As the lights dim out

and hopes fade

for the chance of a new Zimbabwe

and as all the wishful thinkers of the past two weeks turn their blogs and word processors to other issues,

we now realise what the Southern Africa 'development' community leaders meant when they called an 'emergency' situation to discuss the Zimbabwe situation. We thought they meant the emergency of ensuring the voice of the Zimbabwean people would be heard, but that was a fatuous misunderstanding. What they meant by an 'emergency' was the emergency of making sure that Mugabe remained in power.

What else would we have expected. African leaders will always rally round, and define themselves, on their lowest common denominator.

CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS ?

a favorite phrase

used by many politicians, by which you know that meltdown is imminent.

This time, uttered by Pres Thabo Mbeki of the Zimbabwean situation. Well, apart from the present electoral impasse, if 150 000% inflation, 80% unemployment and 25% population emigration does not constitute a crisis, what would, in Pres Mbeki's opinion? No wonder he does not worry about a little load shedding back home.

Expected, but infuriatingly, the SADC leaders at their special summit (talking until 5.00 in the morning - wow, they must have been exerting themselves) have come up with the bland statement urging that the presidential election results be declared (after 2 weeks) and that the results be respected. Especially if they are rigged by ZANU-PF of course. Equally unsurprising, there is the announcement from the Zim 'electoral commission' that the results of 23 constituencies will be recounted. All won by the opposition obviously.

Do the honourable group of SADC presidents realise that their summit cost many millions of (real) dollars of their impoverished taxpayers' money - who were expecting them to DO something about the Zimbabwean situation?

It is totally baffling. What spell does Mugabe have over other African, especially SADC leaders? He is the 84 year old leader of a bankrupt self-destroyed country. They, the neighbouring leaders, are no-nonsense and fairly tough politicians - Thabo Mbeki admittedly looks like and is a cretin, and Namibia is an ideological satellite of Zimbabwe - but it is not true, as some apologists say, that the others have insecure, weak democratic credentials. Nearly all have come to power in recent, respectable elections and are in a strong position to do something about the 'black hole' in their midst. Why are they terrified of Mugabe? He was not the only struggler for liberation in Zimbabwe, and the country is not his personal property. But, as the last person to be granted an in-depth interview with him revealed, even that is not the problem. He lives in his own reality bubble where he is convinced that he and the country are one and the same.

Does he hypnotise all the neighbouring leaders like a snake? Or is he, as a radio call-in suggested, like an obstinate stain on your underwear - you can try to wash it off, but it just won't go away ?

Do the other SADC leaders want to deal with the influx of millions of refugees without complaint, just so that Mugabe is placated? Why do they want a huge source of instability in their midst? Why do they want the wishes of the Zimbabwean people to be thwarted, and their desire for change to be blocked by rigged elections ? (it is a measure of how far the actual results went against them, that it has taken ZANU two weeks to figure out how to rig them back.)

Also expected (the tragedy of any situation is its utter predictability) is the dragging out of the land issue again, with dark warnings that white farmers are trying to take over their former properties. How did they all suddenly get back into the country to do that? Of course the reverse is true, in that the remaining 'white' farms are being threatened by the Mug's 20-year old 'war veterans'. Anyway, the former white farmers have been welcomed and set up in neighbouring countries such as Mozambique. Who the **** would now want to go back into Zimbabwe?

Is Mugabe, as the interviewer with him suggested, now plotting a massive revenge against his own people who rejected him - a bloodbath of the opposition to rival the Rwanda genocide?

If so, SADC leadership, who could have easily removed him if they had the courage, will have a very great deal to answer for.

SO WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE

of the Zimbabwe 'results' so far?

Obviously, Mugabe/ZanuPF did not win - if they had done - or a plausible case could be made out that they had, without the announcement being derisory - the results would have been announced very, very quickly. Civilised negotiations taking place ? Deals even being done? Not a chance.

First a grudging release of the parliamentary figures - meant to show a 'photo finish', and that the opposition victory was meagre. But this result does not matter much, since the Zimbabwean parliament these days has little power and in any case can always be suspended.

No, the important, because the personal thing, is the presidential contest. Although Mugabe has almost certainly lost this, it will be announced as a run-off. This will buy time of three weeks (or actually any time the ZANU appointed electoral court will grant). Enough for Mugabe to stage his own Cultural Revolution - the classic strategy Mao used when for once he felt under pressure. Call out the thugs, scream about 'puppets', beat opposition figures to a pulp, and reduce the country to mayhem. As the country is already in a state of ruin, this will not make much difference anyway.

If Mugabe thinks this has done the trick, the re-run will be held for him to win 'unopposed'. If not, a bit more mayhem will be manufactured, or the threat of it, whereupon, on cue, the military will step in, impose martial law, or stage a military coup, call it what you will, and Mugabe will be confirmed as president for the sake of 'national salvation'.

No, you haven't got rid of him yet. And he could live to 104.