Since the beginning of the twenty first century, the country of Zimbabwe has been either ejected from table conversation or is seen—in most circles, anyway— as a basket case. This is because common perception holds that over the course of this past decade Zimbabwe has more or less culminated its transition into a failed state. The question one must ask, then, is “Why is Zimbabwe a failed state?” Essentially, what happened, and when, that brought into being the cloud of violence and economic despair that now swirls over Zimbabwe?
The answer is not easily found. One thing is for certain: the arguments presented in the liberal, realist and identity perspectives do not by themselves stand as adequate explanation of the situation. The realist perspective, placing full blame on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, gives the man too much credit and assumes in him, instead of in the system, an inherent flaw. The liberal perspective bemoans broken institutions and bad governance but doesn't address the reasons for their being. The identity perspectives puts too much weight on racial and class differences—other countries have successfully overcome problems with differences in race and class, so why not Zimbabwe? This isn't answered; the reason is clearly something else, or rather, a combination of things. These arguments cannot stand on their own. The full applicability of any single perspective must be rejected, and instead only a collective of the perspectives perceived as valid.
[...] Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press Print. Norman, Andrew. "Victory for Mugabe and ZANU-PF." Robert Mugabe and the Betrayal of Zimbabwe. Jefferson, N.C.: Mcfarland & Company Print. Ibid. p Ibid. p Ibid. p See supra note 7. See supra note 14. "Mugabe Set To Face Charges Of Genocide." 24-hour Breaking News on Zambia - Zambia Watchdog. N.p., n.d. Web Oct < http:>. [15]http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=35591:zanu-a-north-korean-style-dictatorship&catid=35:opinion-a- analysis&Itemid=31 Gumede, Getrude. "ZANU PF PLAYS POLITICS AS ECONOMY CRUMBLES." The Zimbabwe Telegraph [Harare] 1 [...]
[...] As these factors operate on a timeline; therefore, no single one can be isolated as the causal factor of the conflict. "Failed States." Global Policy Forum. N.p., n.d. Web Sept < http:>. "Crisis, Fragile and Failed States." Crisis States. N.p., n.d. Web Sept
[...] The white settler regime was “built on an antagonism towards all African aspirations towards equality” and recognized dangers of promoting black cultural pride and political consciousness through any indication that Zimbabwean history, however remote, had a proud record of achievement.”[22] In The Nativist Revolution, Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni, expands the identity perspective argument, asserting that today's troubles were caused by Afro-nationalism, Afro-nationalism being a product of the practices of racial discrimination and oppression utilized by the white settler regime. The white settler regime's longtime attempts to stop afro-nationalism turned afro-nationalism underground, where it mutated into afro-radicalism. [...]
[...] The liberal perspective puts the onus of responsibility for Zimbabwe's failure non the ZANU party, arguing the liberal perspective (failure of an institution) from a domestic level of analysis (the government's ruling party). When ZANU assumed control, Zimbabwe was known as the “bread basket of Africa.”[16] Bountiful in natural resources, and having a well-established export system,[17] it was widely thought of as Africa's foremost emerging economy. However, ZANU has presided over Zimbabwe's worst economic crisis ever,[18] (unemployment has increased from 80% to 95% since 2009 alone)[19] and its actions, tainted by corruption the staging of elections and the use of the army for politics purposes), have done little to improve Zimbabwe's image in the eyes of the world—indeed, they have even made it worse. [...]
[...] Most killings performed by Mugabe's Zanla army, for example, were entirely arbitrary and used solely as basis for intimidation[15]—under good leaders, such violence is unnecessary (not to mention entirely morally unsanctioned—Mugabe doesn't seem to have a problem with this). The realist perspective assumes that there is an inherent flaw with Mugabe; a malevolent streak that just happened to appear in the later stages of his life. His stint in jail helped exacerbate his feelings of insecurity, which only increased his desire for power. However, the question that must be asked is this: would things really be different had Mugabe not assumed power? If someone else had assumed power instead? [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
