News / National
Mugabe reshuffling: WHO vindicates Zimbabweans
23 Oct 2017 at 06:08hrs | Views
WHEN World Health Organisation (WHO) director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced four days ago that President Robert Mugabe had been appointed the United Nations agency's goodwill ambassador for non-communicable diseases in Africa, Zimbabweans were dumbfounded.
The reason was Mugabe has, in his 37-year-old checkered rule, destroyed the country's health delivery system such that together with his family, they no longer visit local institutions even for such illnesses as flu.
It is on record that the First Lady Grace Mugabe took her daughter Bona's son to Singapore for a six-week review. And how could Mugabe then be appointed to that lofty position?
If the dethroning of Mugabe by WHO is anything to go by, then Zimbabweans are vindicated. Indeed, much has been said about Mugabe's legacy. What will it look like? Can the next generation of Zimbabweans hold it in high regard as a benchmark for good governance?
Zimbabweans look at the late former South African President Nelson Mandela as an African icon, and ask themselves: Does Mugabe match up to that?
Mandela left office after one term because he felt South Africans should not be burdened by rulers with overweening personal ambitions and wives who are even worse. Are they really indispensable, as they claim?
Clearly, Mugabe has destroyed the country's economy over 37 years to high levels of unemployment and destruction of the health delivery system, coupled with a poor human rights record in his quest to remain in power.
Through poor governance, corruption and abuse of authority, Mugabe turned the country's clean, healthy and beautiful cities into filthy bazaars, in addition to the destruction of almost all State enterprises, destruction of our road system, decimation of our food chain, allowing corruption to run riot among cronies in the name of indigenisation, travelling abroad several times a year with a retinue several times bigger than delegations from thriving countries — all at State's expense, while his people are starving in the rural areas.
With a legacy like that, who would want to be associated with such a character? And so we wondered what WHO really wanted to portray about Zimbabwe.
Perhaps they realised the world needed to turn its attention to the suffering Zimbabweans by appointing Mugabe as goodwill ambassador. The sad reality, though, is that they will not wriggle out without bruises as well.
Citizens should understand that Mugabe, who never misses an opportunity to attend international summits, has over the years, through his actions, de-branded product Zimbabwe.
Who in their right senses would need a brand ambassador without good will as a goodwill ambassador? We know that bureaucrats would want to blame the media on this and their failure to understand that Mugabe's continued stay in office will not do any favour to the country.
We wish to remind Mugabe that it is his tainted history of bad governance that resulted in his new Foreign minister Walter Mzembi losing the United Nations World Tourism Organisation secretary-general's post.
As goodwill ambassador, Mugabe was expected to deliver goodwill or promote WHO ideals and put Zimbabwe on the world map, but he squandered the chance due to his tainted history of bad governance.
Zimbabweans should seize this opportunity to banish him to his Zvimba rural home, come the 2018 elections.
The reason was Mugabe has, in his 37-year-old checkered rule, destroyed the country's health delivery system such that together with his family, they no longer visit local institutions even for such illnesses as flu.
It is on record that the First Lady Grace Mugabe took her daughter Bona's son to Singapore for a six-week review. And how could Mugabe then be appointed to that lofty position?
If the dethroning of Mugabe by WHO is anything to go by, then Zimbabweans are vindicated. Indeed, much has been said about Mugabe's legacy. What will it look like? Can the next generation of Zimbabweans hold it in high regard as a benchmark for good governance?
Zimbabweans look at the late former South African President Nelson Mandela as an African icon, and ask themselves: Does Mugabe match up to that?
Mandela left office after one term because he felt South Africans should not be burdened by rulers with overweening personal ambitions and wives who are even worse. Are they really indispensable, as they claim?
Clearly, Mugabe has destroyed the country's economy over 37 years to high levels of unemployment and destruction of the health delivery system, coupled with a poor human rights record in his quest to remain in power.
With a legacy like that, who would want to be associated with such a character? And so we wondered what WHO really wanted to portray about Zimbabwe.
Perhaps they realised the world needed to turn its attention to the suffering Zimbabweans by appointing Mugabe as goodwill ambassador. The sad reality, though, is that they will not wriggle out without bruises as well.
Citizens should understand that Mugabe, who never misses an opportunity to attend international summits, has over the years, through his actions, de-branded product Zimbabwe.
Who in their right senses would need a brand ambassador without good will as a goodwill ambassador? We know that bureaucrats would want to blame the media on this and their failure to understand that Mugabe's continued stay in office will not do any favour to the country.
We wish to remind Mugabe that it is his tainted history of bad governance that resulted in his new Foreign minister Walter Mzembi losing the United Nations World Tourism Organisation secretary-general's post.
As goodwill ambassador, Mugabe was expected to deliver goodwill or promote WHO ideals and put Zimbabwe on the world map, but he squandered the chance due to his tainted history of bad governance.
Zimbabweans should seize this opportunity to banish him to his Zvimba rural home, come the 2018 elections.
Source - newsday
