enlightened colonialists.
As long as Mugabe has enough support to staff the army and pay the "veterans" who work as his thugs, nothing will change. Because the army supports Mugabe, it's going to take some kind of war to unseat him.
Interesting read from start to finish.
Africa is the complete basket case and there is no hope that it will ever get any better than it is now for what we see in Africa today is exactly what has been on display for hundreds of years.
Delighted to see that somebodies believe that Zimbabwe is a "nation-state". No it isn't. Outside of North Africa and the states along the Med, I don't believe that there is a nation state in Africa because they don't suffer multi-culturalism easily. Oh my no. They are tribal societies and fight to get their tribe to the top and then to stay on top always at the expense of the other tribes. These sorts of things were recently expressed in Kenyan elections and Nigeria suffered a horrible civil war resetting the tribal alignment at the trough. The colonial powers created the African borders and paid no attention to the people that lived there.
I hope that the US does not do anything in Zimbabwe because then we would find ourselves holding the bag to "fix" Zimbabwe and there is NO way to "fix" a failed, non-nation state such as this. I'm sure we've all heard many times the leftist phrase, "you broke it so now you have to fix it." They still believe in Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden (they just can't bring themselves to use those phrases and keep cropping up with new ways to express the same pathetic nonsense.)
Virtually every Black African country is in a shooting war with its neighbor or has an armed, evil "resistance" group running around making life insufferable for the common people. Given that the ordinary African tolerates this and seems to have for hundreds of years I don't see what any external force can do to change the situation.
I for one really enjoyed Ali A. Mazrui's "The Africans" series which I saw a decade ago. The last episode pretty much nailed it in so far as African developments go. I think that's why so many leftists support the totalitarian leaders because they accept that only a "strong" man can make the necessary changes. Mutatis mutandis by the tyrant, the people's suffering will be eased. Of course, lefties will believe anything...
I've actually been to Zimbabwe a number of times, although not in the last few years. On my visits to Harare, Bulawayo, Victoria Falls and other places, I didn't detect any racism when in all-white company and any hostility in all-black company. There is real anger against the Zanu-PF, the ruling party. If the economy was going well that anger would be less. But Mugabe dragged the country into a war in Congo (alongside nine other African nations) and needed to seize the predominantly white-owned commercial farms to pay for the war and to provide political support for a move that angered even members of the ruling party. Without the farms to generate huge foreign earnings, the economy collapsed. Zimbabwe was a net food exporter until 2000. Now it starves. As for returning the land to those from whom it was "stolen," I suspect the speaker is thinking of the American Indians. I have been on several vast commercial farms that were started after 1980, when Zimbabwe formally received independence. (Smith declared independence unilaterally in 1964.) And the farms were often built on empty land that had to be cleared and irrigated.
When people say things were better under Smith, they are wrong. The 1970s--Smith's last years in power--were a time of terrible guerilla war sponsored separately by Soviet-backed and China-backed proxies.
The 1980s, the first years of independence, were actually the golden years. Inflation was low. Food was in abundance. There was peace (except for Matabeleland, where Mugabe murdered 30,000 members of a tribe that backed the wrong set of revolutionaries). Firms were adding jobs and new buildings were going up. Whites, with money and technical know-how, were immigrating in from Zambia, Uganda and elsewhere in Africa--investing in the future of the one of the few places in Africa that worked.
Those days could return, if Zimbabwe rededicates itself to peace, secure property rights, a stable currency, free speech and elections, and the rule of law.
Unfortunately, not even the opposition believes in ALL of those things.
There will be no military action in Zimbabwe, at least not until there is some sort of violent convulsion or Mugabe dies. Mugabe is 84 years old. There may be some chance after he is dead but don’t get your hopes up.
The way into the Zimbabwe is through South Africa so anything contemplated has to come in through the south. There will be great deal of reluctance by South Africa considering the both colonial history and the present South African administrations ties to the non-violent movement. (I’m not saying I have a problem with the South African administrations political stance. I’m just saying it’s a fact of life) South Africa may eventually have to move on the issue considering the growing refugee problem. It would have to be primarily an UN-African operation because the politics and the fact that the rest of the world is up to it’s eyeballs in several dozen conflict in an around the periphery of the Muslim world.
The distances involved are a lot longer than most people realize. The transportation infrastructure to Zimbabwe is pretty dilapidated, so lines of supply will be brittle. South Africa must place some resources into getting it’s armed forces back into shape because it may face a number of problems in it’s region in the next decade. It’s not that they need to fight a shooting war, but they had better be prepared for UN type missions and putting out a few political brushfires. Whether there is much of Zimbabwe to salvage in the end is a rather depressing question I won’t even try to answer.
People (mostly elsewhere) have pointed out that if Zimbabwe had oil, we'd be more likely to fix things, holding up Iraq as an example.
But we haven't bothered to fix Nigeria's problems, even when they threaten the flow of oil. What is really needed is for Zimbabwe to invade its neighbors. Preferrably South Africa, since they actually have the military capacity to respond. So long as Zimbabwe's government is only a threat to its own people, nobody is going to care much.
--Come on--
What it all boils down to IS RACISM. If Mugabe was white the entire world would be beating down a path to destroy him. As the saying goes, there are no double standards, only a single one which no one dares speak.
"Actually, as far as colonialism goes, the Brits pretty much got it right. They set up courts and schools, trains, post offices, and the rule of law. Former British colonies include some countries that seem to be doing okay: the United States, Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Hong Kong. Even in Africa, I think an argument can be made that former British colonies like South Africa and Nigeria are more functional than former French, Belgian, German and Italian colonies. All colonialism isn't equal. The Belgians killed millions in Africa and it's possible that the Spanish were better in the Caribbean than the French. Look at the island of Hispaniola. Haiti is a basket case while the Dominican Rebublic seems to be much more funtional.
While self-determination is a great thing, I think it's a bit racist to say that people are better off being ruled by native incompetents than by enlightened colonialists"
This post is on target. British colonial rule was very good. There was an emplasis on setting up roads and transportation systems and courts of law and a civil service. Britains post colonials countries have often done better that other European nation colonies id. The best British colony sucess story is America, even if we had to fight for it.
ms
Part of the tragedy of Rhodesia was that its fate was largely decided by people who insisted on seeing it through the lens of the American civil-rights movement. Unfortunately, Mugabe & Co. were not exactly Martin Luther King and the SCLC.
Say what you will, when the winds of change blew through Africa those old racist colonialists pretty much predicted the future exactly as it turned out.
freddiemac,
India's doing pretty well now, and more power to them, but you write as if Partition never happened.
Zimbabwe is just the most currently noticeable example of the fact that pretty much all places where blacks are a)in charge politically, and b) make up the majority of the population, are basket cases. That goes for cities in the developed world just as much as it does for countries in Africa. Even if one accepts the argument for Botswana as not being quite as much of a disaster as the general run, the truth of the first two sentences can't be denied by a reasonable person examining the facts. No other ethnic group has such an unrelieved legacy of failure at the art of political governance.
Argue all you like about why that is the case; no argument is going to change the facts on the ground. They are what they are. It's worthy to note that the first two independent countries in the Western Hemisphere were the United States and Haiti. Haiti became independent in 1804, only 28 years after the U.S. One would be hard put to find two more contrasting nations now.
Anyone who is interested in a rational, well-reasoned proposal of proper outsider policy toward Africa should read Kim DuToit's essay, "Let Africa Sink." DuToit is a liberal South African but he's not delusional. It was my feeling that this particular work was written with real sorrow, sorrow which he didn't allow to color his trenchant analysis of the situation. It's extremely pessimistic but, unfortunately, not unwarrantedly so.
There are so many people talking out of their asses here that the air is black with farts. Any of you (outside Roddy "I was a white and I didn't see a problem during Smith's rule" the Rhodesian) ever been to Africa? Anyone ever read anything beyond US News & World Report? Zimbabwe's in the news, and suddenly everybody knows exactly what's wrong with Africa.
Quotations from above:
enlightened colonialists.
British colonial rule was very good.
The African countries use of starvation as a tool to exterminate tribes and control population.
Compare that to British colonial rule and there is a world of difference.
Quotations from various officials in British colonies:
From Cape Colony [South Africa]: “stirring round and round the heads in that seething boiler, as though they were cooking black apple dumplings.”... “there is no honour or glory for anything you do out here. You have only to drive cattle and kill [Xhosa] which is like killing rats and mice, only not quite so easy.”
From British East Africa [Kenya]: "Then there was a rush from the village into the surrounding bush, and we killed about 17 niggers [Kikuyu]. Two policemen and one of my men were killed. I narrowly escaped a spear which whizzed past my head. Then the fun began. We at once burned the village and captured the sheep and goats. After that we systematically cleared the valley in which the village was situated, burned all the huts, and killed a few more niggers…."
British parliament member, on the Matabele [Ndebele in Zimbabwe] being slaughtered with machine guns: "inevitable, though regretable, result of the contact between civilization and barbarism."
Now which was which? Who were the barbarians?
Was this enlightened government? Very good? A world of difference from Mugabe?
And Dalrymple's essay? He equates Nyerere with Idi Amin? Laughable.
It's worthy to note that the first two independent countries in the Western Hemisphere were the United States and Haiti. Haiti became independent in 1804, only 28 years after the U.S. One would be hard put to find two more contrasting nations now.
Wow, what a sharp analogy. As we all know, Haiti and the U.S. started with exactly the same amount of resources, the same population (in numbers), the same links in the global trade network, and the exact same educational background for all their inhabitants. I smell a good poly-sci paper.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
That just about sums up Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's tragedy was not caused by Mugabe. He was just the messenger. It was caused by the putting into practice of the ideas of white liberal-socialists.
No other ethnic group has such an unrelieved legacy of failure at the art of political governance.
Assuming this is true (it's not, but let's pretend), might we look for reasons in history, or are we to simply assume that it's genetic? Bear in mind that European ascendancy is a pretty recent phenomenon, and that for much of history the "advanced races" were in the middle east, south asia or east asia.
This is so simple: bad people can appear to be good people until they take over power....then, the people show their true stripes...it is only the audience that refuses to "see" the truth before it is shown. Bad people can be easily seen if we lose our "rose" colored glasses and look. For god's sake people, Mugabe and his ilk are bad (evil if you will). What is so difficult to see and understand?
"there was certainly no attempt to use starvation as a weapon against the Irish."
I seem to recall that Ireland was a net food exporter during the potato famines. In fact, if one examines the devolution of Irish farming during the colonial years, it rather resembles Zimbabwe under Mugabe. Land is stripped from one group and redistributed to those in power. Replace Mugabe cronies with English aristocrats.
"India's doing pretty well now, and more power to them, but you write as if Partition never happened."
I'm sorry I gave that impression. Partition is the downside of English colonization. It is why I argue against partition in Iraq; it has been tried before and is a failure. It happened in India, Ireland, and Israel (funny how they all start with the letter I isn't it?), and in each place it has brought long lasting conflict.
The upside of India is that England turned over its civil service to Indians long before they left. Other countries like Zaire weren't so lucky. Sometimes it is useful to step back and appreciate it when the people running the water treatment plant know how to do their job, and the garbage collector does his job without bribes.
*sigh*
One of my pet peeves is how so many intelligent people conflate culture with race. The problem with Africa is its tribal culture not the color of its people’s skin. Until Africa’s tribalism is suppressed it is going to be a basket case with the best and brightest fleeing to other countries.
Now this is where it’s gonna get ugly. As I see it there are three options when a ‘stronger’ culture meets a ‘weaker’ culture: total isolation, complete replacement or do nothing. As of now there are no means to isolate one culture from another. Replacing a culture with another culture results in chaos and horror that lasts for one or two generations. Doing nothing is by far the ‘easiest’ thing to do but leads to the current situation of chaos and horror that will last for God knows how many generations. I am not advocating the forcible replacement of one culture by another for many reasons both ethical and practical. What I am pointing out is that there is no ready solution and making it a race issue only obfuscates the real problems.
"I seem to recall that Ireland was a net food exporter during the potato famines."
That is true, but its pretty far from a state policy of deliberately starving political dissenters.
There was no government policy on the exportation of food from Ireland. The government, wrongly in my opinion, failed to inact emergency legislation that would have prevented the large private landowners - mostly English colonists - from continuing to export thier cash crops (livestock in particular) during the duration of the famine. The large landowners, some of whom were sitting in Parliment, for thier part were largely thinking with thier pocket books and not with thier hearts, "Why should I sell to poor Irish who have no money to buy, when I can get good coin from England?"
The failure to respond effectively to the great hunger lead directly to the rise of Irish nationalism. But I know of no evidence that the English parliment was deliberately try to starve Irish peasants in order to take thier land. They already owned the land, and used the Irish as tenents. They certainly didn't want them dead, they just didn't care enough to really stop it, and the corrupt inept half-hearted steps that they took to stop it were indicative of that. That's a pretty damning charge as it is - and not far removed from a criticism of current British policy with respect to Zimbabwe - but its far different than a charge of genocide.
"Do you have any example of a modern African state that was stable and prosperous, that was not run by whites?"
Gabon seems to be doing decently, with an annual per-capita income of about $14k (albeit with a fairly high ratio of income inequality). It has two major advantages going for it:
1) Small population (