Tag Archive

So it seems that the Zimbabwe opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has won the Zimbabwe general election, at least on paper. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) has yet to announce the victory and has at the time of writing banned any “premature” announcements on broadcast media. Secretary-General of the MDC Tendai Biti said that his party “made a mistake” in the 2005 election by not announcing their victory, and went on to state that he does not trust the ZEC which, he said, “is not independent” (Source: Business Day).

Zimbabwe has been under great stress in the last decade, with hyperinflation, a shortage of foreign currency, and problems with the supply of many basic commodities. One can only hope that Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF party, led by the autocratic Robert Mugabe, will accept defeat gracefully and hand over power to the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai so that the long process of governmental reform and economic reconstruction can begin. If (and admittedly, this is a big if) Mugabe does concede defeat, the next chapter of Zimbabwe’s history will move to another phase of decolonisation that began with the fall of Rhodesia, leading to the former freedom fighter’s present anti-western dictatorship. A process which has been mirrored in varying degrees throughout Africa and in parts of the western world.

I was thinking the other day about this process, and in particular what final form each former colony will take. The process itself has necessarily involved the transfer of control of local lands, resources and executive power to indigenous peoples, but I wonder to what extent this must be constitutionally guaranteed. The point is somewhat moot in places like Zimbabwe and South Africa where indigenous populations are now dominant. But in places like Fiji, Australia and New Zealand, the demography reflects a significantly large population of colonial origin that in some cases form a majority. Is it possible to successfully ‘decolonise’ such a nation while retaining a democratic form of government? Fiji’s experience in particular has shown how fraught the process can be, having several military coups over the constitutional protection of indigenous rights since 1987. Zimbabwe lost much of its white population through ‘redistribution’ of farms and other human rights abuses. But it is probably unfair to place the blame for this entirely on Mugabe’s government, which has been in power since the removal of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia. Other colonial nations at least granted early suffrage to their respective indigenous populations; Ian Smith’s white minority regime did not. Civil war - with the attendant instability, corruption and ethnic tensions - may have been inevitable.

In the old days of colonialism, the thinking was that integration could best be achieved with the assimilation of native populations into the imperial family. But perhaps what needs to be assimilated most is the knowledge, history and cultural values of indigenous peoples - not simply as a patsy to contemporary liberal thought - but as recognition that no empire lasts forever, and as a way of ensuring that decolonisation must not necessarily involve the marginalisation of colonial populations through constitutionally racist, non-democratic forms of government. We have already seen how such protectionist (and worse) governance can lead to destructive ethnic tensions and economic flight. It may be a bit early for Zimbabwe to make peace with its own colonial past, but we can hope Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change make good on the promise of his party’s name, and leave corruption, economic oblivion and despotism behind.

On a more whimsical note, yesterday while Stumbling I saw an amusing cartoon depicting various famous characters as exemplars of the various moral orientations in the Dungeons & Dragons™ role-playing game universe. For the geekier among us, this is probably one of the more simplistic yet recognisable ways of describing the moral character of an individual - at least, a fictional one. There’s a good explanation of the system here, but basically your moral orientation - or “alignment” in D&D parlance - is described along two orthogonal axes. One axis indicates whether you are rules-oriented or not (”Lawful vs. Chaotic”); while the other shows whether you consider the needs of others as equally, or less important to your own needs (”Good vs. Evil”). Both axes have a “neutral” value in between the extremes.

After seeing the cartoon, and the list of fictional and real characters mapped against each possible value, I thought it would be fun to place countries along these moral axes - based on my own unbiased opinion, of course. Here we can use domestic and foreign policies of each nation as key indicators, being roughly equivalent to individual behaviour and attitudes toward others.

Lawful Good: Tibet. If I was blogging at the time of Abraham Lincoln, I might have put United States here. As it was, it was actually quite a challenge to think of an acceptable alternative. In the end I picked Tibet (pre-annexation), as a quaintly conservative yet benign country ruled with the velvet glove of theocratic Buddhism.

Neutral Good: New Zealand. Its geographic isolation may give Kiwis a false sense of security on the world stage, but the country has a generally compassionate stance in foreign policy. While not quite as progressive as Sweden, New Zealand has become less traditionally conservative and rules-oriented than some.

Chaotic Good: Sweden. OK, they may be insufferably liberal and progressive, but you have to hand it to them; Sweden manages to take the moral high ground in many global issues. Most recently they made a commitment to be oil-free within 15 years, and they were one of the first nations to grant Universal Suffrage. But to be this progressive you have to be somewhat of a rebel; so they tend to fall at the Chaotic end of the rules spectrum.

Lawful Neutral: United States. The US has a principled, written constitution. But it has suffered in recent times with a “do as I say, and not as I do” reputation. And post-9/11, even their own rule of law and cherished values are being replaced with the mundane imperative of national security.

“True” Neutral: France. France, along with Switzerland is one of the quintessential neutral countries of our time. It is self-interested, to be sure, but not to the point where self-interest excludes all else. Similarly it is also somewhat rule-based, but centuries of invasion has made France strongly individualistic, and that pretty much sums up France’s disposition toward the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Russia. The core nation of the former Soviet Union, Russia is still finding its way after the trials of glasnost and perestroika left it weakened, humiliated and lacking vision. Putin’s current government seeks glory on the international stage once again, but does not appear to be interested in following many rules other than its own few.

Lawful Evil: China. Still a stronghold of the Confucian ideals of familial duty and obedience, China is a byword for tradition, law, and authority by divine mandate. It is also the very definition of self-interest, showing that it is prepared to obtain global parity with other world powers by means fair or foul, through aggression both passive and active, while shamelessly stealing technology as diverse as Horticulture and Stealth.

Neutral Evil: Myanmar. Under an iron rule of military dictatorship, the current regime of Burma showed the world recently just how ruthless it was in repressing its own people in order to survive. Not even the orange-robed monks were safe from the brutality of one of the largest military forces in Asia.

Chaotic Evil: Zimbabwe. This alignment being almost entirely due to the regime of Robert Mugabe. Formerly a freedom fighter in the time of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, and a hero of black nationalism, he is now a despot with questionable sanity, presiding over hyperinflation, nonexistent human rights and a belligerent attitude toward any nation that dares question his withered hegemony.

So there you have it! Hopefully this will not affect my chances of getting an entry visa to some of the above countries should I do a world trip in my autumn years.