Apologies Gareth for not making my point as clearly as I thought.

"...cases in point to quote as reference"

Kenneth Kaunda:
1964 - Freely elected in first elections

1968 - His party strongly suspected of fomenting violence during the elections of that year which he and his party won.

1972 - Used the violence of the last elections to ban all other political parties and made Zambia a one party state.

Subsequent government corruption and sole reliance on a single resource for income meant that by the the mid-80's his one party state and government lost public support.

1991 - forced by public pressure and an economy in ruins he returned to multi-party politics and lost the election and office of President.

I believe that there are a number of points of similarity with Mugabe in Zimbabwe:

Won first free election as President under a multi-party system. Two main parties being ZANU and ZAPU

Declared a one party state after decimating the Matabele population through a government led campaign of terror, ethnic cleansing and clearance.

Through corruption and reliance on a single resource brought about economic collapse in Zimbabwe, accelerated by him actively killing the countries "golden goose" (it's agricultural base). Mugabe and ZANU have now lost the support of large proportions of the population of Zimbabwe. A new political Party has been formed and was allowed to contest the last elections, which were seriously flawed and declared undemocratic by many.

His country, under his leadership is going to hell in a handcart and hopefully it will not be too long before he disappears from the scene.

In no way did I intend to imply that those quoted in my earlier posts were equally guilty and totally comparable - only that each have demonstrated points of similarity with the current President of Zimbabwe.

I hope that is a clearer picture of what I originally meant to say, but so obviously failed in doing.