Robert Mugabe off the hook as usual
This article entitled « Robert Mugabe off the hook as usual » was published in THE ECONOMIST, a British weekly magazine, on September 12th, 2009, a few months before the Jacob Zuma’s election as South Africa. Elections that may be a new hope towards the future of the democracy in Africa. The leader writer seems to be sceptic concerning the diplomacy inZimbabwe, because of the absolutely power and control of Mugabe throughout Zimbabwe. So, in a first part we will sum up the lead, then, by commenting on the tone and technique used by the journalist to construct his indictment of Mugabe’s dictatorship and the fact that the oppositions are powerless to really counter to him. Last of all, we will assess the journalist’s own vision of the Africa’sdiplomacy over Zimbabwe.
To start with, the journalist mentions a summit meeting where Morgan TSVANGIRAI and his regional club didn’t succeed to make aware that the power sharing deal in Zimbabwe is an illusion. They should only accept that a committee will maybe « review » the organisation of Mugabe’s government.
Then the journalist explains that the eventual election of JacobZuma in South Africa brings new expectations for the first minister, because Jacob Zuma will be more involved and committed against Mugabe’s irresponsible politic.
Concerning Westerners the journalist said that Americans and Europeans support also the implementation of a real democracy in Zimbabwe, thus they would like to see fair election in few months.
To finish the journalist denouncesMugabe’s strategy to escape of a real and total criticism of his politic. Indeed, Robert Mugabe tries to make a semblance of open mindedness but in reality nothing change and the dictatorship still fobbed off the anti-establishment activity by violence and force.
II. The journalist’s criticism:
The journalist targets the reader of the ECONOMIST, he wants to aware everyone of the situation inZimbabwe. He makes a criticism of the inability of the oppositions to stop Robert Mugabe and his dictatorship. First, he emphasises the inefficient of the most important counterbalance: Mr Tsvangirai’s MDC. At the Beginning, the word « again » highlights the fact that one more time, they were unwilling to make things change.
Then, we can say that the journalist takes the opportunity of the summitmeeting to denounce the fact that Zimbabwe government is not democratic. He denounces the inability of the counterbalance to squeeze Mugabe, and the strategy of the latter to delay any progress of the democracy in his country.
The journalist doesn’t really take a side towards the efficient of Jacob Zuma. He says that he represents new hope, and he suggests, indirectly, that he will be betterthan his predecessors. Because he doesn’t practices a « quiet diplomacy », Jacob Zuma tries to squeeze on the importance of power sharing. The journalist emphasises the hope represented by Zuma by saying « No African leader had dared say that before ». The Americans & Europeans are used to give power to his involvement. Indeed, he relates that they disagree with Mugabe’s dictatorship, and theyinsist on the value of democracy to make things change.
In the paragraphs 5 & 6, the journalist uses a debunking technique. First, he begins to expose Mugabe’s concessions, without taking a side. He just describes. However, in the lasts paragraph, he destroys the « concessions » of Mugabe by showing that this « concessions » are just a ruse to lost time, to divert the opposition. The journalistdenounces Mugabe’s strategy to stave off any kind of democratic actions. Indeed, he uses numbers to give realism to his indictment, he hints at the 15 members of MDC who have been arrested without reasons. Then he denounces the murders of white farmers and the fact that 170 of them are convicted for refusing to leave their lands. He uses the facts to show the hypocrisy of Mugabe. At the end, he...
Lire le document complet
Veuillez vous inscrire pour avoir accès au document.