As I write this, Zimbabwe is on the verge of a political miracle. All signs are that Mugabe will be democraticaly ousted as president after 28 years in power. Thabo Mbeki, as a neighbouring president who could actually do somehting about the regime, has recieved much criticism for his "quiet" approach to Mugabe. I now wonder if Mbeki may actually have been right?

In reading his biography (A Dream Deferred), Mark Gevisser outlines again and again how Mbeki is ardently in favour of conversation being the primary force of change, not militant force. In particular, Mbeki was sidelined through the early 90s for this approach as a negotiated settlement was being established between the apartheid governmnet and the ANC. It turns out that through almost every engagement Mbeki was involved in, talking proved to be the right solution and resulted in the desired outcome.

Of late, Mbeki has intimated that a change is coming in Zimbabwe. When I consider what a miracle it will be for a change of power to occur peacefuly and democrticaly, I wonder what the alternative of forcing a regime change in Zimbabwe would have resulted in. No doubt, if this was Mbeki's approach, we'd be at war. Now, thanks to quiet diplomacy, we stand on the verge of a democratic miracle.

However, the events bound to unfold over the next few days may prove me wrong.