Because being charming, the former boss of a revolutionary movement's intelligence service, and deeply indebted to trade unions and what's left of the SACP are excellent indications that someone will be a great president. And they really counterbalance things like being corrupt, anti-intellectual, and in favor of populist bulldozing of the judiciary. Plus, having a leader of a country where one in five adults has AIDS explain to the world that he took a shower to protect himself from infection after unprotected sex *cough rape cough* with an HIV-positive woman is way better than a leader who suggests that African potatoes cure AIDS.
Sheesh Economist. I know you take this strategically tentative "Ahem, ahem, hopefully things will turn out well" approach to all major political transitions. But really?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Economist, rely on it though I may do, does seem to base its recommendations as to who will be a good president solely on that person's feelings about trade. Having said that, I thought the article that I believe you are referring to was far more (subtly) critical than supportive...
Post a Comment