Michigan State University may become the latest educational institution to revoke an honorary degree from Robert Mugabe. “You look at Dr. Mugabe’s actions over the last few decades and ask, ‘Are those consistent with the ideals and principles that Michigan State University espouses?'” says an MSU official.
Such deliberations are part of a familiar pattern of latter-day discussion about the Zimbabwean tyrant, which goes something like this: Mugabe was a good leader gone bad, a heroic “liberation” hero corrupted by power. This is a comforting argument, especially to those who championed him at the time (like, presumably, the MSU officials who awarded him the doctorate in the first place). But it ignores the crucial fact that Mugabe was an authoritarian from the beginning.
This closing comment from a “Peace and Justice Studies” professor–surprise, surprise–is even more outrageous.
Steve Sharra is a visiting professor of philosophy and adviser to the Peace and Justice Studies Program. He’s also a native of Malawi and has relatives in Zimbabwe.
Sharra called Mugabe “a monster,” but he also said that withdrawing his degree is less important than starting a discussion about what’s happening in Zimbabwe, about the legacies of colonialism, about the continuing role that rich countries play in determining the conditions in poor ones.
He said, too, that there’s a double standard in play.
“I don’t think it’s Mugabe only who is responsible only for killing people and inflicting violence,” he said.
“The current wars we have around the world today are the responsibility of a number of Western leaders and you don’t hear many people talking about condemning them.”
Never mind the ignorance evidenced by the statement that “you don’t hear many people talking about condemning [Western leaders]” (does Sharra live in a cave?). How can one compare the “wars” of which Sharra speaks — presumably Afghanistan and Iraq — to the violence Robert Mugabe has inflicted upon his own people? The “Western” presence in both countries is approved by United Nations mandates. And while one can, of course, criticize the decision to go to war in both instances or the tactical and strategic conduct of the wars, the motives behind those military operations are on a completely different moral plane than the rape of Zimbabwe committed by the ZANU-PF gang. Moral equivalence, anyone?
