Most often, the phrase “end of an era” implies the end of something good, something special. In the case of the resignation of Robert Mugabe, there is shock and disbelief but no nostalgia at the end of his 30-year-long reign.
Certainly Mugabe represents the end of an era — the era of corrupt African dictators who attempted to create familial dynasties while amassing personal wealth at the expense of their citizens. Who plundered their countries’ natural resources for themselves. Who accepted foreign aid — but kept it primarily for themselves. Words like kleptocracy were invented for the Mugabes of the world.
He also represents the end of the era of Marxist-Leninist, Soviet-sponsored leadership that empowered the “vanguard” but forgot the “proletariat.”
These men — from Libya’s Qadaffi to Zaire’s Mobutu — may have established themselves on different grounds (“liberator,” “socialist,” “anti-Communist,” to name some of the “brands”), but the ultimate result was always the same: oppressed, impoverished citizens as the dictators were riding high.
What will happen in Zimbabwe is not yet clear. Mugabe’s resignation was forced by a military unhappy with Mugabe’s reviled wife assuming she would take power after her husband. Mugabe’s departure creates a power vacuum that may be filled by an even stronger military dictatorship or, ideally, a resurgence of civil society and multi-party politics. Hopefully the latter, as Zimbabweans have already shown a desire to go in that direction following the contested 2008 elections.
The end of an era? Well, not quite yet. There’s still one dictator in power who officially touts the socialist line while lining his family’s coffers. He’s the inheritor of another man cut from the same cloth. We’re talking, of course, of Arafat’s inheritor, Mahmoud Abbas.
Copyright © 2017 by the Intermountain Jewish News
