Reply #139: Good question

[Vladimir]

The first and obvious point is that South Africa in the 60s and 70s was no longer a colony, but it was a colonial state. The whites ruling it may have been there for a number of generations, but they were still settlers. So it is different from Zimbabwe, where the current government pretty much led the anti-colonial struggle. That does not place Mugabe beyond all criticism, but it does place him in a different category. One might almost view it as a duty to criticise an aparthaid which your own policies largely helped bring about (modern-day apartheid in SA dates back to about 1910, though the form changed over time, and AFAIK the roots of it were at least partly in the peace agreement signed with Britain at the end of the Boer Wars). Zimbabwe on the other hand broke away from colonial rule - its faults after that are its own, and what I would say is that I am simply deeply suspicious of the motives for the criticism. No doubt, progressives should not refrain from criticising Mugabe and supporting Zimbabwean progressives (in or outside Zanu-PF) where we feel mistakes have been made. But our government has no credibility doing it.