The Latest from Zimbabwe

 

Robert Mugabe is under house arrest by the Zimbabwe military, according to this article from the Guardian. Zimbabwe has been a mess of a country since Mugabe went about confiscating lands and inflating the currency in the early 2000s, taking it from what was once a sort of second South Africa, in terms of its economy and agriculture, into an absolute wreck of a nation.

When Zimbabwe was formed from the wreck of Rhodesia, it held the promise of an amicable, or at least uneasy racial peace between whites and blacks, and for the first 20 years of its existence it remained, while a dictatorship, at least a reasonably benevolent one. I remember, in reading Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs of her term as Prime Minister, the high hopes she held out for the peace and prosperity of the former British colony. In the last 20 years, though, Mugabe has essentially destroyed that nation, turning it into a net importer of food, and having a worthless currency, all in pursuit of a delayed racial reparations that was coupled to tribal cronyism and oppression.

We should now all hope and pray that Zimbabwe will eventually stabilize and transition back to the prosperous country it once was, and could well be again.

Zimbabwe remained in political limbo a day and a half after the military takeover that appears to have put an end to Robert Mugabe’s 37-year grip on power.

Talks between the president, who has been confined to his residence in Harare by the army, and senior military officers continued on Thursday morning, with senior church leaders and envoys sent from neighbouring South Africa involved in mediation efforts.

The Zimbabwean capital remained tense but calm amid the political uncertainty. Troops have secured the airport, government offices, parliament and other key sites.

The rest of the country has remained peaceful. The takeover has been cautiously welcomed by many Zimbabweans.

The military declared on national television in the early hours of Wednesday morning that it had temporarily taken control of the country to “target criminals” around the 93-year-old president. It now seems likely that the ruthless rule of the world’s oldest leader will be definitively over within days.

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mim526 Inactive
    Mim526
    @Mim526

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    anonymous (View Comment):

    SkipSul: We should now all hope and pray that Zimbabwe will eventually stabilize and transition back to the prosperous country it once was, and could well be again.

    Ain’t going to happen. Zimbabwe has a mean IQ (measured, according to Lynn and Vanhanen) of 66. The only way they’ll achieve the prosperity they had under colonial rule is to return to some new form of colonial rule, which may be happening economically by Chinese (mean IQ 100, probably 105 for educated city dwellers) involvement in the region.

    John I you were on NRO they would fire you for that sort of talk.

    Mental acuity is an asset, of course. But claims of superiority – mental, physical, whatever – can skate too close to master race style thinking for my taste. Give me opportunity coupled with a curious mind, desire to learn, and willingness to work your butt off over a genius any day of the week.

    No amount of hard work will overcome an IQ of 66. It just won’t.

    Let me put it this way: No one who posts on Ricochet has an IQ below 100.

    I imagine there are people in Zimbabwe whose IQs are above 66. Haven’t studied that country or its history, but I reject the idea that any people as a nation are so stupid they cannot function without an overlord. Disadvantaged, undereducated, under developed, can be changed; though too often in history they’ve ended up subjugated by more developed nations.

    There is a credible study in which the mean IQ is 66. Mild MR is 55-70 according to the DSM V. Have you worked with this population before? I have. Education does not change IQ by more than a SD. It just does not. You can reject the idea, but IQ test are one of the most accurate tests we have for predicting success in modern society. Maybe you don’t need it in rural, but it is critical in the modern world, and growing more so as automation replaces basic tasks. you have to be smarter to use a tractor than you do a hoe.

    I’ve worked with mentally handicapped and gifted.  My experience/education is that EQ is increasingly a more important success indicator than IQ.  I get your technology point, though I think some of the affect is generational as well.  I’m more tech savvy than my parents, but the younger generation in my family has left us all in the dust.

    I’ll end with this.  Not long ago I saw the story of a young Downs Syndrome man who has a gift for making beautiful, simple pottery.  He supports himself and helps his family through the sale of his art.  That young man is a success.

    • #31
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    He doesn’t define it outright that I recall, but does use traditional family values as a placeholder. Babies before marriage == immoral, babies in marriage == moral, etc. I probably should re-read it. It’s been a few years. I strongly recommend it for anyone who really wants to make a positive impact on society.

    I should probably read it, too.

    • #32
  3. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    anonymous (View Comment):

    SkipSul: We should now all hope and pray that Zimbabwe will eventually stabilize and transition back to the prosperous country it once was, and could well be again.

    Ain’t going to happen. Zimbabwe has a mean IQ (measured, according to Lynn and Vanhanen) of 66. The only way they’ll achieve the prosperity they had under colonial rule is to return to some new form of colonial rule, which may be happening economically by Chinese (mean IQ 100, probably 105 for educated city dwellers) involvement in the region.

    John I you were on NRO they would fire you for that sort of talk.

    Mental acuity is an asset, of course. But claims of superiority – mental, physical, whatever – can skate too close to master race style thinking for my taste. Give me opportunity coupled with a curious mind, desire to learn, and willingness to work your butt off over a genius any day of the week.

    No amount of hard work will overcome an IQ of 66. It just won’t.

    Let me put it this way: No one who posts on Ricochet has an IQ below 100.

    I imagine there are people in Zimbabwe whose IQs are above 66. Haven’t studied that country or its history, but I reject the idea that any people as a nation are so stupid they cannot function without an overlord. Disadvantaged, under educated, under developed, can be changed; though too often in history they’ve ended up subjugated by more developed or stronger nations.

    I don’t have any research or evidence to back this up, but it seems intuitive that people of higher IQ would be more likely to flee a country in turmoil than would people of a low IQ, meaning that turmoil in a system over generations is likely to breed a populace of increasingly lower IQ, having nothing to do with race or nationality but simple ability and self-determinism.

    • #33
  4. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Are there studies relating general intelligence levels to the amount of freedom and the nature of the legal system. Sowell makes the point that waves of immigrants, even Jews, start out with below average I.Q.s.

    Commercial (trading?) societies are more prosperous, and which makes a difference to diet, which in turn impacts on intelligence.

    One reason cohorts of migrants to countries like the US see IQ rise in the second and third generation is that finally people are getting enough good food to eat.

     

     

    • #34
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    anonymous (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    I don’t have any research or evidence to back this up, but it seems intuitive that people of higher IQ would be more likely to flee a country in turmoil than would people of a low IQ, meaning that turmoil in a system over generations is likely to breed a populace of increasingly lower IQ, having nothing to do with race or nationality but simple ability and self-determinism.

    This was a phenomenon even during the colonial age when countries were relatively tranquil compared to the post-colonial era. The British and French colonial regimes (less so for the Portuguese, Belgians, Germans, and others) had a deliberate policy of identifying bright students and sending them off to university in the colonial power with the goal of developing a native administrative and professional class. But what frequently happened is that these people, among the most gifted in the colony, would, after graduation, find their opportunities in the developed country far greater than those back home and would find a way to stay, taking advantage of the contacts they’d made at university. Over time, this created a brain drain which skimmed off the elite and depleted the human capital of the colony.

    This only accelerated in the chaos after decolonisation. Suppose you’re a bright engineer, physician, lawyer, or scientist who has just received a professional degree from Cambridge, the Sorbonne, or UCLA, and you have job offers in the country of your education from employers ready to jump through the (not all that difficult) hoops to get you residency and a work permit. When you weigh the opportunities there versus returning, what would you do?

    This is why some in the developing world view those who advocate policies such as “every Ph.D. should come with a green card attached” as destructive.

    I’m not sure this effect is sufficiently large to make much difference in mean IQ of the population, but it damages the human capital of developing countries by exporting their cognitive èlite.

    I have long believed that there are not enough above average intelligence people to spread the American/Western way of life around the world. As a species, we are not yet smart enough. America already has to import really smart people just to keep up. There is a real brain drain.

    I am sorry if people don’t like the IQ=Success model, but all studies show it does. EQ is a nice thing to talk about, but being smart is always better than being stupid. Always.

    • #35
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Are there studies relating general intelligence levels to the amount of freedom and the nature of the legal system. Sowell makes the point that waves of immigrants, even Jews, start out with below average I.Q.s.

    Commercial (trading?) societies are more prosperous, and which makes a difference to diet, which in turn impacts on intelligence.

    One reason cohorts of migrants to countries like the US see IQ rise in the second and third generation is that finally people are getting enough good food to eat.

    I think this may have something to do with it. IQ in America has gone up over time. We have been well fed since before the revolution.

    • #36
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    anonymous (View Comment):

    The British and French colonial regimes (less so for the Portuguese, Belgians, Germans, and others) had a deliberate policy of identifying bright students and sending them off to university in the colonial power with the goal of developing a native administrative and professional class. But what frequently happened is that these people, among the most gifted in the colony, would, after graduation, find their opportunities in the developed country far greater than those back home and would find a way to stay, taking advantage of the contacts they’d made at university. Over time, this created a brain drain which skimmed off the elite and depleted the human capital of the colony.

    I don’t know about France, but there was very little migration to Britain from the Empire (especially the non-white Empire) before WWII.  That’s why it was so traumatic for Britain when it did occur – they weren’t used to it.

    This only accelerated in the chaos after decolonisation. Suppose you’re a bright engineer, physician, lawyer, or scientist who has just received a professional degree from Cambridge, the Sorbonne, or UCLA, and you have job offers in the country of your education from employers ready to jump through the (not all that difficult) hoops to get you residency and a work permit. When you weigh the opportunities there versus returning, what would you do?

    Again – wrt Britain, one reason that there was so much migration from the poorer portions of the Empire to Britain (and Canada) after WWII was that the Empire was basically replaced by the Commonwealth – which, until about 1962, included freedom of movement for its citizens to the UK (and theoretically to each Commonwealth country, though that was eroded almost immediately).

    This is why some in the developing world view those who advocate policies such as “every Ph.D. should come with a green card attached” as destructive.

    I’m not sure this effect is sufficiently large to make much difference in mean IQ of the population, but it damages the human capital of developing countries by exporting their cognitive èlite.

    It’s not a one way trip – China, and now India, both benefit from their diaspora.

    • #37
  8. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    anonymous (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):
    I don’t have any research or evidence to back this up, but it seems intuitive that people of higher IQ would be more likely to flee a country in turmoil than would people of a low IQ, meaning that turmoil in a system over generations is likely to breed a populace of increasingly lower IQ, having nothing to do with race or nationality but simple ability and self-determinism.

    This was a phenomenon even during the colonial age when countries were relatively tranquil compared to the post-colonial era. The British and French colonial regimes (less so for the Portuguese, Belgians, Germans, and others) had a deliberate policy of identifying bright students and sending them off to university in the colonial power with the goal of developing a native administrative and professional class. But what frequently happened is that these people, among the most gifted in the colony, would, after graduation, find their opportunities in the developed country far greater than those back home and would find a way to stay, taking advantage of the contacts they’d made at university. Over time, this created a brain drain which skimmed off the elite and depleted the human capital of the colony.

    This only accelerated in the chaos after decolonisation. Suppose you’re a bright engineer, physician, lawyer, or scientist who has just received a professional degree from Cambridge, the Sorbonne, or UCLA, and you have job offers in the country of your education from employers ready to jump through the (not all that difficult) hoops to get you residency and a work permit. When you weigh the opportunities there versus returning, what would you do?

    This is why some in the developing world view those who advocate policies such as “every Ph.D. should come with a green card attached” as destructive.

    I’m not sure this effect is sufficiently large to make much difference in mean IQ of the population, but it damages the human capital of developing countries by exporting their cognitive élite.

    John,

    This was the way it was for my father’s graduate students back in the 1950s & 1960s. He had graduate students from all over the world. Many when they first came had plans to go back. However, after a while, they liked the freedom and the general prosperity of the US and they became aware of the quality opportunities that they would have here. They didn’t go back but found an excellent job here and stayed becoming citizens.

    One of the things that make things different now is the emergent economy phenomena. There are strong opportunities and a sense of rising standards of living in places that never had them before. Zimbabwe may have been so traumatized by its own obsessions that it still hasn’t started to look outward for opportunities. Of course, many of the emergent countries have a good basic school system and reasonable government controls. Their populations are reliable workers if not brilliant or aggressive. That’s enough now to get into the emergent action. Zimbabwe may be lagging way behind and Mugabe may have been a symptom, not the cause. I don’t claim any expertise but it’s worth looking at it objectively and not falling for some Marxist colonial diatribe that will only exacerbate the real problems.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #38
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.