Bwana Murunga I read your very interesting piece, "Is anti-imperialism incompatible with pro-democracy in Zimbabwe?" and readily agreed with your point about anti-imperialism and pro-democracy being compatible. I have always seen the former as primarily meaning the latter. Like Wole Soyinka put it in his usually eloquent way a few years ago, for those suffering under despotic rule the main concern is not with distinguishing the color of the foot that is on their necks but with getting that foot removed. I detest Mugabe's excessively long rule in Zimbabwe, especially given its despotic and violent character. I generally don't agree with leaders who try to stay for more than 10 years. It is hard to believe that there are no other Zimbabweans, even within ZANU-PF, that are capable of ruling the country.

I have to say, though that when I get invited to discuss Mugabe's misrule in Zimbabwe these days I often have the uneasy feeling that I am being invited to participate in an activity that, regardless of its motivation, is harmful to the defense of freedom and empowerment in Africa and around the world. This may be a bizarre statement on the surface but hear me out.

G8 leaders meeting in Japan this week have made it their business to pressure African leaders attending the summit into toeing the line of the "International community" in condemning and pursuing sanctions against Mugabe. Interestingly, one of those African leaders is the new president of Nigeria, Umaru Yar'Adua. Many would agree that the elections that brought Yar'Adua into office in 2007 were seriously flawed and rigged not only during the actual elections, but in the run up to elections in which Obasanjo tried through various means to wreck the challenge of Atiku Mohamed, his former Vice President. I followed very closely the efforts by Kayode Fayemi, our mutual acquaintance, to win the governorship of Ekiti State during those elections in 2007. I was not only annoyed but sometimes amused by the audacity of the widespread rigging efforts that Obasanjo and Yar'Adua's PDP undertook to thwart not only challenges at the national, but also at the gubernatorial and senatorial levels.

I am not making the old and tired argument that two wrongs make a right. My point is that by painting Mugabe's government as exceptionally dastardly (due to all sorts of motivations that I don't want to be diverted by here) we normalize the no less despotic and undemocratic governments of people like Yar'Adua, whom we call upon to put sense into the head of Mugabe. And Yar'Adua is not alone here. There is also Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia who not only massacred opposition protesters but charged and convicted opposition leaders for their deaths because they had incited the people into demonstrating. Then there is Paul Biya of the new "Cameroon of greater achievement" who only recently changed the constitution to allow him even more ruling terms, and murdered and jailed many who responded to his actions with demonstrations. Further afield, we can find Pervez Musharaf of Pakistan. Then there are the multitudes of Middle Eastern countries that do not even go through the pretense of having democratic systems.

I was at a party organized by a Cameroonian association in the US recently where I unjustly faced the hostility of party goers. Upon finding out that I teach politics a group gathered around me and asked how I would compare Mugabe to Paul Biya. I quickly realized that they were not in fact interested in hearing my opinions. They launched into denunciations of the double standards of the international community that allowed Biya to rig elections and murder and jail his people unmolested while piling pressure on Mugabe whose atrocities they saw as lesser than those of Biya.

The point here is not to compare evils. It is to highlight how the portrayal of Mugabe as an exceptionally bad leader worthy of special attention (you can count in panel discussions, blogs, articles, concerts, etc.), condemnation and punishment normalizes the atrocities of many other leaders whose activities are no less pernicious, but who have cleverly steered away from engaging in taboo activities like targeting white populations, aiding "terrorism" or generally opposing Western countries.

In a month or so the pro-democratic leaders of the "international community" who are cracking down hard on the undemocratic tactics of Mugabe in the interest of "freedom" will assemble at the opening of the Beijing Olympics. But China executes so many of its citizens that groups like Amnesty International cannot even keep count. That is apart from trading in the organs of executed prisoners, jailing activists and independent journalists and making no pretense at having a democratic system. These pro-democratic international leaders will enjoy the bright lights of the Olympics while claiming that Mugabe is the most despotic leader in the world. What does this do to the hopes of the billions of Chinese whose voices are muzzled and the millions of peasants whose lands are expropriated without compensation for new capitalist enterprises by the Chinese state?

I refuse to go along with this act of constructing Mugabe as an exceptional case not because I support him or think all of those who oppose him are motivated by racism and imperialism. I do so because I think it is mistaken and harmful regardless of its motivation. Mugabe has abundant company of no less pedigree when it comes to tyranny and we should engage in a broader discussion of tyranny and disempowerment around Africa and the world including, but with no special attention to Zimbabwe. We should not construct Mugabe as exceptional and so normalize many other wicked and despotic leaders and so take hope and voice away from billions who are subjected to their tyranny.

I have to say that I also disagree with your implication that proven anti-imperialist crusaders are any more qualified in waging this battle for freedom than "the late entrants into the anti-racism and anti-imperialism hall of fame." Mugabe's behavior and the xenophobic attacks of many South Africans who had lived under and struggled against apartheid are enough evidence that having suffered under and struggled against racism and imperialism does not make one a better commentator on or a more dedicated fighter of those evils. In the US, the leading crusaders against what they saw as unjust British rule in the American colonies were mostly owners of Black slaves and ardent supporters of slavery.

Also, I will beg to differ on the point that Zimbabweans or those with close connections to Zimbabwe necessarily have a better understanding of or are better qualified to comment on the plight of Zimbabweans and the problems in that country. One only needs to listen to Mugabe's cronies' commentary on the state of politics and the economy to realize that Zimbabweans sit in different places in that country and where one sits colors what one sees and says. Further, during the genocide in Rwanda, many Hutu genocidaires in the country considered and spoke of their action as legitimate defense against the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front. I am not sure that their being on the ground necessarily made their understanding and commentary more worthy of attention than the multitudes around the world who saw TV images of the violence and concluded that the Tutsi were being systematically targeted for extinction by people who were mostly not acting out of legitimate self-defense.

I think I also disagree with your comparison of Mugabe and Castro. Castro was able to achieve great things by ruling with the heaviest of hands. There are no opposition parties in Cuba and no independent newspapers who would publish without serious repercussions the sort of open-minded article that you wrote and got published in a Zimbabwean paper, for instance. In a way you were comparing apples and oranges. Opposition activities have definitely influenced Mugabe's behavior. This is not to justify his actions by any means or to condemn opposition movements. It is only to say that Castro might have found it easier to carry out his far-reaching reforms because he stamped out in a very tyrannical manner all opposition in ways that Mugabe has not done.

I am not very sure here, but given the fact that many African countries have so much of their annual budgets sponsored by Western donors I wonder how many will do better than Zimbabwe economically if they were subjected to the same sanctions. African countries' dependence on the West was engineered over a long period and will take a while to reverse.

To conclude, I will say that the construction of Mugabe as an exceptional case is harmful to struggles for freedom and empowerment by billions around the world. Given my knowledge of your longstanding commentary on misrule in Kenya, I don't regard your article as part of this construction of Zimbabwe as exceptional. But this construction exists without doubt and I think it is a disservice to struggles for freedom and empowerment around the world because it normalizes the countless other rulers whose activities are often worse than those of Mugabe but who are countenanced by the leaders of the "international community" because of their politically correct positions on the issues that are important to the "international community".