In a world where international news headlines are dominated by American policy in the Middle East, lesser-known predicaments across the globe are often not treated with the urgency they require and deserve. A particular instance of this can be seen in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe has been running his country in a very un-democratic fashion for the last twenty years. Recently his style of rule has heaped endemic strife upon Zimbabwe: food shortages, the world’s fastest shrinking economy, and the re-distribution of white farmers’ lands have all raised the ire of the international community.

Re-distribution of farmland is blamed by Mugabe’s political opposition for the destruction of the economy and the skyrocketing rate of inflation—1,700%—the highest in the world. In light of the fact that this man and his government are playing an incredibly active if not primary role in the decimation of Zimbabwe and the morale of its people, the question must be asked: how much more of Mugabe is the world willing to take?

In Zimbabwe, small steps are being taken to oust Mugabe. Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai has stood in courageously against multiple political blows from Mugabe. He has repeatedly been called a traitor, assaulted, and charged with treason all in efforts to wrench his country from Mugabe’s grip. He gained political experience working with miners as a labor organizer, and his lack of formal education and working-class background have drawn criticism from Mugabe, who refers to him as an “ignoramus.” He, unlike Mugabe, appears to have his heart in the right place and is concerned with fairness, integrity, and economic revitalization that would dramatically re-shape the Zimbabwe the international community has grown accustomed to over the last twenty years. Is his progress sustainable? That is to be determined. He has yet to really legitimately assert himself in the political arena, due to Mugabe’s stranglehold on Zimbabwean government. Tsvangirai is also prone to rather impetuous choices, for example engaging in talks planning to assassinate Mugabe. For this he was charged with the death penalty, but later acquitted.

    
With the feebleness of political efforts within the country, other sources have been perhaps more instrumental in advocating the ousting of Robert Mugabe. Particularly, newspapers across Africa have helped turn the tide of opinion against the man. Uganda’s Daily Monitor, South Africa’s Business Day, and Botswana’s Mmegi are just some of the news outlets that have taken very explicit stances on Mugabe’s actions. In the Ugandan Daily Monitor it reads:

“It should be apparent that Mr Mugabe has outlived his welcome. His obsession with holding onto power at whatever cost must be rejected by all civilized peoples... While this tragedy is played out, many African governments have looked the other way.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6453701.stm)

In sub-Saharan Africa, which saw its share of violence in the 20th century, we can only hope that the region has grown weary of such senselessness and power-hungry government, and major news outlets can help spur reaction against the man who is on his way to wrecking what was once the breadbasket of Africa.

Other governments—not just press sources—have come to see the destructive power of the out-of-control Mugabe regime. Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa says, “Zimbabwe is like the Titanic. When it sinks it could take the rest of its neighbors down with it” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6504039.stm). Even South Africa, sub-Saharan Africa’s regional power, has become actively concerned by Mugabe’s threat. Mugabe’s policies are responsible for floods of immigrants from Zimbabwe entering South Africa. Zimbabwe could also influence the World Cup being played in South Africa in 2010. The event is scheduled to be held there, but talk of the deteriorating condition of the region, due primarily to Zimbabwe’s struggles, hints that if conditions are bad enough, the event could actually be moved. This would be a devastating blow to South Africa, which is awaiting the opportunity to showcase its nation on a world stage. After years of a policy of “quiet opposition” South Africa is now willing to speak out openly about Zimbabwe, after an issue earlier this year involving the physical beatings of Mugabe’s political opposition (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6451349.stm).

The most frightening aspect of the situation in Zimbabwe is the degree to which it is neglected in America. To see some semblance of an opinion or reaction to a situation that is impairing a very large region of the world would be reassuring. Overly specific concentration on Middle Eastern policy, disregarding other potentially volatile situations, is not a good strategy for implementing democracy in the world and hoping to achieve peace abroad.