Originally posted by ys
Yeltsin, my dear ignoramus, was facing the biggest economical and political challenge that has ever existed in history. Yet, he ruled for only 10 years, and when he realised that he should go, he relieved the power right away. Yeltsin was democratically elected President in a society with all civil freedoms available.
Mugabe rules his country fo more than two decades and has no intention to go. It will rather be what is left from civil freedoms that are going recently. He is just another African dictator, hanging on his power, nothing else.
You know what, i agree that Mugabe is reluctant to relinquish power. But to claim that he was not democratically elected is IGNORANCE in BLISS. Did he rig the elections? possibly but we don't have prove. Mugabe had been one of the leading lights in Africa Liberation (Something i would like to hear your views on). I bet, for some reason, you had never liked him, even when he was liberating Zimbabwe. Were you very happy for the poor blacks who were fighting for a chance to have a say on their OWN LAND??
At the end of the day, it all comes down to how matured a country's systems of accountability is. A lot of Leaders in the Developed world, left to their own devices, would love to rule forever but the system does not allow them to, and they are not empowered to easily change it. Unforunately, that is not as straight forward in the developing nations.
For your info, Yeltzin only relinquish power because of his FAILING health. He would have continued with some bit of Political manuveurings.
ys, I would like to know from you, your thoughts about Zimbabwe under Ian Smith (the last white ruler). What life was for Whites, and then Blacks. I get FLABBERGASTED how anyone could downplay Issue of Whites savagely STEALING the land of the Black Zimbabwean, and expect people to just roll over. God give me strength!!!!