I welcome the writers’ analysis and assessment in the article, . It provides information, which I believe, is critical in placing the crisis in Zimbabwe in perspective.

It falls short, however, by not offering a viable alternative to anti-imperialists forces which might be masquerading as something else, as he seems to imply about the Mugabe regime. However, the present opposition as far as I can tell does not in any way represent a strong and independent alternative which will uplift the impoverished underclass and protect human rights.

On the contrary, it is clear to me that it is the tool of western imperialism and will carry out its mandates as opposed to the mandates of the people. I believe our job is to educate the people on how to best protect their interest. We must reexamine our definition of democracy very closely making sure it conforms to the needs of the people for universal health care, redistribution of the land, and an economic safety net.

The lack of this kind of examination of political forces in Zimbabwe is tantamount to replacing one despotic regime with another with neither having any true anti-imperialist credentials. Despite the chaos in Zimbabwe and the debate about who or what is mostly responsible, we have an obligation in remaining vigilant in protecting the interest of the most under privileged Zimbabweans. We must help develop and support a government in which progressive, anti-imperialists can place their faith in its authenticity.

First of all your premise in that the poverty and economic stagnation in African countries is cause by corrupt and incompetent government is a narrow interpretation of the difficulties which beset the African continent. You virtually exclude the impact of neo-colonialism.

And your claims that the land distribution could have been accomplished by legislation in naive. They tried that in South Africa before Mandela left office and big landowner threatened to resist and ignore any such mandate, forcing the government to back down.