Emmanuel,

You may want to refresh your knowledge (if any) of Rhodesia.

Yes, it was more or less an apartheid state, with far more resources available for the whites than for the Africans. But with government services (health, education, etc) of a much higher standard for blacks than in most majority-rule African nations. With a blueprint gradually to increase black participation in the political process. With security forces that were 75 per cent black, and never any shortage of volunteers. Only two units (SAS and RLI) segregated, the rest integrated, often enough with black officers commanding whites.

Censorhip? Yes – there was a war on, and they had their back to the wall. Violent racism? Violence, yes – as I said, there was a war on. Racism? Perhaps, yes. But the two together (violence due to the victim's race)? I am sure that happened, too. Just as it happens occasionally everywhere else. But it was hardly the defining characteristic of the country.

"Nice of you to blame black Zimbabweans in gneral for Mugabe's vicious behaviour. "

Well, 1. he may be a talented man, but even he could not have achieved such comprehensive destruction single-handed – he must have had plenty of help, and 2. they chose him, out of a field of four or five candidates, and stuck with him even when he proved to be just another deeply tanned Hitler.

Ian D. Smith has been right.

Peter Kiss,

Rhodesia was widely disliked because it was a particularly ugly little fascist state; censorship and violent racism were the order of the day. It was also widely disliked because the leadership was rather proud of these vices.

Nice of you to blame black Zimbabweans in gneral for Mugabe's vicious behaviour.

Todd asks:

[How would you like to have your land invaded!]

Not a lot, which is why land reform was, and remains, necessary.

Overall a good article. A rational analysis of issues facing Zimbabwe, and indeed many African states, which avoids an over reliance on the emotive at the expense of the logical. Whilst Mugabe is not on my Christmas card list the colonial attitudes that still pervade much Western thinking have been clearly demonstrated through the genral response, both in political circles and amongst the general public, to this entire issue.

Stephen is correct when he states that nationalisation of land (or at the least, some form of broad land reform) is part of the necessary completion of independance for many African states. This is especially true of those like Zimbabwe whose economies are (and historically have been) largely reliant on the export of primary agricultural goods and where historically these sectors have been tightly controlled by colonisers. Anyone with an understanding of colonialism and neo colonialism would be likely to accept that principle whether or not they ultimately percieve nationalisation of key industries or the actual process of decolonisation as good or bad. Although I accept that those whose history and identity is rooted in colonialism (the colonisers and their progeny) may not wish to see or admit it. It does not surprise me that the other comment specifically regarding land reform is so vociferously opposed to any such concept considering the origins of the contributor. I do not mean that as an insult or a slight on the contributor, his history or the history of his country, it is merely a statement of fact.

Stephen Chan is also right to point out the knock on effects this has on South Africa and how the substance of the issue limits South Africa's response. Nearly a decade ago I wrote a short piece on the 'end' of apartheid in South Africa and the dangers of a continuing economic apartheid on the stability of that society. Almost ten years on I feel that in real terms little has changed, indeed spiralling crime is one indicator that I was correct. In the long term this situation is unsustainable. It will most likely drive demands for far reaching (and perhaps ultimately counterproductive) reform from the poorest sectors of society, perhaps to a point where what has happened in Zimbabwe is repeated in South Africa � perhaps worse. The South African government would do well to learn from this experience and act now in a manner which is just and fair, to avoid repeating the mistakes made by Mugabe, to limit the chance of violent, and ultimately destructive, change.

While Robert Mugabe may not be the most savoury of characters this issue isn�t as black and white as the prevailing mood, crafted by an interested elite in the west, leads the majority of people to believe. The irony being that this issue is to a large extent precisely about black and white. Robert Mugabe�s actions are debatable, and should be debated if only to prevent similar events happening in other African states. To deny debate and to refuse to accept the need for land reform in much of Africa is an open invitation for recent Zimbabwean history to repeat itself and for violent conflict in other African states. Where land reform is necessary they would do well to look at Zimbabwe as an example of how not to do it rather than why not to do it, the latter being the example I�m sure most interested elites in the west would rather create.

As a criticism of the piece I would have liked to see more meat on the bone. Its a little thin and could do with some more depth. All in all I�d like to see more from Stephen Chan in the future.

I am old enough to remember the world in the seventies. Rhodesians were the only people you could openly hate and not be called a racist - in the name of social justice, equality and human rights the whole world turned against them. Even S. Africa, for its own reasons, begun to twist their arm. The Rhodesians held out far longer than any other nation would have in such circumstances. When they finally cracked and surrendered, everyone was happy - justice was finally achieved, the native Africans were empowered, they could vote and run for office, they could compete on an equal footing with the whites. Utopia.

In the follwing 27 years they managed to turn a prosperous economy into a train-wreck, Africa's breadbasket into Africa's beggar. And they did it with far more casualties than the bush war had caused. Sure, there was injustice in Rhodesia. I am not sure, that it was on the same scale as it has been in Zimbabwe.

Ian D. Smith has been right.

Stephen Chan has to be the stupidest man on the planet.

" The nationalisation of land was a necessary completion of the project of independence. "

Wrong!

"The first is how to separate the need for land reform from the mindlessness with which it was carried out. "

It was "mindless" to carry it out. There was no need for land reform!

"But with all this said, how does Mugabe survive in a country with 1,700% inflation, predicted to reach 4,000% by the end of 2007?"

DEFAULTS = INTEREST + INFLATION is the governing equation for responsible management of a media of exchange ... not exactly rocket science!

" Seven years after the farm invasions it is clear to everyone that man does not live on bread alone"

How would you like to have your land invaded!

" It is a country in which both government and opposition are full of highly-qualified intellectuals. But an intellectual is not a technocrat. A person of great urban sophistication is not a farmer."

So ... it's the intellectuals who are stupid? I agree!!!

"He is by far the best educated of all African leaders."

Then the "education" is clearly suspect.

Todd Marshall

Plantersville, TX

It is a silly, wishy-washy article which implies that Mugabe's behaviour is somehow debatable. It's not. He's a paranoid, power-obsessed megalomaniac who has brought a genuinely promising country to the very brink of catastrophe and has brought misery and often death to millions. And please let's not have that rubbish about urban sophisticates. Are you suggesting that some 'urban sophisticates' inadvertently brought about the collapse of Zimbabwe because they didn't understand farming? Are you serious?