Robert Mugabe 'confined to home' after Zimbabwe military take control

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has been confined to his home after the country's army took control of government offices and the state broadcaster.

The night's action has triggered speculation of a coup, with the leader of Zimbabwe's War Veterans Association telling ITV News the military had removed Mugabe.

A spokesperson for South African President Jacob Zuma said he had spoken to Mugabe who confirmed to him he had been "confined to his home".

Armed soldiers in armoured personnel carriers have stationed themselves at key points in Harare, while Zimbabweans formed long lines at banks in order to withdraw the limited cash available, a routine chore in the country's ongoing financial crisis.

In an address to the nation after taking control of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, an army spokesman said the military was targeting "criminals" around Mugabe, and sought to reassure the country that order would be restored.

Link.

Should have been done 20 years ago.

[Lord Revan]

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has been confined to his home after the country's army took control of government offices and the state broadcaster.

The night's action has triggered speculation of a coup, with the leader of Zimbabwe's War Veterans Association telling ITV News the military had removed Mugabe.

A spokesperson for South African President Jacob Zuma said he had spoken to Mugabe who confirmed to him he had been "confined to his home".

Armed soldiers in armoured personnel carriers have stationed themselves at key points in Harare, while Zimbabweans formed long lines at banks in order to withdraw the limited cash available, a routine chore in the country's ongoing financial crisis.

In an address to the nation after taking control of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, an army spokesman said the military was targeting "criminals" around Mugabe, and sought to reassure the country that order would be restored.

Link.

Should have been done 20 years ago.

While Mugabe should have indeed been removed ages ago, it's too early to say this isn't just a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" that's sadly the case with these kind of military takeovers.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has been confined to his home after the country's army took control of government offices and the state broadcaster.

The night's action has triggered speculation of a coup, with the leader of Zimbabwe's War Veterans Association telling ITV News the military had removed Mugabe.

A spokesperson for South African President Jacob Zuma said he had spoken to Mugabe who confirmed to him he had been "confined to his home".

Armed soldiers in armoured personnel carriers have stationed themselves at key points in Harare, while Zimbabweans formed long lines at banks in order to withdraw the limited cash available, a routine chore in the country's ongoing financial crisis.

In an address to the nation after taking control of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, an army spokesman said the military was targeting "criminals" around Mugabe, and sought to reassure the country that order would be restored.

Link.

Should have been done 20 years ago.

While Mugabe should have indeed been removed ages ago, it's too early to say this isn't just a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" that's sadly the case with these kind of military takeovers.

Yeah, which why there isn't nationwide celebration just yet, a lot of people are worried they're replacing one dictator with another. That, and because Mugabe spent most of his rule bringing the economy to its knees there's no money available to make improvements.

[Iroscato]

Heard it was in response to Mugabe replacing his VP with his wife, but I'm not so sure. The military brass probably had to skip a couple meals due to budget cuts and decided the line in the sand had finally been drawn...

[Simon_Jester]

While Mugabe should have indeed been removed ages ago, it's too early to say this isn't just a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" that's sadly the case with these kind of military takeovers.

A randomly chosen dictator would probably be better than Mugabe... but maybe not enough better to justify celebration, yes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Good riddance, but yes, celebration is premature.

I always remember that Terry Pratchett line when it comes to revolutions (paraphrased):

"Don't put your faith in revolutions. They always come 'round again."

Or, to use an old cliché- "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, Terry Pratchett, the expert on revolution.

Everyone seems to be such an expert here on the state of authoritarian nation-states, although not a single one probably lived under such a state.

Does a military-led ousting automatically mean no movement towards a democratic outcome is possible? Not necessarily. There had been exceptions, like Portugal. Does an authoritarian system mean there is no improvement possible? That's also silly. Improvement is possible, although not guaranteed.

But instead of looking deeper behind the events - like checking out what kind of goals the suspected coup backer, Mnangagwa, has had, what kind of people in the military are involved in the ousting and so on - of course let's just condemn the events from the start because they are "coup" or a "revolution". Because these are bad things, right? Revolutions bad, coups bad, Mugabe also bad.

If we follow this simplistic line of thought, we are left with "bad bad bad" and change is impossible because everything is bad.

But why then support Arab revolutions, the toppling of Gaddafi and the civil war against Assad in Syria? It is also bad, a case of many bads.

Maybe the coup in Zimbabwe is "bad" because it was potentially supported by China? But the bloodbath of revolutions and coups in the Middle East is good because it was supported by the West, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who deposed previous autocrats in a multitude of countries with... shall we say, less than stellar outcomes?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Terry Pratchett, the expert on revolution.

Pratchett didn't come up with the idea, of course. He simply had a knack for taking complex philosophical and political ideas and conveying them via memorable and pithy one-liners.

Everyone seems to be such an expert here on the state of authoritarian nation-states, although not a single one probably lived under such a state.

Most of the debates on this forum would never happen if people restrained themselves to speaking only on subjects of which they have personal experience.

Nor does living in such a state necessarily mean that your understanding of politics is more informed than that of someone living outside of one.

Does a military-led ousting automatically mean no movement towards a democratic outcome is possible? Not necessarily. There had been exceptions, like Portugal. Does an authoritarian system mean there is no improvement possible? That's also silly. Improvement is possible, although not guaranteed.

Um, has anyone hear actually said that "a military-led ousting automatically mean no movement towards a democratic outcome is possible?" Or anything that could reasonably be interpreted as equivalent to that? Or are you just responding with knee-jerk hostility and then straw-manning to justify it?

Well, I suppose you could take the Pratchett quote that way, taken out of context. But even then, its not an unambiguous denunciation of all such revolts- just an acknowledgement that violent revolt is a sword that cuts both ways, and that it should be viewed with wariness.

No one is saying that Zimbabwe is inevitably doomed to end up just as bad as before. We're saying that skepticism is due, and its too early to party. That's all.

But instead of looking deeper behind the events - like checking out what kind of goals the suspected coup backer, Mnangagwa, has had, what kind of people in the military are involved in the ousting and so on - of course let's just condemn the events from the start because they are "coup" or a "revolution". Because these are bad things, right? Revolutions bad, coups bad, Mugabe also bad.

Again, nobody did that.

If we follow this simplistic line of thought, we are left with "bad bad bad" and change is impossible because everything is bad.

Only if you assume that the only way to every bring about change is armed revolt via military coup.

But its a moot point here, because nobody argued what you're saying we argued.

But why then support Arab revolutions, the toppling of Gaddafi and the civil war against Assad in Syria? It is also bad, a case of many bads.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I try to look at revolutions on a case-by-case basis, though my default setting does tend to lean towards viewing armed revolt as the last resort when all other options have failed, due to the risks and likely costs involved for a country.

But I have no intrinsic objection to the military removing Mugabe. You might note that my very first words in response to the news were "good riddance". I am simply skeptical, based on historical precedent, that their motives are any more pure, or their ability to govern effectively any greater, than his. But I'm more than willing to be proven wrong by subsequent events. Their have been revolutions which have made things better for a country in the long-run, even if at great cost.

Maybe the coup in Zimbabwe is "bad" because it was potentially supported by China? But the bloodbath of revolutions and coups in the Middle East is good because it was supported by the West, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who deposed previous autocrats in a multitude of countries with... shall we say, less than stellar outcomes?

Now you are attributing motives no one here as expressed, so that you can portray anyone who expresses skepticism about this coup as an apologist for Western imperialism.

This is getting ridiculous.

[Zaune]

The way I see it, they'd have to be actively trying to cock everything up worse than the previous regime, so let's allow ourselves a measure of cautious optimism. Especially because they seemed to have gone to the trouble of taking the previous tyrant alive and aren't in any apparent hurry to arrange a show-trial.

[The Romulan Republic]

Those are both good points.

Even if they are not more benevolent in their intentions than Mugabe, they're at least likely to be no less competent at governance. And they seem to be trying to pull this off with a minimum of bloodshed thus far.

But, its still early.

So, cautious optimism, with an emphasis on the cautious part.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But instead of looking deeper behind the events - like checking out what kind of goals the suspected coup backer, Mnangagwa, has had, what kind of people in the military are involved in the ousting and so on - of course let's just condemn the events from the start because they are "coup" or a "revolution". Because these are bad things, right? Revolutions bad, coups bad, Mugabe also bad.

Have YOU actually looked deeper behind the events? Or is this just a knee-jerk GLORIOUS REVOLUTION thing?

While information is still scarce, by all accounts I have seen, the primary impetus for the coup was an internal power struggle within Mugabe's party over the proper succession once he dies. The suspected leader, Mnangagwa, is a long-time crony of Mugabe's, one is widely suspected of being instrumental in organizing some of the massacres perpetrated by the army in the 1980s (and in assuring Mugabe stayed in power following the 2008 elections). His ally Chiwenga, the general who is currently the public face of the coup, has a sordid history in Mugabe's land seizure programs, by which many of the top figures in Zimbabwe have enriched themselves at the expense of the people.

That is, at the moment we have little direct evidence that the motivations of those involved are pure, and amount to anything other than a desire for THEM to be at the top of the autocrat pyramid.

[K. A. Pital]

Have YOU actually looked deeper behind the events? Or is this just a knee-jerk GLORIOUS REVOLUTION thing?

As a matter of fact, I have.

While information is still scarce, by all accounts I have seen, the primary impetus for the coup was an internal power struggle within Mugabe's party over the proper succession once he dies. The suspected leader, Mnangagwa, is a long-time crony of Mugabe's, one is widely suspected of being instrumental in organizing some of the massacres perpetrated by the army in the 1980s (and in assuring Mugabe stayed in power following the 2008 elections). His ally Chiwenga, the general who is currently the public face of the coup, has a sordid history in Mugabe's land seizure programs, by which many of the top figures in Zimbabwe have enriched themselves at the expense of the people.

Yes, I know. As someone familiar with the dynamics of authoritarian elite collapse, it is generally discord within the elite which triggers it. First there is a fatigue from one-man rule, which results in pressure on the strongman to leave (unless he/she is already gone and successor is looking weak, like in Portugal after Salazar). The system remains autocratic for a period of time - or perhaps forever - but the removal of the one-man charismatic dictator already forces some change. Whether it is for better or worse depends on many factors. One of them is, suprisingly, the stability of the overall structure of government and military. If these start degrading, you get civil war. If, on the other hand, they remain stable, it is very likely that civil war could be avoided.

That is, at the moment we have little direct evidence that the motivations of those involved are pure, and amount to anything other than a desire for THEM to be at the top of the autocrat pyramid.

Yes, but most changes in autocratic systems fatigued by one-man rule start this way. It is not the worse result so far, with pressures on M. to resign and a procedure of impeachment, rather than, say, the insane bloodbath we’ve seen in the Middle East. Not saying it can’t go that way, but so far it seems rather restrained, the events and all.

The core point is - quotes from Pratchett and generalizations just because it is a “coup”or “revolution”do not help.

I am not supporting each and every coup or revolution either, just for the sake of it. Heck, counterrevolution is also a form of power change.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree with everything you just said. That's the type of nuanced and intelligent position I appreciate from you. Your previous post in this thread just seemed to me a bit too "knee-jerk".

[Dalton]

Sky News reporting that the "parliament speaker" has stated that Mugabe has resigned

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status ... 8897872897

[Iroscato]

And so ends the increasingly farcical rule of one Robert Mugabe. Not how I would've expected things to end if you'd asked me a few years ago, but at least it was bloodless.
I have little confidence that his replacement will be much of an improvement, if at all - but perhaps the country can get back to limping, at least.