Last week, as President Robert Mugabe reaped global opprobrium for rigging the election in Zimbabwe, I found myself asking, what went wrong? Not with the latest election — that’s obvious. No, I meant what went wrong over the years with Mugabe?

I first encountered him in 1979. I was part of the London press corps covering the Lancaster House agreement that transformed Rhodesia, a British colony, into the independent nation of Zimbabwe. Mr. Mugabe and his rival, Joshua Nkomo, sought to succeed Ian Smith and his essentially white Rhodesian Front government. Lord Peter Carrington, foreign secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was in the chair. And all of us were watching.

To many of my press colleagues, Mugabe seemed the perfect successor. They impatiently dismissed complaints about his terrorist past and Marxist credentials. Instead, they painted him as the thinking man’s militant whose list of scholarly degrees, meshed with his ten years spent in jail without trial, produced a seductive blend of martyr, philosopher, and activist. I found myself less taken with the man. And I remember chastising myself. Was I being unduly harsh or moralistic? I wondered. What were my colleagues seeing that I was missing? Were they simply much more astute commentators than I?

This is not an “I-told-you-so” column: I’m claiming no courageous insight here. Sadly, I never plunged beneath the surface, never wrote a definitive piece exposing Mugabe’s flaws. As he was swept into power, I simply reported on the process. And at first, he seemed the right choice. But as the years went by, the downward spiral began. Now the results are clear: a ruined economy, a cowed populace, a corrupt government, and a tyranny propped up by force and fraud. What went wrong?

The answer is not in Mugabe — just as it’s not in Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Chairman Mao, or the rest of the world’s tyrants. It has to do with the inevitable lightness of dictatorship — the systemic inability of a tyranny to achieve gravitas, to find its moral ballast, to sustain success. To see why that’s so, consider these distinctions — admittedly broad-brush — between dictatorship and democracy:

• Dictatorship is all about persons — the “rule of men.” Democracy seeks to be about the “rule of law.”
• Dictators view life through a simplistic, right-versus-wrong moral lens — with themselves inevitably right. Democracies agonize over right-versus-right choices, where each side is well-meaning and the highest right must prevail.
• Since everything else is “wrong,” dictators must win at all costs. Members of a democracy must be willing to lose — that’s the essence of government by majority consent.
• To be sure of winning, dictators create their own external threats and artificial enemies, justifying extreme measures and focusing their populaces on something other than their government’s failings. Democracies try to analyze real threats and weaknesses, knowing that only accurate knowledge can produce effective countermeasures.
• Fearing change, dictatorships draw inward, silence the opposition, and sink into paranoia. Embracing change, democracies are good at expanding outward, engaging different voices, and building new arenas of trust.

Bottom line: Dictators prize loyalty above all else. And that, finally, accounts for their inevitable emptiness. With a fixation on allegiance and a dread of competition from underlings, dictators surround themselves with second-rate colleagues. In choosing government officials, they relegate competence, experience, and wisdom to secondary roles — not only at the cabinet level, but right to the bottom of the political food chain. In such a culture, the pool of candidates is sharply reduced, holding only those who pass the loyalty litmus. The result is perfectly foreseeable: inept government, incompetent policy, and a slide toward corruption among those with no higher calling to office than to sustain the dictator and enrich themselves.

What went wrong with Mugabe? He failed to defend himself against the allure of power. Painting himself into a corner of his choosing, he cannot now escape. Like so many dictators, he must cling to power at all costs, fearing that to lose would mean death at his enemies’ hands. That’s another contrast to democracies: They usually transfer power peacefully, making loss unpleasant but not fatal.

The issue here is not peculiar to Mugabe, nor to Africa, nor even to nation states. Tyranny crops up everywhere — in families, schools, churches, corporations, the professions. It’s not hard to spot. It puts loyalty first. It daily grows shallower, lighter, and less effective. And it ends, tragically, in disarray. It’s all about people, and people always end. Democracy is all about ideas, which exist far beyond those who think them.

(c)2002 by the Institute for Global Ethics

“Smoking is being positioned as an unfashionable, as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every creative means at our disposal to reverse this destructive trend. I do feel heartened at the increasing number of occasions when I go to a movie and see a pack of cigarettes in the hands of the leading lady.”

CHICAGO
The possible collapse of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm tainted by the Enron scandal, could spell disaster for some of the firm’s 2,300 clients, which could be forced to find new auditors en masse — a market flood the industry likely could not absorb, analysts warned last week.

But the scramble could also lead to higher standards among the remaining accounting firms, said Paul Brown, chairman of the accounting department at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

“It could be that these other firms are going to be so squeaky clean, so vigilant,” Brown told the New York Times. “That would be the best thing to happen out of all this.”

Andersen has been badly bruised over its handling of Enron, whose books received the stamp of approval from Andersen for years before Enron finally imploded.

After accounting irregularities contributed to Enron’s collapse, Andersen began taking heat for complicity, leading to last week’s federal charges of obstruction of justice, according to the Times.

As Andersen struggles to settle lawsuits arising from its handling of Enron, the firm is also fending off bankruptcy concerns while trying to woo possible merger partners. So far, the firm has had few suitors.

SÃO PAULO
A top U.S. commerce official last week admitted that the government’s decision to slap foreign steel imports with steep tariffs was a move motivated more by politics than economics — an admission that came as little surprise to many critics and analysts.

Speaking to Brazilian business leaders, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said the tariffs, which could reach as high as 30 percent on some steel imports, were needed to win support from key political groups in the United States.

“We are committed to moving forward with free trade, but, like Brazil, we have to manage political support for free trade at home,” Zoellick, a key proponent of the tariffs, said. “We have to create coalitions.”

The tariffs, announced earlier this month, have received a harsh welcome from most industry and economic analysts, who characterize them as protectionist measures meant to prop up an inherently weak U.S. steel industry.

But that industry is big business in the U.S. heartland states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia — states that President Bush wants to win for Republicans in this year’s election, and for himself in 2004, reported BusinessWeek.

While the steel tariffs, set to last for three years, may help the industry in the short run, they are likely to fail in the long, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. steel industry has received more than $17 billion in government subsidies, all the while foundering badly, with sector employment falling more than 75 percent in the same period, according to the Journal.

The Bush administration’s decision was described as “the most protectionist move of any U.S. president in at least two decades” by the Journal, which noted that a raft of retaliatory tariffs from steel-producing nations and Europe is likely to follow.

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Senate last week killed a measure that would have raised fuel efficiency requirements for U.S.-made automobiles, with reform supporters accusing the conservative majority of using scare tactics and rhetoric to block higher mileage standards, which have not changed since 1975.

For more than a quarter century, U.S. autos have been allowed to get persistently low gas mileage while simultaneously growing bigger, heavier, and more gas-guzzling, especially in the form of sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), according to a report from the Reuters news agency.

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) had introduced a bill that would raise average fuel economy standards from 24 miles per gallon to 36 mpg by 2015, reported the Washington Post.

The Kerry-McCain proposal set off a torrent of rhetoric and bitter debate, with critics accusing supporters of trying to take SUVs away from soccer moms, and “picking on pickup” trucks and the American way of life.

“I don’t want every American to have to drive this car,” Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said, holding up a picture of an ultra-small European subcompact car made by DaimlerChrysler.

Kerry denounced Lott and auto industry lobbyists for using “extraordinary, ridiculous scare tactics” to distort the science of his proposal, which relied on a 2001 report from the National Academy of Sciences, which said technology now exists to produce more efficient cars without sacrificing safety.

The Kerry-McCain proposal was dealt a death blow by most of the Senate’s Republicans, who were joined by a handful of Democrats worried that the new measure would cost jobs in the U.S. auto industry. Instead, the Senate agreed to ask the Transportation Department to assess fuel-efficiency changes over the next two years, and passed another proposal exempting pick-ups from any mandated improvements.

Lamenting last week’s votes, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) accused the Senate of ceding energy independence “to the special interests,” warning that now “America will have to bow down to OPEC for years to come.”

WASHINGTON
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) workers have used government credit cards to charge more than $62 million in bad debt, forcing taxpayers to cough up funds to cover travel expenses, personal gifts, and groceries.

“DOD credit cards are being taken on a shopping spree, and the cardholders think they are immune from punishment,” Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) testified last week at a congressional hearing. “And they are.”

In a bid to reduce red tape, the Defense Department has issued more than 1.7 million credit cards to its workers, asking them to charge and pay for legitimate expenses themselves, and reimbursing the government later.

That system is malfunctioning badly, Grassley warned last week, with DOD workers — from civilians to military officers — defaulting on $1million in bad charges each month, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The scandal first came to light last summer, when the General Accounting Office issued a report noting a growing backlog of bad charges made by DOD workers — often without any punitive follow-up.

While most of the $9 billion charged annually on the DOD cards is repaid, a significant amount is misspent and never recovered, with one worker — who was later promoted — charging $12,000 in personal gifts, travel expenses, and groceries.

Defense procurement director Deidre Lee defended her agency’s efforts to recover the bad debts, insisting that the DOD is “painfully aware of the issues” and committed to stanching abuse.

HARARE, Zimbabwe
Western nations and human-rights groups denounced last week’s presidential elections in Zimbabwe, accusing incumbent leader Robert Mugabe of using intimidation and fraud to steal victory from the opposition.

After three days of voting, Mugabe last week declared himself the victor in a bitterly contested election that many press reports say was marked by voter repression, stuffed ballot boxes, inflated vote totals, and chaotic voting conditions.

Mugabe’s win allows him to continue his 22-year rule for another six years — a period his critics say is likely to be marked by continued corruption and suppression.

His opponent in the election, Morgan Tsvangirai, promised in his campaign to crack down on corruption, put more emphasis on the battle against AIDS, and end Mugabe’s militant policy of seizing white-owned farms.

Tsvangirai, who called last week’s results “daylight robbery,” has now been charged with treason, and faces an uncertain future, reported the New York Times.

Last week, a chorus of protest came from Western nations, including the United States, Norway, and Britain, which threatened to impose penalties and withhold financial support in retaliation for Mugabe’s actions and hostility to election monitors.

“Mugabe can claim victory but not democratic legitimacy,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared last week, accusing Mugabe’s government of “blatant disregard for the rule of law and of serious human rights abuses.”

British Home Secretary Jack Straw also condemned Mugabe and his government, saying they “exploited every instrument of the state to distort the electoral process,” reported the Reuters news agency.

In stark counterpoint to Western protests, many African nations – Namibia, Nigeria, and South Africa chief among them — welcomed Mugabe’s victory, offering congratulations and calling the election free and fair.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

VANCOUVER
Two women from British Columbia have launched a class-action lawsuit against three of Canada’s largest banks, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), and the Bank of Montreal (BMO), claiming the banks violated consumer protection laws by overcharging interest on unpaid credit-card bills.

In particular, the women are alleging that credit-card owners are overcharged by paying interest from the time they purchase items with their cards, known as the transaction date, if they do not pay their credit-cards bills in full.

Cherly Dahl and Donna Lewis are arguing that there is a time lag between the transaction date and when the banks that issue the credit cards pay the merchants, known as the posting date. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, David Rosenberg, is arguing that the banks are charging interest on funds they have not advanced, and may also be misrepresenting the interest rates in violation of Canadian consumer protection laws.

If the plaintiffs win their case, owners of CIBC, BMO, and RBC credit cards could be entitled to millions of dollars in repayments.

OSLO
Norway is preparing to push the nation’s corporations to give women a greater say in how companies are run, threatening to mandate that 40 percent of seats on corporate boards are filled by women.

The proposal would require state-owned firms to adopt the new 40-percent standard within one year. Private firms would have three years to comply, reported the Associated Press.

Norway, which has strict antidiscrimination laws, is a longtime leader in the drive for gender equality, with citizens electing the nation’s first female prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, in 1981.

But the business world has stubbornly remained the bastion of men, with women filling only 7 percent of the country’s top management posts and only 6 percent of board seats, according to the AP.

Last week’s proposal received a mixed reception, with some arguing that the measure would simply give women a long-overdue helping hand, while others claimed it would lead to tokenism and interference with corporate autonomy.

LONDON
Britain’s golf and gentleman’s clubs will be forced to give equal standing, footing, and tee times to women under a new law being pushed by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour government.

The proposed law, which has received strong government backing, would require golf and men’s clubs that have female members to give those women equal rights to facilities, voting, and leadership roles.

The move, amending the Sex Discrimination Act, comes after calls for voluntary reform have failed, reported the Guardian.

Labour peer Lord Faulkner is championing the bill, arguing that too many clubs with mixed membership still treat women as lesser members, barring them from using the front door or designated tee-off times, sending a “signal that discrimination against women is acceptable.”

“The second class membership which women are offered often prevents them from being able to take part in the running of the clubs and taking the decisions that affect all members,” Lord Faulkner noted. “They are therefore not able to effect change from within the clubs.”

The proposed law would affect private clubs with more than 25 members, but would exempt clubs that restrict membership to one gender only.

NEW YORK
Drug giant Pfizer Inc. last week said it was cooperating with a federal investigation into charges that the firm violated federal laws by attempting to persuade doctors to prescribe an epilepsy drug to treat other ailments even though such broadened usage had not been approved by the government.

The charges center on Neurontin, an epilepsy drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the mid-1990s.

Neurontin’s maker, Warner-Lambert — purchased by Pfizer in 2000 — wanted the drug approved for wider use, but did not conduct the required tests because the firm believed the patent would expire before the drug could be marketed for those additional uses, according to the New York Times.

According to a whistleblower suit filed in 1996, instead of undertaking those tests, Warner-Lambert decided to recruit doctors to spread the word about Neurontin and its other possible uses, none of which had been approved by the FDA. Although doctors can prescribe drugs for non-approved uses, drug makers are barred from advocating the practice.

The Times reports that Neurontin sales rose to $1.3 billion by 2000, with nearly 80 percent of prescriptions targeting more than a dozen diseases other than epilepsy.

Pfizer spokeswoman Mariann Caprino last week denied that her firm knew of “any credible evidence that Warner-Lambert made any false claims about Neurontin,” noted the Dow Jones Newswires.

LOS ANGELES
The alliance between Hollywood and Big Tobacco made headlines last week with the release of a report chronicling tobacco companies’ efforts to show movie stars smoking on the silver screen.

Recent research “confirmed what we suspected all along,” report lead author Curtis Mekemson, a consultant for the American Lung Association (ALA), told the New York Times. “The tobacco companies were well aware of the benefits of having audiences, especially young audiences, see their favorite stars smoking on screen.”

Documents made public under Big Tobacco’s 1998 settlement with the U.S. states detail industry efforts to spike cigarette sales by pushing product placement in Hollywood movies during the 1980s and early 1990s.

One such document, a draft of a 1983 Philip Morris speech, stated, “Smoking is being positioned as an unfashionable, as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every creative means at our disposal to reverse this destructive trend. I do feel heartened at the increasing number of occasions when I go to a movie and see a pack of cigarettes in the hands of the leading lady.”

The documents also detail R. J. Reynolds’ efforts to distribute free cigarettes to actors and directors, hoping to hook Hollywood on tobacco, “because actors who smoke are more likely to smoke in public or want to smoke on screen,” according to the ALA report.

The report, published in British antismoking journal Tobacco Control, also castigates the continued use of cigarettes and tobacco products in current movies.

While the tobacco industry is now banned from seeking product placement in movies, onscreen smoking remains too frequent, fueling underage smoking, the group insists in the Times report.

Hoping to fight that trend, the ALA is stumping for a new ratings standard: imposing the adult-only “R” rating on any film that shows tobacco use, noted the Sacramento Bee last week.

“If you say the ‘f-word’ twice in a movie, you get an ‘R’ rating, yet that doesn’t kill anybody,” Kori Titus, director of the ratings campaign for the American Lung Association, told the Bee. “We’re talking about a product that, when used, kills half a million people each year.”

Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, which sets the standards for film ratings, says such a change is unlikely in the near future.

From the Gallup News Service:

“As the U.S. Senate debates the merits of a House-passed energy bill that is also backed by the Bush administration, a recent Gallup poll finds that Americans are more supportive of the measures being proposed by environmentalists and Democratic leaders in the Senate than the proposals contained in the House bill.

“Yet, at the same time, Americans say — by a margin of 51 percent to 28 percent — that they favor rather than oppose President Bush’s plan to deal with the country’s energy problems. The increase in support for Bush’s plan over the past year, however, may be part of a larger rally effect for the president in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks rather than a change in the way people think about energy more generally.

“Americans still opt for conservation of energy supplies over production of new ones as they did last year. And, also like last year, they opt for protecting the environment over developing U.S. energy supplies by a modest margin.

“The House bill authorizes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the issue that a recent article in the Los Angeles Times calls ‘the top priority of the Bush administration and the energy industry.’ The bill does not provide tougher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, which that same article says is ‘the top goal for the environmental movement and most Democrats.’ In fact, the U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday not to add new standards to the bill. The poll finds that Americans oppose oil drilling in ANWR, by a margin of 56 percent to 40 percent, but support tougher emission standards on automobiles by 72 percent to 26 percent.

“More generally, Americans say the United States should emphasize conservation of existing energy supplies more than production of new energy sources, by a 60 percent to 30 percent margin…. Americans also continue to say they would give priority to protection of the environment over development of U.S. energy supplies….

“Although the Bush administration’s policy appears to take the opposite tack, Americans still say that Bush is doing a good rather than poor job of improving the nation’s energy policy, by 46 percent to 36 percent. Still, that margin in favor of Bush has narrowed over the past year — a significant finding given the general increase in positive responses on most questions asked about the president since Sept. 11….”

“The democratic ideal is contradictory to both tyranny and ignorance. Men must be free not only to think, to speak, and to worship, but to build within themselves, through education, a preparedness for their later years. Not every man can be a leader, but every man — however limited his natural capacities — can improve in the direction of better choices for himself and his children. If our education is good, then by educating all the people we give every person a better chance.”

– George D. Stoddard (U.S. educator, 1897-1981)