Zimbabwe : internally or externally driven meltdown?
Abstract : Zimbabwe is a nation ostracized by the developed world and among the lowest per capita GDP countries in the world. While President Mugabe's governance is now recognized as untenable for the future of Zimbabwe, his choices seem to focus on the impact of external actors fueling opposition undermining Mugabe's capability to govern, causing an ever more autocratic rule, or a perpetual leadership style, against any opposition to maintain his position. A consistent repression of opposition parties or individuals has continued to secure Mugabe's position over more than quarter of a century, using whatever methods he finds necessary. The international community must be more cognizant of post-war leaders, realizing that the leader of an armed conflict overthrowing an undesirable government is not always the right choice for a post-conflict, peacetime leader. Mugabe is a perfect example of the traits and trends such a leader can display that must be recognized early to avoid such a secure entrenchment that a failed leader cannot be successfully challenged by opposition groups to rectify the situation. Mugabe's early rhetoric against the constitution, combined with his consistent willingness to use violence and intimidation securing his power all indicated a leader not ready to forego his title or personal agenda for the good of his nation.
Inequality, Leadership, and the Crisis in Zimbabwe
As of 1 July 2002, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Brock University; author of numerous articles and a book on Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe: The Political Economy of Transformation). My current research, funded by SSHRC, is on corporate social responsibility and its implications for developing countries. I would like to express my huge intellectual debt to Cranford Pratt, not just for his guidance in writing this article, but also for his larger role in furthering my academic career, including his central role on my dissertation committee.IN A 1997 ARTICLE CO-AUTHORED with Cranford Pratt, we noted the importance of the leadership in explaining how Zimbabwe (and Tanzania) had been able to avoid a descent into military dictatorship or civil war.(1) In that article, I pointed to the importance of Mugabe's policy of reconciliation towards whites in the uncertain period after 1980, when the liberation struggle for black-majority rule ended. However, given the economic power of whites in the economy, the policy of reconciliation has translated into whites maintaining their economic dominance so that the gross inequalities in income and opportunity inherited from the colonial past have persisted.The implementation after 1990 of market-based reforms through the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) reinforced structural inequalities by ignoring the centrality of land redistribution to rural development and poverty alleviation.(2) Pratt and I therefore concluded that: 'unless Zimbabwe experiences remarkable rates of economic growth, there is every likelihood that at some point powerful opposition forces will challenge the government on its economic and social welfare policies... and thereby generate increased repression.'(3)There is no question that Mugabe's leadership - and his resort to violence before and after the March 2002 presidential elections - is a central factor in explaining Zimbabwe's current political and economic crisis. Decisions such as the unbudgeted payouts to the war veterans, the military intervention into the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the resort to violence prior to the 2000 general elections, and the progressive deterioration in the rule of law prior to the presidential elections are all attributable to Mugabe and his military supporters. However, the tendency to reduce all of Zimbabwe's problems to the role of Mugabe and the decisions he has made seriously over-simplifies the current deep-seated problems. While most international attention on Zimbabwe is directed to the political situation, especially the manipulation of the electoral system in the run-up to the presidential elections, and the escalating human rights abuses, relatively less attention is paid to the inherited inequalities in land and income distribution as a contributing factor.(4)Most critical of these is the highly inequitable distribution of land ownership, where a white minority owns the largest share of the most arable land. In seeking to resolve these problems, the government attempted to respond to contradictory domestic and international pressures, which often pulled it in different directions. The domestic succession crisis, poor international leadership, and socio-economic inequalities all need to be factored into a convincing explanation of Zimbabwe's crisis. Mugabe's removal, whether sooner or later, will not solve the country's problems.THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC PRESSURESFrom a short-term perspective, it might be understandable for an outside observer to conclude that the current lawlessness in Zimbabwe, including land invasions of white-owned commercial farms, is directly attributable to Mugabe's desire to stay in power. While this assessment would be correct, it over-simplifies the situation, and ignores the need to separate the issue of Mugabe's succession from the long-simmering issue of equitable land reform. The two issues are entangled, though separable, and are all the more complex because of the involvement of external donors in land reform. …
A review of disaster and crisis
A disaster and a crisis are two different, and related events. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Man‐made disaster that occurs at an industrial organization, may develop into an industrial crisis. Crisis can happen to any organization. It has been noted that there were no universally accepted definitions yet developed for disaster and crisis. There is also no universally available criteria, to define the disaster in terms of the consequences, such as the casualties and the cost of damage. This paper reviews the definitions, types, characteristics, criteria and models of disaster and crisis. Also the types of crisis were rearranged and the differences between the disasters and crises have been summarized.