No, not at all.
Based on the experience you have had in Nigeria, history that I learnt on my own, I never felt a coup was the right way to change a government. The use of the military to seize power was utterly reprehensible. That is the reason I suspect Petina Gappah (paid to?) lied about the people of Zimbabwe as the force that removed Mugabe. As events have since exposed it, the truth of the matter is that this was a blatant coup. Look at:
(i) the horrendous human carnage at the slightest excuse;
(ii) the economy in a terrible tailspin,, with the current tenant in the presidency reportedly saying the economy has collapsed;
(iii) the complete cluelessness of the marionette, formerly Mugabe's personal bodyguard, put in power to sanitize a complete institutional despotism .
(iv) the frittering away of public monies with impunity and without accountability.
(v) the deep distrust within the camp of the people who forged convenient but friable bonds of solidarity in staging a coup. The distrust and whispered reports of deadly intrigues involving poisoned food and drinking water, who is to say another violet and non-electoral change of power is not likely to happen?
Coups, as you very well know, spawn other coups. Each subsequent coup gets deadlier than the previous coups. The unpredictability of time of another coup means the situation will always be in a dangerous flux.
Given a choice between a civilian government by a dying Mugabe and a military government willing to commit atrocities before the eyes of the whole world, I say the latter was preferrable. People may not openly admit it, but, believe it or not, there is a muted and growing admission that the situation is far worse off today than it was when a British-sponsored coup was stage and fobbed off as a brave act of the Zimbabwean citizenry dislodging Mugabe from power to give his notoriously cruel henchmen free reign to do as it pleases.
https://www.facebook.com/bvumavaranda.technocrat/posts/1301672816669358?comment_id=1301692410000732&reply_comment_id=1301736293329677¬if_id=1567806926099949¬if_t=feed_comment
Based on the experience you have had in Nigeria, history that I learnt on my own, I never felt a coup was the right way to change a government. The use of the military to seize power was utterly reprehensible. That is the reason I suspect Petina Gappah (paid to?) lied about the people of Zimbabwe as the force that removed Mugabe. As events have since exposed it, the truth of the matter is that this was a blatant coup. Look at:
(i) the horrendous human carnage at the slightest excuse;
(ii) the economy in a terrible tailspin,, with the current tenant in the presidency reportedly saying the economy has collapsed;
(iii) the complete cluelessness of the marionette, formerly Mugabe's personal bodyguard, put in power to sanitize a complete institutional despotism .
(iv) the frittering away of public monies with impunity and without accountability.
(v) the deep distrust within the camp of the people who forged convenient but friable bonds of solidarity in staging a coup. The distrust and whispered reports of deadly intrigues involving poisoned food and drinking water, who is to say another violet and non-electoral change of power is not likely to happen?
Coups, as you very well know, spawn other coups. Each subsequent coup gets deadlier than the previous coups. The unpredictability of time of another coup means the situation will always be in a dangerous flux.
Given a choice between a civilian government by a dying Mugabe and a military government willing to commit atrocities before the eyes of the whole world, I say the latter was preferrable. People may not openly admit it, but, believe it or not, there is a muted and growing admission that the situation is far worse off today than it was when a British-sponsored coup was stage and fobbed off as a brave act of the Zimbabwean citizenry dislodging Mugabe from power to give his notoriously cruel henchmen free reign to do as it pleases.
No comments:
Post a Comment