[badminton1]

Robert Mugabe has been president of Zimbabwe since 1987. That is, 30 years.

[anon989]

He was the prime minister and effectively the leader of Zimbabwe since 1980.

[igitur]

And initially he was a very good leader. But lately, if you listen to his speeches, he is downright senile. And he can hardly walk on his own. That's why the general convention of serving a maximum of 2 or 3 terms is so important.

[misja111]

Long before he turned senile, he turned corrupt. He has ruined his country economically.

This is the real reason for a maximum of 2 or 3 terms. Power corrupts.

[badminton1]

Also when a regime has been involved in crime, they need to perpetuate themselves in power to avoid prosecution.

[rb666]

It's recently been proven you only need 1 year for this.

[mathw]

In the case I think you're thinking of, the corruption was pre-existing.

[kbart]

"This is the real reason for a maximum of 2 or 3 terms. Power corrupts."

It's still easy to be gamed, see Putin-Medvedev-Putin switch.

[anon989]

When was he a good leader? When he was sanctioning the genocide of the Matebele people in 1983?

[StanislavPetrov]

No, when he hyperinflated the currency and bankrupted the country (in the 90s, not the most recent hyperinflation).

[grandinj]

If by "good" you mean "adept at removing his enemies and any constraints on his power", then yes, he was very good

[forapurpose]

> initially he was a very good leader

When? What did he do that was good? He didn't implement democracy; that would have been good.

[Gustomaximus]

I've seen a few comments from 'initially he was a very good leader' followed by some criticism. I didnt know the answer so google wiki and while a lite verison of events it might help people understand things better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Prime_Minister_o...

Largely to me it seems he started with genuinely 'good intentions' that didn't work out, vs being a 'good leader'. Good to me includes both vision and execution.

[igitur]

It's probably wrong to reduce a person's success to one measure. He obviously had his failures, but his contributions to Zimbabwe's healthcare and education systems are what I remember and is why I called him a good leader early on.

Even today, here in neighbouring South Africa, there is a big gap in the average literacy rate of Zimbabwean and a South African.

Mugabe totally stuffed up the country later. But credit where credit is due.

[thisisit]

As they say - Either you die (or step down in this case) a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

There are multiple cases in developing countries where the family/friends takes over in case of someone powerful going senile.

[gaius]

When was Mugabe a hero? Like, what year and what heroic thing did he do?

[steve19]

> Either you die (or step down in this case) a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Evil is a choice, not a consequence of time. He destroyed that country, at the expense of the poor and to the profit of his cronys.

I wonder if this will impact North Korea. Zimbabwe is a major source of hard currency in exchange for weapons.

[microcolonel]

> I wonder if this will impact North Korea. Zimbabwe is a major source of hard currency in exchange for weapons.

I smell CIA. :- )

[forapurpose]

> Either you die (or step down in this case) a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

In many countries these days, you are simply voted out of office or leave it when your term is up.

[b3lvedere]

Which is why there must be good rules that people can't stay in power for too long. Power will corrupt eventually even the nicest of people.

[mhogomchungu]

How effect is this if its possible to be elected into office at a very late age.