Recently I gave you my take on what happened in the regime change in Zimbabwe. To briefly summarize, those wishing to remove Mugabe from power were “stuck between a rock and a hard place” as follows:

1)    They did not have the 2/3’s majority in the parliament to affect a legal impeachment.

2)    A forceful removal of Mugabe by the military would have brought in the South African Defense Forces who would have put Mugabe back into power after major disruptions and loss of life.

     Those wishing change were forced to “make Mugabe a deal that he could not refuse.” He walked out of office with no criminal or civil liability in Zimbabwe.

      Let us go back over 43 years when Richard M. Nixon was forced to resign as president of the USA. On the day that Nixon left office, he rode on Air Force One and landed at a US Air Forced base in Southern California. Much to everyone’s surprise, a crowd of over 50,000 supporters and well wishers greeted him as he stepped from the plane. (Please keep this thought in mind as we move forward.)

    Then President Gerald R. Ford got the bad news from the US Justice Department that a criminal trial of Richard M. Nixon would take up to two years. The country would be paralyzed as the trial went forward. The costs of such a trial would be staggering. President Ford decided that the only solution was to pardon Nixon. The disgraced president was handed a huge income tax bill over a tax fraud. His wealthy supporters paid the bill, by the way.

     Let us fast forward to today. Eventually Jacob Zuma and Donald Trump are going to be confronted with overwhelming evidence of their guilt in financial and political wrong doing. In both the US and South Africa here is the dilemma that authorities will have to face as follows:

1)    Any criminal trial of Jacob Zuma or Donald Trump would literally be “the O.J. Simpson murder trials (1994-1995) on steroids.” Each trial would cost billions of Rands or billions of dollars. Such money would be much better spent on social programs, etc. As the old saying goes: “The lawyers would end up getting all the money.”

2)    Today we have televised trials and massive proliferation of mobile devices where people can watch television from almost anywhere. As such trials unfolded, people in offices, schools, working here and there, and in the home would be mesmerized as the criminal trials went forward. South Africa and The USA would suffer a paralysis that would last up to two years.

3)    Regardless of how much objective evidence proving wrong doing is presented in either country, there will be a large group of people who still support these men and refuse to believe that they are guilty. (Please refer to my comments about the greeting that Richard M. Nixon got in August of 1974.) Such criminal trials would literally “spiritually tear apart both South Africa and the United States.”

4)    Both Jacob Zuma and Donald Trump have both shown how good they are at “beating criminal charges in court, etc.”

Those seeking a regime change will take note of this dilemma. At the end of the thought process, negotiations will begin to make either man “an offer that he cannot refuse.” It will be a pardon for all wrong doing for them and any family members involved with them in the wrong doing. They will go back to private life as free men and enjoy their wealth. Other people charged in this wrong doing will see the inside of jail; some for a long time.

Regardless of what country one lives in and what language one speaks, our parents teach us as little children the difference between right and wrong. We are taught that if we do wrong, we will be punished. We are taught that we are to expect moral and ethical conduct from our political leaders.

The moral of this story is what is supposed to happen in this world and what actually happens are two different things.