why JAF is wrong with respect to MUGABE?

just because someone fights against European Colonialism does not necessarily mean that that person is for universal justice among his own people. Many of us have failed to realize that many individuals in history have fought against colonialism with the intention of replacing the colonial rulers with regional and native cronyism. It is this failure to recognize original intent and the change in behavior that would lead many intelligent people to even attempt to excuse the actions of a Mugabe; And I have seen minority politicians here in America take advantage of that mind-set to hide their disparaging abuse and behavior behind alleged systematic racism. People in power are by definition corruptible because the very nature of power can mislead people into developing Messianic complex and self-righteousness; And Black politicians are not immune to that contrary to what many want to beleive. that is the reason that democracy is the people's best guard against political abuse because it allows the people to judge their leaders on the basis of what they are doing, rather on the basis of the leaders' original intentions or what they did in the past.

Look how Mugabe takes advantage of his people: he knows full well that colonized people are generally suspicious of their former colonial masters. so, to dismiss any legitimate criticism from some western governments, he would appeal to his people's emotional remembrance of history by claiming that it is a western ploy to recolonize the people; similarly, when an African-American politician is caught in some scandal, he would appeal to the past by claiming that it is a "Hoover" move against a Black man, and that he is allegedly a victim of the same pattern historically used against black leaders in an attempt to discredit them. the problem with this is that sooner or later, crooks will far outnumber true victims because game theory predicts that same kind of swing.
when confronted with the cholera problem, Mugabe claimed it to be an external case of bio-warfare against his people because he knew that may excuse his incompetence and tyranny by appealing to historical emotionalism. After all, it is quite a plausible thought considering the history of white colonial powers in Africa; but plausibility is not synonymous with truth. Mugabe is abusing and using his people just as the colonial powers had done by taking advantage of the native people's weaknesses.

was the seizure of the lands from the White Zimbabweans an attempt to redistribute the resources as to create a more egalitarian society? no, the lands went straight to high officials in the ZANU cadre; and in many cases, the lands are left idle without an eventual plan for useful exploitation.
the people of zimbabwe are now suffering, not because of western conspiration, but because mubage and his cronies are destroying zimbabwe. zimbabwe has the highest rate of literacy in africa, and the most educated civil servant class in subsaharan africa with fertile land of southern africa. yet with these conditions, zimbabwe cannot even feed its people. why? it is the evil of mugabe that has left his country in disarray, not western conspiracy.

I am beginning to get very tired with the view that if one criticizes a democratically elected official, then that person must be anti-democratic or unpatriotic. keep in mind that some national constitutions have a "recall clause". it is a form of buyer's remorse just as in business there are certain conditions under which I can return a previously bought product for a refund. i reject that fanatical view because it is very close to a form of personality cult.
it is also that form of extremism that would lead some liberal people from arguing that all conservatives are closeted racists or sexists. I believe that someone can make legitimate criticism of president Aristide without being unpatriotic or anti-people. Similarly I reject the view that someone must be an idiot or chimere to support president Aristide. both the unnecessary demonization and cult of personality are wrong for our political discourse.
I reject fanatics on both side of the political divide!

The issue is not yes-lavalas or no-lavalas, but rather Haiti. this is a false dichotomy.
what do people mean by for or against the return of president Aristide? if they mean a return to political power as president, i am against that; but if they mean for the former president to be allowed to return to his native country with his full rights of citizenship, I am absolutely for that both on ethical and legal grounds.

i am against president Aristid back into the political game for many reasons:
i think that he is too much a polarizing figure for him to be able to really move Haiti forward.
second, there already is a democratically elected president with a mandate that cannot be annulled to correct an historical wrong-doing.
third, i think that president Aristide can do a lot of good in the educational sphere; after all, this is someone who managed to complete his Phd.while in exile.

I am for president Aristide to return to his native country with his full rights of citizenship and with the dignity owned to a democratically elected president; but I categorically reject any potential political come-back.

I think Jaf should answer keen's observations in regard to President Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe .I do not think Jaf is an apologist of President Mugabe's economic policy or his relentless pursuit of power.

my interpretation of jaf's opinions is to show us that we should not listen to the international press only to condemn president Mugabe because there are big interests that prevent us to have a fair opinion of the situation.We know very well what can happened to the nationalists who want that their national resources serve their people instead of some multi nationals who explopit these resources without any benefits for the autochtones.We know what happened to Patrice Lumumba, to Thomas Sankara and to other nationalist african Presidents .

One cannot condone any President who refuses to obey the will of the people in a fair election,but we should be careful before we demonize those who sacrifice their lives for the advancement of our people.Indeed we should not tolerate them when they abuse their power because of what they have done in the past ,but we should be vigilant not to be robots who can not differentiate between propaganda and realities.I do not think the situation in Zimbabwe is the result only of bad decisions taken by President Mugabe.

Sans malice, if what you are saying is correct with regard to JAF's position, then JAF could have chosen a valid example like this one: the nation of Malawi defied the officials from IMF in its decision to subsidize its small farmers with fertilizers and loans, something that led to a food boom in Malawi despite the dire warnings of IMF economists; in fact malawi is supplying much of zimbabwe's food. JAF's support of mugabe was not ambiguous. no one misundertood jaf's position here. I think that this is a case of racial solidarity going insane. the reason that a man of Jaf's intelligence would remotely justify the actions of man like mugabe can only be explained by the race factor. i know that jaf might call me a "colon local" or an " uncle tom", but I refuse to be fooled by the deceptions of race solidarity. what matters is the humanity, and competence of the leaders, not whether they look like me or were born in the same village as me. Down with Mugabe and all oppressors and racists whether they are colonists, nativists or nationalists.
Muagbe is oppressing the activists for civil liberties in his country, and stole an election but he is using western imperialistic history as an excuse to fool honest people just as duvalier was using color prejudice and communism as excuses to oppress Haitians. I have seen this movie played before throughout history, and it stinks like "s..t".

yes, but that does not mean that it is happening to Mugabe. that argument is actually moot because you have already accepted that such is not the case with Mugabe.
I have great respect for Jaf's dynamism, intellect, and good intentions, but Jaf is also a convenient moralist whose writings sometimes reflect a certain level of intellectual dishonesty and political propaganda.