Social protests, economic difficulties, reports of systematic corruption and arguments over the transfer of large farms from a white minority to black peasant farmers have come together to form a strong political cocktail in President Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Last month's riots and looting sprees brought troops on to the streets to reassert control. But none of the issues is resolved. They will be reopened next month when Zimbabwean trade unions organise demonstrations against price rises and welfare cuts.
It is all a sad contrast to the confident decade that followed independence in 1979, after the prolonged guerrilla war against Ian Smith's Rhodesia. Mr Mugabe's party emerged triumphant from the elections, Zimbabwe had an independent judiciary, a relatively free press and a comparatively free political system.
Health and education provision became the envy of neighbouring African states and much progress was made in building up the country's infrastructure. Mr Mugabe himself maintained a strong political profile internationally as a successful post-colonial leader and an effective advocate of African priorities.
Much of this was built on the strength of Zimbabwe's export economy, dominated by some 4,000 commercial farms owned by whites who occupied most of the best land. The failure to redistribute land to millions of peasant farmers remained as unfinished business, raised occasionally as a promise. It was not acted upon until last year, when it was suddenly proposed to confiscate some 1,500 white farms and turn them over to black farmers. The government says it will compensate the farmers for improvements but not for the land itself. The government has refused to let the issue go to the courts but is coming under intense pressure from international donors and agencies to give fair compensation if it proceeds with the measure.
Matters have not been helped by suspicions that much of the land will go to government supporters, in confirmation of corruption elsewhere. This includes the decision last year to raid state coffers to compensate veterans of the independence war after it was revealed that their pension fund had been misappropriated. Such revelations have driven down the value of Zimbabwe's currency and lost it international confidence; in turn inflation, price rises and welfare cuts have sparked trade union protests. Growing indebtedness has brought in the International Monetary Fund, whose prescriptions have added to these domestic pressures.
Mr Mugabe has vigorously defended the land transfer scheme against what he says is unfair criticism. But he seems to disregard its potentially disastrous economic effects at such a difficult time. He sees the need to recreate popular support; but he has not been able to prevent his party and ministerial colleagues running into repeated allegations of corruption. These are sins of omission, but they loom larger as circumstances seem set to deteriorate. There is no obvious successor to Mr Mugabe at home. Were the slide to continue it would have regional as well as domestic implications. Although Mr Mugabe has been over-shadowed in recent years by the South African transition, Africa can ill-afford to lose the benefit of his insight and leadership.