Stephen Chan—dean of the faculty of law and social sciences at Soas and regular Prospect contributor—has just left Zimbabwe having spent ten days in the country observing the recent presidential and parliamentary elections. You can read his take for us here.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- jaime on Why Baby P died
- JohannessAndLihua on China: A bull in Congo’s shop
- Jacqueline on The Dubai Two
- Jacqueline on Psychogeography in Westfield
- Jacqueline on Race face-saving at the Met
- Motorcycle website marketing on Across Congo, on a motor bike
- Gabre on The Dubai Two
- Pavel Pelikan on Fixated on Friedman
- Noel Nesor on Bombings in the maximum city
- Noel Nesor on The Dubai Two
- Aniruddha G. Kulkarni on Bombings in the maximum city
- Robert Hanrott on Walker vs Haldenby on public sector reform in the crunch
- Dave B on The audacity of Dave
- Laura on China: A bull in Congo’s shop
- anderson on China: A bull in Congo’s shop
Blogroll
- 3quarksdaily
- British Psychological Society research digest
- Crooked Timber
- Finance & Economics
- Foreign Policy passport
- France Profonde
- Freakonomics blog
- Fugitive Peace—Gideon Lichfield
- Gauche—Paul Anderson
- Gideon Rachman
- Guido Fawkes
- Happiness and Public Policy
- Harry’s Place
- Marginal Revolution
- Normblog
- Oliver Kamm
- Overcoming bias
- Political Betting
- Pootergeek
- Potlatch—William Davies
- Prospect magazine homepage
- The Economist—Free Exchange
- The Guardian Comment is Free
- The Spectator—Coffee House
- The Times—Comment central
- The Virtual Stoa

Stephen Chan, after only 10 days in Zimbabwe, feels that he has the pulse of the current situation. Unfortunately, those of us who have lived there and spent many years observing the tyrant know that the reality is somewhat different. Listen to and read black African stategists and observers who say quite differently. Some of the reasons for him and his henchmen, as well as those in the miliatary and police, who will go to any lengths to stay in power are: fear of war crimes tribunals; absolute power corrupts absolutely; tribal hatred and animosity.
It would be great to be completely wrong.
Professor Stephen Chan needs a better source for the claims on which he bases his analysis of events in Zimbabwe. (Prospect April 2008)
“Robert Mugabe … contemplated conceding defeat with a decent grace but was pressurised by his army generals to fight to the end,” he writes.
Who makes this claim?
“It is said,” we are told.
Professor Chan treats his next assertion as a matter of public record, so self-evident that even “it is said” is dropped as a source:
“Then the generals discussed a coup, meaning that they themselves would ditch Mugabe or make him their puppet….
“Then word came up, hard and clear from South Africa, that they were not to do that. SA diplomatic pressure has had a huge influence….
This is fascinating stuff. After years of criticism for what was seen as its ineffectual role, it seems Pretoria is now able to influence events with a “word”.
Can it be that senior members of the opposition have encouraged the wishful thinking of Professor Chan and other analysts, by releasing a stream of half truths and calculated distortions?
Robert Mugabe is many things: a corrupt, vain, and brutal dictator.
But to imply he is a malleable coward undermines our understanding, both of the man and the Zimbabwe crisis.