What do you think?
Rate this book
Dinner With Mugabe: The Untold Story Of A Freedom Fighter Who Became A Tyrant
"The most intimate portrait yet produced of Zimbabwe's clever yet brutal leader." - The Economist
With plunging life expectancy, soaring inflation, and unemployment, repression, and starvation fueling a mass exodus, Zimbabwe is a nation in crisis. Its president, Robert Mugabe-once lauded for his heroics as a guerilla leader who fought against white-minority rule in the 1960s- is now seen as the man who ruined the country and cast shame on the African continent. Beginning with a dinner shared with Mugabe the freedom fighter and ending in a searching interview with Mugabe as Zimbabwe's president more than thirty years later, Heidi Holland's incisive and timely investigation charts Mugabe's gradual self- destruction and probes the mystery of Africa's loyalty to one of its worst dictators.
With plunging life expectancy, soaring inflation, and unemployment, repression, and starvation fueling a mass exodus, Zimbabwe is a nation in crisis. Its president, Robert Mugabe-once lauded for his heroics as a guerilla leader who fought against white-minority rule in the 1960s- is now seen as the man who ruined the country and cast shame on the African continent. Beginning with a dinner shared with Mugabe the freedom fighter and ending in a searching interview with Mugabe as Zimbabwe's president more than thirty years later, Heidi Holland's incisive and timely investigation charts Mugabe's gradual self- destruction and probes the mystery of Africa's loyalty to one of its worst dictators.
250 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
53 people are currently reading
837 people want to read
About the author
Heidi Holland
15 books8 followersHeidi Holland was a South Africa–based Zimbabwean journalist and author who was involved in the journalism industry for over thirty years. She worked as a freelancer writer on such publications as The Sunday Times, The Telegraph, International Herald Tribune, The New York Times and The Guardian and has also worked on research projects for British television documentaries.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
May 6, 2015
The author, the late Heidi Holland, did not have dinner with Mugabe. But she cooked for him and raced him to his train one night leaving her baby alone. He phoned her next day to see how the baby was. The author was a political journalist and very firmly an enemy of apartheid. She featured him on a magazine cover, that was subsequently banned (but by then it had sold out).
The book is about the evolution of the small, clever boy, idolised by his peculiar mother who was a thwarted nun, abandoned by his father and committed to both black independence and Marxism into a brutal dictator who would do anything to stay in power.
The more corrupt he gets, the more he believes in his own importance. He grows to interpret the moral base of his crusade in political manner, self-serving to the core. He believes that doing what he wants takes priority over doing what is right. He never sees what he has done as evil but more collateral damage in his war for his country's indepence and growth. A murderer, a man who played with lives like a game of chess, the end justifying the means. A monster. That is how I see it.
The author does not agree. She thinks that he is still that lost, small boy inside. The clever child, the favourite, who watched his brother die because of supersitition and got close to no-one but his mother. She thinks that the terrible event of his not being allowed out of prison to go his small son's funeral is a deciding factor in his life.
She feels his emotional immaturity and lack of friends directs his life. That he is a man stuck in a small boy's half-understood turmoil and lashing out at opposition now he is in the position of authority. With the author's interpretation, there is the feeling that he is a man, driven into evil. That despite what terrible things he has done, there are reasons and he is to be pityed.
The more political the story becomes, moving from Mugabe morally engaged for independence, to one of deep corruption, mass violence, murders, a war... It isn't all fascinating reading though - international diplomacy, or the lack of it can be dry.
However, the extensive interviews with the very grand and warm Lady Soames, daughter of Churchill, wife of the last governor of Rhodesia, Sir Christopher who had been close to Mugabe was fascinatingly full of insights into British political life under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
Interesting was the interview with the repellent Ian Smith whose self-confidence and righteousness had not even bene cracked by how he had fallen. Smith is a match for Mugabe in evil, actually worse. He had unilaterally declared Rhodesia independent of the UK but now felt entitled for special consideration from the British to rescue his country and succour and boost up his (white) countrymen. Which they did, more or less. (Mugabe had accepted a 10 year moratorium on the redisribution of land which allowed the white farmers to keep 70% of the farming land although they formed only 1% of the population.)
After the international polics, comes the African and domestic variety. Power struggles were not Mugabe's thing. Death, threats, vote-rigging, intimdation and torture were just part and parcel of Mugabe's drive to absolute power .
And then the we are at the end and have the author's interpretation of his character with which I do not agree. A summary of the situation to date and that's it. Plenty to think of and reflect on.
The book is well-written and a good read. Because I disagree with her assessment of Mugabe means that I think she concentrated on some parts of his life and ignored others to prove her thesis, even if this was done unconsciously. However it was her book, Heidi Holland's book, not mine. A 5 star read.
The book is about the evolution of the small, clever boy, idolised by his peculiar mother who was a thwarted nun, abandoned by his father and committed to both black independence and Marxism into a brutal dictator who would do anything to stay in power.
The more corrupt he gets, the more he believes in his own importance. He grows to interpret the moral base of his crusade in political manner, self-serving to the core. He believes that doing what he wants takes priority over doing what is right. He never sees what he has done as evil but more collateral damage in his war for his country's indepence and growth. A murderer, a man who played with lives like a game of chess, the end justifying the means. A monster. That is how I see it.
The author does not agree. She thinks that he is still that lost, small boy inside. The clever child, the favourite, who watched his brother die because of supersitition and got close to no-one but his mother. She thinks that the terrible event of his not being allowed out of prison to go his small son's funeral is a deciding factor in his life.
She feels his emotional immaturity and lack of friends directs his life. That he is a man stuck in a small boy's half-understood turmoil and lashing out at opposition now he is in the position of authority. With the author's interpretation, there is the feeling that he is a man, driven into evil. That despite what terrible things he has done, there are reasons and he is to be pityed.
The more political the story becomes, moving from Mugabe morally engaged for independence, to one of deep corruption, mass violence, murders, a war... It isn't all fascinating reading though - international diplomacy, or the lack of it can be dry.
However, the extensive interviews with the very grand and warm Lady Soames, daughter of Churchill, wife of the last governor of Rhodesia, Sir Christopher who had been close to Mugabe was fascinatingly full of insights into British political life under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
Interesting was the interview with the repellent Ian Smith whose self-confidence and righteousness had not even bene cracked by how he had fallen. Smith is a match for Mugabe in evil, actually worse. He had unilaterally declared Rhodesia independent of the UK but now felt entitled for special consideration from the British to rescue his country and succour and boost up his (white) countrymen. Which they did, more or less. (Mugabe had accepted a 10 year moratorium on the redisribution of land which allowed the white farmers to keep 70% of the farming land although they formed only 1% of the population.)
After the international polics, comes the African and domestic variety. Power struggles were not Mugabe's thing. Death, threats, vote-rigging, intimdation and torture were just part and parcel of Mugabe's drive to absolute power .
And then the we are at the end and have the author's interpretation of his character with which I do not agree. A summary of the situation to date and that's it. Plenty to think of and reflect on.
The book is well-written and a good read. Because I disagree with her assessment of Mugabe means that I think she concentrated on some parts of his life and ignored others to prove her thesis, even if this was done unconsciously. However it was her book, Heidi Holland's book, not mine. A 5 star read.
March 3, 2016
A most agonising read for me. Never before have I actually pushed myself to read a book that I admittedly found repulsive at several points.
The only pro among so many cons was the actual interviews with key persons in Zim's history and Mugabe's life.
That notwithstanding, the reduction of these interviews into superficial and almost nagging "psychological" evaluations (without much significant personal encounters with Mugabe) seemed overbearing to me. It gets to a point where one almost feels like the author is "trying too much", over-reaching and insisting on matters that otherwise shouldn't get such a spotlight.
The author does admit that the book she wrote has a "Eurocentric" view, which I gladly is more nuanced than expected. But for a book that seemed to have so much promise of knowledge and insight, I was left wishing that it was a mere collection of the interviews themselves with none of the author's presumably informed commentary.
The only pro among so many cons was the actual interviews with key persons in Zim's history and Mugabe's life.
That notwithstanding, the reduction of these interviews into superficial and almost nagging "psychological" evaluations (without much significant personal encounters with Mugabe) seemed overbearing to me. It gets to a point where one almost feels like the author is "trying too much", over-reaching and insisting on matters that otherwise shouldn't get such a spotlight.
The author does admit that the book she wrote has a "Eurocentric" view, which I gladly is more nuanced than expected. But for a book that seemed to have so much promise of knowledge and insight, I was left wishing that it was a mere collection of the interviews themselves with none of the author's presumably informed commentary.
November 12, 2009
Honestly, I feel like my views of this book is colored by the fact that I don't know much about Africa/Zimbabwe. While I'm reading books like Dinner with Mugabe to remedy that fact, my lack of (embarrassingly enough) even basic knowledge in many cases made it difficult for me to connect to several of the events that Holland uses to examine Robert Mugabe.
The purpose of the book was not so much to describe how Mugabe affected Zimbabwe for the worse (Holland, and probably most others not in ZANU-PF, take for granted that he did), but rather to use psychology to examine how it was he made such decisions. Essentially, Holland wonders "[How did:] he squander his life's work, betraying the people who trusted him[?:]. Why? What drove his self-destruction" and, as a result, the destruction of Zimbabwe.
She concludes that it was the childhood influences of his mother and the local Jesuit priest believing too much in his future that made it impossible for him to tolerate rejection. Similarly, his awful experiences with the white regime in Rhodesia, especially when he wasn't allowed to go to the funeral of his infant son, made him too angry to resist revenge. (Likewise, what he views as later betrayals by whites in Zimbabwe and by Britain and America fueled that need to seek revenge.) And finally, the effect of those around him kow-towing to his every wish and whim eventually made him "succumb to his power lust as well as to retribution rather than serving Zimbabwe in the best interests of the people who once idolized him" (216).
I applaud Holland's efforts in creating this psychological study. I believe that she did a solid job of it--probably as best as one would manage given the circumstances. I also appreciated the re-evaluation of this effect on Zimbabwe in the postscript given the supposed "power-sharing" agreement that was decided upon in September of 2008.
The problem is not in the conclusion, per se, but rather in her relentless beating of it throughout the book. I felt she repeated herself several times, that the writing failed to be as interesting as it could have been, and that she didn't do enough to describe the reliability/unreliability of her witnesses most of the time. (Obviously Mugabe and those close to him would not be reliable, and she notes this, but otherwise it seems to be taken for granted that the majority of her interviews are from reliable or semi-reliable sources.)
I also don't think that she does enough to examine how countries ought to react to similar leaders today and in the future, if as she says the purpose of her book is to make it so we can learn from Mugabe to keep similar tyrants from being shaped and/or coming to power. In the postscript she claims that Britain has a prerogative to speak respectfully (not necessarily appeasing) towards Mugabe to try and broker some kind of relief for his people, which I agree with--diplomacy is the best option nine times out of ten, but beyond that there's nothing. How should we respond to dictators in established dictatorships, like in Myanmar? Or to the newly formed heads of state in younger states? Or what about the variety of tribal chiefdoms in Somalia?
Regardless of my problems with the book, I think it was an interesting character study that did humanize "Mad Bob" but not in a way that condoned or excused away the atrocities that he explicitly or implicitly endorsed. Made me want to learn more about Zimbabwe, at least.
The purpose of the book was not so much to describe how Mugabe affected Zimbabwe for the worse (Holland, and probably most others not in ZANU-PF, take for granted that he did), but rather to use psychology to examine how it was he made such decisions. Essentially, Holland wonders "[How did:] he squander his life's work, betraying the people who trusted him[?:]. Why? What drove his self-destruction" and, as a result, the destruction of Zimbabwe.
She concludes that it was the childhood influences of his mother and the local Jesuit priest believing too much in his future that made it impossible for him to tolerate rejection. Similarly, his awful experiences with the white regime in Rhodesia, especially when he wasn't allowed to go to the funeral of his infant son, made him too angry to resist revenge. (Likewise, what he views as later betrayals by whites in Zimbabwe and by Britain and America fueled that need to seek revenge.) And finally, the effect of those around him kow-towing to his every wish and whim eventually made him "succumb to his power lust as well as to retribution rather than serving Zimbabwe in the best interests of the people who once idolized him" (216).
I applaud Holland's efforts in creating this psychological study. I believe that she did a solid job of it--probably as best as one would manage given the circumstances. I also appreciated the re-evaluation of this effect on Zimbabwe in the postscript given the supposed "power-sharing" agreement that was decided upon in September of 2008.
The problem is not in the conclusion, per se, but rather in her relentless beating of it throughout the book. I felt she repeated herself several times, that the writing failed to be as interesting as it could have been, and that she didn't do enough to describe the reliability/unreliability of her witnesses most of the time. (Obviously Mugabe and those close to him would not be reliable, and she notes this, but otherwise it seems to be taken for granted that the majority of her interviews are from reliable or semi-reliable sources.)
I also don't think that she does enough to examine how countries ought to react to similar leaders today and in the future, if as she says the purpose of her book is to make it so we can learn from Mugabe to keep similar tyrants from being shaped and/or coming to power. In the postscript she claims that Britain has a prerogative to speak respectfully (not necessarily appeasing) towards Mugabe to try and broker some kind of relief for his people, which I agree with--diplomacy is the best option nine times out of ten, but beyond that there's nothing. How should we respond to dictators in established dictatorships, like in Myanmar? Or to the newly formed heads of state in younger states? Or what about the variety of tribal chiefdoms in Somalia?
Regardless of my problems with the book, I think it was an interesting character study that did humanize "Mad Bob" but not in a way that condoned or excused away the atrocities that he explicitly or implicitly endorsed. Made me want to learn more about Zimbabwe, at least.
December 31, 2020
Heidi Holland’s book, probably the most famous work written about Zimbabwe’s late President, is an important contribution to post-colonial African history.
Though a ‘journalistic’ work replete with clumsy hot takes, and greatly undermined by amateurish attempts to paint a psychological portrait of Mugabe, painstaking attempts were made by Holland to interview most of the key players in Rhodesia’s and Zimbabwe’s recent history. These interviews make up the bulk of the book and though large passages from them are simply transcribed and pasted artlessly, these are Holland’s real contribution to the nascent history of Zimbabwe that is beginning to emerge.
Her book is somewhat compromised by being ‘Eurocentric’ (to her credit, she acknowledges this in her own admission to George Charamba, a leading Zimbabwean civil servant). Moreover, with the exception of Ian Smith whom she rightfully criticises, Holland largely creates a narrative wherein the white characters who have interacted with Mugabe over the years are seen as the saints, the black figures as the sinners.
Holland does, however, acknowledge the damage done to Zimbabwe by Britain in recent years. As a Briton reading this book, I was particularly dismayed by the revelations about New Labour figures. With the exception of the principled Robin Cook, a succession of ministers including Clare Short but also Blair, Brown and (David) Miliband wilfully precipitated the end of the willing seller-willing buyer land reform programme that had been negotiated at Lancaster House; then regularly provoked and isolated Zimbabwe, ostensibly to the detriment of Mugabe, but ultimately to the detriment of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Even since the publication of Holland’s book, her death, and the death of Mugabe himself, Britain has also done nothing (at least publicly) to assist Zimbabwe in its journey towards a prosperous future. That ‘the Crocodile’ Mnangagwa’s coup was welcomed by the West because he returned a handful of farms to white farmers, despite being even less forthcoming about his direct, leading role in overseeing Gukurahundi than the late Robert Mugabe, is symbolic of our longstanding wrongheaded priorities when interfacing with Zimbabwe. Sadly the lives and property of white settlers and their descendants are still seen as more important than the ongoing travails of black Africans.
In writing the book, Holland would have done well to dismiss the handful of psychologists she consulted and to acknowledge her own biases more readily, or instead to take a more objective approach in drafting. Generally, the greatest strength of the work is its research and compilation of the voices that emerge from exclusive interviews; the weakest is Holland’s own voice. That said, taken with a pinch of salt, Dinner with Mugabe is an important read for anyone interested in Africa’s post-colonial history and the late Holland should be commended for her endeavours in compiling it.
Though a ‘journalistic’ work replete with clumsy hot takes, and greatly undermined by amateurish attempts to paint a psychological portrait of Mugabe, painstaking attempts were made by Holland to interview most of the key players in Rhodesia’s and Zimbabwe’s recent history. These interviews make up the bulk of the book and though large passages from them are simply transcribed and pasted artlessly, these are Holland’s real contribution to the nascent history of Zimbabwe that is beginning to emerge.
Her book is somewhat compromised by being ‘Eurocentric’ (to her credit, she acknowledges this in her own admission to George Charamba, a leading Zimbabwean civil servant). Moreover, with the exception of Ian Smith whom she rightfully criticises, Holland largely creates a narrative wherein the white characters who have interacted with Mugabe over the years are seen as the saints, the black figures as the sinners.
Holland does, however, acknowledge the damage done to Zimbabwe by Britain in recent years. As a Briton reading this book, I was particularly dismayed by the revelations about New Labour figures. With the exception of the principled Robin Cook, a succession of ministers including Clare Short but also Blair, Brown and (David) Miliband wilfully precipitated the end of the willing seller-willing buyer land reform programme that had been negotiated at Lancaster House; then regularly provoked and isolated Zimbabwe, ostensibly to the detriment of Mugabe, but ultimately to the detriment of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Even since the publication of Holland’s book, her death, and the death of Mugabe himself, Britain has also done nothing (at least publicly) to assist Zimbabwe in its journey towards a prosperous future. That ‘the Crocodile’ Mnangagwa’s coup was welcomed by the West because he returned a handful of farms to white farmers, despite being even less forthcoming about his direct, leading role in overseeing Gukurahundi than the late Robert Mugabe, is symbolic of our longstanding wrongheaded priorities when interfacing with Zimbabwe. Sadly the lives and property of white settlers and their descendants are still seen as more important than the ongoing travails of black Africans.
In writing the book, Holland would have done well to dismiss the handful of psychologists she consulted and to acknowledge her own biases more readily, or instead to take a more objective approach in drafting. Generally, the greatest strength of the work is its research and compilation of the voices that emerge from exclusive interviews; the weakest is Holland’s own voice. That said, taken with a pinch of salt, Dinner with Mugabe is an important read for anyone interested in Africa’s post-colonial history and the late Holland should be commended for her endeavours in compiling it.
September 17, 2019
It’s one of the best political biographies, if it can be called that, I have read. I have always felt that Robert Mugabe has been a much maligned person, albeit all of it may not necessarily be true. There are parts of the book - especially about his emotional compass that speak to me, as I identify similar traits in my emotional compass with him. I also strongly believe and agree with the western hypocrisy premise that the late author describes in her book. The fact of the matter is, she doesn’t try to tell the reader that Mugabe is bad or good. She is trying to rather say that yes he is most likely a cruel person, that he has become, progressively over time. And yet, he didn’t become this overnight, or just by himself. A lot of factors went into making him what he was, till he died, embittered. And to ignore all those other factors is where we make a gross error of judgement. This book is definitely a must read.
Read
August 7, 2011And this is why not everyone should be published. This book read like a school kid trying to make a story fit their image. I thought it would be an insightful view of the murderer and despot who has destroyed a country in the name of his gluttony for power, and all I got was some lilly livered person putting across a very shallow piece. Certainly not an author I would want to read anything else by.
May 6, 2012
I found the insights into Mugabe's character fascinating, in particular how dangerous it turned out to be for his Mother and Jesuit teachers to have told him he was chosen by god. But the book didn't flow very well, and I recall losing interest about two thirds of the way through, although I did finish. Not "a book I couldn't put down", but an interesting one nonetheless.
December 21, 2017
Who is Robert Mugabe? How and why did he become the person he now infamously is?
These are the questions that Heidi Holland attempts to answer in her book, Dinner With Mugabe. The author bookends this work with the two occasions that she met Robert Mugabe. The first encounter was in 1975, the young Mugabe fresh out of an 11 year stint in jail under the Rhodesian government. She remembers him as well mannered, well spoken and even compassionate.
In between her next meeting with Mugabe - in a 2007 interview - much has changed in the country formerly known as Rhodesia. Mugabe has become a seemingly megalomaniac dictator presiding over a country deep in the throes of economic and political crises.
What happened? Not so much what happened to Zimbabwe (although that cannot be divorced from the apparent changes in the demeanour, temperament and disposition of its leader), but what happened to the Robert Mugabe of the 70's and 80's?
The author interviews a range of people who have known Mugabe at different stages of his life: his brother Donato, the niece of his late wife Sally, Ian Smith, Edgar Tekere, Father Fidelis Mukonori, Clare Short, Dennis Norman, Professor Jonathan Moyo among others. Each provide different insights from about the motivations of Mugabe from their unique vantage point. Holland does a good job of informing the reader of the potential biases that each of her interviewees hold. As usual, the truth about Mugabe probably lies somewhere in the middle.
This book, for me, fell short in several respects. Firstly, and most annoyingly, Holland's persistent psycho-analysis feels misplaced and inaccurate. She seems to have already decided that Mugabe's childhood, bookish disposition and inability to form close bonds and traumatic experiences as a prisoner of war are the real reasons behind his aggression toward the West and his inability to compromise. Any evidence suggesting otherwise is dismissed with puerile arguments.
Secondly, while Holland (rightfully) exposes some of the potential biases of her subjects, she fails to acknowledge her own. Perhaps her first quick but pleasant encounter with Mugabe in 1975 was not an accurate depiction of the man he already was? Has she hinged too much of her thesis on this one encounter?
That said, Dinner With Mugabe is worth reading - albeit with several pinches of salt - for an understanding of Mugabe's reputation within his country and without. In light of recent developments in Zimbabwe, I sincerely hope Robert Mugabe finds time to pen his memoirs so we have his version of events.
These are the questions that Heidi Holland attempts to answer in her book, Dinner With Mugabe. The author bookends this work with the two occasions that she met Robert Mugabe. The first encounter was in 1975, the young Mugabe fresh out of an 11 year stint in jail under the Rhodesian government. She remembers him as well mannered, well spoken and even compassionate.
In between her next meeting with Mugabe - in a 2007 interview - much has changed in the country formerly known as Rhodesia. Mugabe has become a seemingly megalomaniac dictator presiding over a country deep in the throes of economic and political crises.
What happened? Not so much what happened to Zimbabwe (although that cannot be divorced from the apparent changes in the demeanour, temperament and disposition of its leader), but what happened to the Robert Mugabe of the 70's and 80's?
The author interviews a range of people who have known Mugabe at different stages of his life: his brother Donato, the niece of his late wife Sally, Ian Smith, Edgar Tekere, Father Fidelis Mukonori, Clare Short, Dennis Norman, Professor Jonathan Moyo among others. Each provide different insights from about the motivations of Mugabe from their unique vantage point. Holland does a good job of informing the reader of the potential biases that each of her interviewees hold. As usual, the truth about Mugabe probably lies somewhere in the middle.
This book, for me, fell short in several respects. Firstly, and most annoyingly, Holland's persistent psycho-analysis feels misplaced and inaccurate. She seems to have already decided that Mugabe's childhood, bookish disposition and inability to form close bonds and traumatic experiences as a prisoner of war are the real reasons behind his aggression toward the West and his inability to compromise. Any evidence suggesting otherwise is dismissed with puerile arguments.
Secondly, while Holland (rightfully) exposes some of the potential biases of her subjects, she fails to acknowledge her own. Perhaps her first quick but pleasant encounter with Mugabe in 1975 was not an accurate depiction of the man he already was? Has she hinged too much of her thesis on this one encounter?
That said, Dinner With Mugabe is worth reading - albeit with several pinches of salt - for an understanding of Mugabe's reputation within his country and without. In light of recent developments in Zimbabwe, I sincerely hope Robert Mugabe finds time to pen his memoirs so we have his version of events.
July 24, 2020
“Uh oh, back again...bout to make these bum bitches mad again...yep, the queen’s back, what’s happening?” - Bell Hooks
•
I many thoughts on this one but, from years from conditioning and general knowledge as a Zimbabwean “you can’t talk about it or the secret services will kill your family”. But Mugabe is dead now so I guess, idk, this is not a review of Mugabe this is a review of the audiobook(Mugabe as a human rating - 0/5 stars). Apparently, idk I think this is what the book said but 1:5 Zimbabwean’s worked for the government as informants so yikes. Literally Zimbabwe from the 1987-2017 was literally just George Orwell’s 1984 in real life.
•
Ok firstly, the author, white South African journalist, so we already know the biography is from a privileged white lens and recounts and analysis on history must be taken with a grain of salt. However, she did address this which I was like ok yes come on self awareness. Her analysis of Mugabe constructed Mugabe as a boy who was quiet and bright, then he was abandoned by his father then became a teacher and went to prison were he tortured then his child and wife died which contributed to him becoming a monster. This opens the whole nature vs nurture discussion, and the psychology of dictator but I don’t know if people who do things as horrific as Mugabe should be offered that sympathy? 🤷🏾♀️
•
Secondly, got a glimpse into Zimbabwean history, especially Gukurahundi. This is a topic hushed in the Ndebele community (2nd main tribe/language in Zimbabwe), that most times when you ever try to question it, it’s just pain you see and a grimace on family members faces and you are hushed away. Even Wikipedia doesn’t give us much. Mugabe was the orchestrator of the genocide of Ndebele people, still to this day there are unmarked mass graves of thousands of Ndebele people. Yet, this is rarely addressed.
•
Mugabe was a cruel and evil man, power hungry who ran Zimbabwe into the ground and raised the next generation of others just like him. But idk how how Heidi Holland did it, I saw the slightest bit of humanity in the guy, a man with no leadership skills who believed he was great and intially started with a dream to get his countries land back. A guy paranoid and a basically a psychopath. It’s easy to distance your self from people like that but at points I was like damn the steps to dictatorship make sense.
•
That’s what scares me about people you know, their ability to cause so much suffering when given the power. Crazy. This book had me crying and sat in one position for many hours. I can’t lie, it was good. Don’t even know how to rate it.
•
I many thoughts on this one but, from years from conditioning and general knowledge as a Zimbabwean “you can’t talk about it or the secret services will kill your family”. But Mugabe is dead now so I guess, idk, this is not a review of Mugabe this is a review of the audiobook(Mugabe as a human rating - 0/5 stars). Apparently, idk I think this is what the book said but 1:5 Zimbabwean’s worked for the government as informants so yikes. Literally Zimbabwe from the 1987-2017 was literally just George Orwell’s 1984 in real life.
•
Ok firstly, the author, white South African journalist, so we already know the biography is from a privileged white lens and recounts and analysis on history must be taken with a grain of salt. However, she did address this which I was like ok yes come on self awareness. Her analysis of Mugabe constructed Mugabe as a boy who was quiet and bright, then he was abandoned by his father then became a teacher and went to prison were he tortured then his child and wife died which contributed to him becoming a monster. This opens the whole nature vs nurture discussion, and the psychology of dictator but I don’t know if people who do things as horrific as Mugabe should be offered that sympathy? 🤷🏾♀️
•
Secondly, got a glimpse into Zimbabwean history, especially Gukurahundi. This is a topic hushed in the Ndebele community (2nd main tribe/language in Zimbabwe), that most times when you ever try to question it, it’s just pain you see and a grimace on family members faces and you are hushed away. Even Wikipedia doesn’t give us much. Mugabe was the orchestrator of the genocide of Ndebele people, still to this day there are unmarked mass graves of thousands of Ndebele people. Yet, this is rarely addressed.
•
Mugabe was a cruel and evil man, power hungry who ran Zimbabwe into the ground and raised the next generation of others just like him. But idk how how Heidi Holland did it, I saw the slightest bit of humanity in the guy, a man with no leadership skills who believed he was great and intially started with a dream to get his countries land back. A guy paranoid and a basically a psychopath. It’s easy to distance your self from people like that but at points I was like damn the steps to dictatorship make sense.
•
That’s what scares me about people you know, their ability to cause so much suffering when given the power. Crazy. This book had me crying and sat in one position for many hours. I can’t lie, it was good. Don’t even know how to rate it.
December 10, 2018
Holland grew up in Rhodesia, and has first-hand experience of almost all the people involved in the story of how Robert Mugabe progressed from an obscure freedom fighter via a renowned revolutionary and respected statesman to the corrupt control-freak that was toppled in 2017.
The book was released in 2008, when he was at the peak of his power, and the country was was suffering the second worst case of hyperinflation ever encountered (much worse then the Weimar republic, and eclipsed only by the Hungarian crisis of the early 1920s).
Mugabe was trained by Jesuits, and was by all accounts well educated and very clever. (He had seven degrees, and his intelligence was reputably only surpassed by his own appreciation of it.) He was, however, a very bad judge of people, and was sorely lacking in empathy. Holland traces this back to how his father abandoned the family, and how his brother died, leaving him as the one responsable for the family - and (in his opinion) everything else.
He had a curious relationship with the English. On the one hand, he embodied the English Gentleman, in his immaculate suites (from Savile Row, until he was banned from the UK) and impeccable manners. But on the other he blames the former colonial power for everything that's ever gone wrong in the country.
Holland tries to show the man behind the facade, and almost manages to find him. (She even got an interview with the man himself!) But even a human face cannot hide the disaster that his rule has brought to the country. Almost every conceivable indicator has hit rock bottom, and continues to fall.
Since the book was published, he continued for another eight years until he was overthrown in a coup by one of his lieutenants in 2017.
The book was released in 2008, when he was at the peak of his power, and the country was was suffering the second worst case of hyperinflation ever encountered (much worse then the Weimar republic, and eclipsed only by the Hungarian crisis of the early 1920s).
Mugabe was trained by Jesuits, and was by all accounts well educated and very clever. (He had seven degrees, and his intelligence was reputably only surpassed by his own appreciation of it.) He was, however, a very bad judge of people, and was sorely lacking in empathy. Holland traces this back to how his father abandoned the family, and how his brother died, leaving him as the one responsable for the family - and (in his opinion) everything else.
He had a curious relationship with the English. On the one hand, he embodied the English Gentleman, in his immaculate suites (from Savile Row, until he was banned from the UK) and impeccable manners. But on the other he blames the former colonial power for everything that's ever gone wrong in the country.
Holland tries to show the man behind the facade, and almost manages to find him. (She even got an interview with the man himself!) But even a human face cannot hide the disaster that his rule has brought to the country. Almost every conceivable indicator has hit rock bottom, and continues to fall.
Since the book was published, he continued for another eight years until he was overthrown in a coup by one of his lieutenants in 2017.
January 24, 2016
The real value in this book is in the comprehensive selection of interview material which the author has collected through dedicated research, patience and dogged determination. HH travels between South Africa, Zimbabwe and the UK in the main to interview key people who were either close to Mugabe or close to events which involved the man. The excerpts from interviews with Dennis Norman, Lord and Lady Soames, and Edgar Tekere come to mind as being particularly revelatory to me. There's really quite a lot of interview material to digest let alone opinion.
HH's attempts to get under the skin of the man are admirable. She consults a few psychologists and alludes to theories by prominent psychoanalysts like Freud, viz-a-vis personality splitting and repression of emotions. However she does have a tendency to go over the same ground in succeeding chapters. Fortunately this is subordinate to the volume of interview material.
In her final analysis she suggests giving Mugabe some respect when trying to engage with the man through dialogue which I commend her for. It is evident that Mugabe really does believe in an almost messianic mission to stand up to British Imperialism in all its forms. A two-way dialogue between the West and Mugabe would go a long way to creating a viable route forwards. It's not too late. As it stands it is very sad the lengths Mugabe has gone to in order to try and send home this message. Very sad indeed.
HH's attempts to get under the skin of the man are admirable. She consults a few psychologists and alludes to theories by prominent psychoanalysts like Freud, viz-a-vis personality splitting and repression of emotions. However she does have a tendency to go over the same ground in succeeding chapters. Fortunately this is subordinate to the volume of interview material.
In her final analysis she suggests giving Mugabe some respect when trying to engage with the man through dialogue which I commend her for. It is evident that Mugabe really does believe in an almost messianic mission to stand up to British Imperialism in all its forms. A two-way dialogue between the West and Mugabe would go a long way to creating a viable route forwards. It's not too late. As it stands it is very sad the lengths Mugabe has gone to in order to try and send home this message. Very sad indeed.
November 26, 2014
In a carefully researched book, Heidi Holland attempts to understand how someone upon whom so many had placed their hopes and dreams became a symbol for African kleptocracy. Holland traces Robert Mugabe's life as far as the information can take her, from Mugabe's home town and tight-lipped family to influential former colleagues in the rebellion whom Mugabe ultimately supplanted and who have their own agendas to Ian Smith and represents of the British government who underestimated or misunderstood Mugabe. Holland is even able to interview Mugabe himself, albeit briefly. Given the effort involved, it's disappointing that Holland's psychological profile of Mugabe is so pedestrian. Mugabe, according to Holland, was a lonely boy who had too heavy expectations placed upon him from childhood. He was unprepared for the brutality of internecine fighting in the rebellion to free Rhodesia from white rule or for the torture he experienced during his imprisonment. Once in power, Mugabe was corrupted, and he became the crook he is today. Those hoping for a challenge to their assumptions or new insight into Mugabe would be disappointed, but it's a well written and researched book.
July 22, 2011
Does the ego of dictators follow logic? None ever turn inward and blame himself for the violence and corruption of his regime but blames the media, saboteurs and enemies. How does one get to be a dictator? Do childhood experiences set the authoritarian personality? This book is a series of interviews: “This is Your Life, Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe.” A nationalist activist who after being jailed for a decade is part of the leaders of a bush war against white rule in Rhodesia, Mugabe is initially an impressive and accomplished leader of the new democratic Zimbabwe. Once a shy, bookish child, then an impeccably dressed and polite rebel leader, he’s now a nearly 90-year old megalomaniacal paranoid mass murderer. Holland’s interviews are interesting, everyone—from former guerrillas to white Rhodesians—seems to be lying or self-deluded. Though we get a good sense of the historical circumstances great and small that framed Mugabe’s ruin, we also get a lot of tired psychobabble speculation.
July 23, 2021
It is why Mugabe is so dangerous: because for him, and for the person talking to him, the savage, destructive part is so well hidden that one might almost believe it did not exist.
One evening in 1975 Heidi Holland hosted an impromptu last minute dinner for the nototrious Robert Mugabe. Contrary to what the title suggests she did not actullay dine with him, but cooked and served for him and a mutual friend. What she did do, however, is drive him to the station when his car did not arrive, leaving her small child unattended whilst doing so. The following day she received an unexpected call from him to thank her and ask after her child. This brief and thoughtful encounter triggered an interest from Holland, and as the political landscape of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe ever changed she followed the career of this contradictory man and endeavoured to seek the answers as to how he could show such kindness personally, and yet so much brute and bloodshed professionally.
The novel is structured with each chapter focusing on one indvidual from a period of Mugabe's life and their experiences and thoughts of why and how Mugabe became the man he is. I liked how this format worked as we could see each persons
perspective individually, with the writer pasting exerts from their conversation verbatim. Holland interviewed mainly political figures, as Mugabe did not have many close friends, and at times the names and political parties were hard to keep up with, it would have been beneficial to have some kind of index or list of parties to refer to while reading. However, this is coming from someone who knows ashamedly little about Zimbabwe's political structure so other readers may not struggle with this aspect.
As expected, many of the characters are unlikeable or untrustworthy, something Holland encourages the reader to see, which at times I feel would have been better to decide for ourselves. I appreciate that as a white woman living in Africa, particularity one working in politics, she has her fair share of knowledge and opinion about them all, but as a reader I would have appreciated less of a bias narrative.
I found chapter 13 with Jonathon Moyo to be the most helpful in understanding Mugabe and how he almost stumbled into the position he was in at the time of publication. This segement was probably the least biased and most fair in shedding light over the man, rather than the myth.
I was worried that I would have needed to read up on Mugabe before opening the book (which I decided not to do), but I think Holland successfully managed to cover his life story throughout the chapters and fleshed out the man who is so easily just a poster on a wall or two dimensional image to be revered. She explores his childhood and family set up, time in prison, first marriage and, of course, his political relationships througout his historic reign as leader.
From the outside Mugabe is indeed a cold, unfeeling tyrant who rules to his own whim, yet Holland has fought hard to breath life into this charicature and does her best to provide some pyschoanalysis of how he went from studious teacher, to paranoid terrorist. I did feel throughout that she was maybe trying a little to hard to find excuses for him and a lot of these excuses were reduced to a Freudian blame on his mother for, essentially, praising him too much and wishing him to be the best at school and in life after his father left. I find this narrative to be a little simplistic and repetitive. Many children grow up in fractured family units and don’t then grow up to become ruthless killers! I can't help but feel that there are more complicated reasoning behind his change and that Holland was seeking a little too hard for some kind of retribution for the man who so kindly enquired after her child. Indeed I found her biases to be glaring at points, with obvious disdain towards various individuals that seem clouded by her own experiences as a jouralist in Africa. It is also repeated throughout that his shy childhood demaner explains about the man today, but again, I feel wanting a more complex study into 'Mad Bob'. It would have been helpful for her to shed more light on his personal experience in prison lasting over a decade, or even the way he styled himself as a colonial British man, despite growing to loathe many British politicians, would surely deserved a deeper exploration into his pysche.
The course of the book builds to the concluding chapter in which Holland is finally granted a face to face interview with Mugabe (again, no dinner was served). It was interesting to finally have direct answers from Mugabe and to hear his choice of phrasing and thoughts behind his life and actions. I fully understand that Holland was unable to ask all the questions she wanted or push as hard as she hoped, for fear of the interview being shut down prematurely, but I did also find this to be slightly anti-climactic after such a steady build.
By the end of the novel, I did feel that I knew more about the life and character of Mugabe, having not known much before, but I also finished the book feeling that the psychoanalysis was slighlty forced and amateur.
Overall, Holland took on a huge task to try and understand this dictator and I certainly learnt more than I knew previously, but maybe by attempting to review his deeper psyche, she bit off more than she could chew at this dinner.
One evening in 1975 Heidi Holland hosted an impromptu last minute dinner for the nototrious Robert Mugabe. Contrary to what the title suggests she did not actullay dine with him, but cooked and served for him and a mutual friend. What she did do, however, is drive him to the station when his car did not arrive, leaving her small child unattended whilst doing so. The following day she received an unexpected call from him to thank her and ask after her child. This brief and thoughtful encounter triggered an interest from Holland, and as the political landscape of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe ever changed she followed the career of this contradictory man and endeavoured to seek the answers as to how he could show such kindness personally, and yet so much brute and bloodshed professionally.
The novel is structured with each chapter focusing on one indvidual from a period of Mugabe's life and their experiences and thoughts of why and how Mugabe became the man he is. I liked how this format worked as we could see each persons
perspective individually, with the writer pasting exerts from their conversation verbatim. Holland interviewed mainly political figures, as Mugabe did not have many close friends, and at times the names and political parties were hard to keep up with, it would have been beneficial to have some kind of index or list of parties to refer to while reading. However, this is coming from someone who knows ashamedly little about Zimbabwe's political structure so other readers may not struggle with this aspect.
As expected, many of the characters are unlikeable or untrustworthy, something Holland encourages the reader to see, which at times I feel would have been better to decide for ourselves. I appreciate that as a white woman living in Africa, particularity one working in politics, she has her fair share of knowledge and opinion about them all, but as a reader I would have appreciated less of a bias narrative.
I found chapter 13 with Jonathon Moyo to be the most helpful in understanding Mugabe and how he almost stumbled into the position he was in at the time of publication. This segement was probably the least biased and most fair in shedding light over the man, rather than the myth.
I was worried that I would have needed to read up on Mugabe before opening the book (which I decided not to do), but I think Holland successfully managed to cover his life story throughout the chapters and fleshed out the man who is so easily just a poster on a wall or two dimensional image to be revered. She explores his childhood and family set up, time in prison, first marriage and, of course, his political relationships througout his historic reign as leader.
From the outside Mugabe is indeed a cold, unfeeling tyrant who rules to his own whim, yet Holland has fought hard to breath life into this charicature and does her best to provide some pyschoanalysis of how he went from studious teacher, to paranoid terrorist. I did feel throughout that she was maybe trying a little to hard to find excuses for him and a lot of these excuses were reduced to a Freudian blame on his mother for, essentially, praising him too much and wishing him to be the best at school and in life after his father left. I find this narrative to be a little simplistic and repetitive. Many children grow up in fractured family units and don’t then grow up to become ruthless killers! I can't help but feel that there are more complicated reasoning behind his change and that Holland was seeking a little too hard for some kind of retribution for the man who so kindly enquired after her child. Indeed I found her biases to be glaring at points, with obvious disdain towards various individuals that seem clouded by her own experiences as a jouralist in Africa. It is also repeated throughout that his shy childhood demaner explains about the man today, but again, I feel wanting a more complex study into 'Mad Bob'. It would have been helpful for her to shed more light on his personal experience in prison lasting over a decade, or even the way he styled himself as a colonial British man, despite growing to loathe many British politicians, would surely deserved a deeper exploration into his pysche.
The course of the book builds to the concluding chapter in which Holland is finally granted a face to face interview with Mugabe (again, no dinner was served). It was interesting to finally have direct answers from Mugabe and to hear his choice of phrasing and thoughts behind his life and actions. I fully understand that Holland was unable to ask all the questions she wanted or push as hard as she hoped, for fear of the interview being shut down prematurely, but I did also find this to be slightly anti-climactic after such a steady build.
By the end of the novel, I did feel that I knew more about the life and character of Mugabe, having not known much before, but I also finished the book feeling that the psychoanalysis was slighlty forced and amateur.
Overall, Holland took on a huge task to try and understand this dictator and I certainly learnt more than I knew previously, but maybe by attempting to review his deeper psyche, she bit off more than she could chew at this dinner.
Read
July 13, 2012Really think that this book was an attempt at psycho-analysis. The write had no close encounter with the man himself, so I find it hard to understand how she arrived at her conclusions. I was not impressed to say the least!
October 23, 2015
Brilliant book!!
August 7, 2014
Bit disappointed... The book is good but somewhat sluggish. expected more of history than talking of people.
May 2, 2018
The book opens with a personal anecdote from the author, who remembers a meeting with Mugabe she had years before, when she was an idealistic liberal and he was a strong revolutionary leader. Perhaps it's this personal experience with Mugabe (of being duped by Mugabe, maybe?) that gives the author a real passion for the subject... she does not mince words as she recounts the failures and betrayals of Zimbabwe's leader over the years. There is an anger on the page here.
Mostly, the book is an attempt to understand the pathology of a guy like Mugabe, to see what leads a man to become a terrible ruler. I recently find it interesting to compare these sorts of psychologies with America's own current autocrat, and there are similarities here. The biggest is the revenge obsession... Mugabe seems to be a man driven by spite, more interested in getting back at his perceived enemies than in actually fixing things. There's also a failure to realistically review his own actions, and the ability to twist and contradict reality sometimes several times in a single sentence to make the impression that he is never wrong and never has to apologize. Of course, it's not a perfect parallel. Mugabe is smart, and at least used to have ideals.
The final thesis, I guess, is that those ideals are what made Mugabe so bad. When he couldn't live up to them, or when others refused to live up to them, he bailed on caring about anything at all. There's a cautionary tale in that, even for people who aren't leading a country.
One small issue I had is that this book isn't great for telling the reader *why* Mugabe is a tyrant. We get examples of bad things he did, with a particular massacre notably standing out, along with the general idea that he has tanked Zimbabwe's economy. But this information is given piecemeal, and in a way that assumes the reader is already somewhat familiar with it. Maybe this is best as the *second* book someone reads about Robert Mugabe.
Mostly, the book is an attempt to understand the pathology of a guy like Mugabe, to see what leads a man to become a terrible ruler. I recently find it interesting to compare these sorts of psychologies with America's own current autocrat, and there are similarities here. The biggest is the revenge obsession... Mugabe seems to be a man driven by spite, more interested in getting back at his perceived enemies than in actually fixing things. There's also a failure to realistically review his own actions, and the ability to twist and contradict reality sometimes several times in a single sentence to make the impression that he is never wrong and never has to apologize. Of course, it's not a perfect parallel. Mugabe is smart, and at least used to have ideals.
The final thesis, I guess, is that those ideals are what made Mugabe so bad. When he couldn't live up to them, or when others refused to live up to them, he bailed on caring about anything at all. There's a cautionary tale in that, even for people who aren't leading a country.
One small issue I had is that this book isn't great for telling the reader *why* Mugabe is a tyrant. We get examples of bad things he did, with a particular massacre notably standing out, along with the general idea that he has tanked Zimbabwe's economy. But this information is given piecemeal, and in a way that assumes the reader is already somewhat familiar with it. Maybe this is best as the *second* book someone reads about Robert Mugabe.
August 21, 2018
I cannot really say that I enjoyed this book. Actually it made me cringe quite a lot. In my opinion the author often oversells her findings and the psychology she involved without providing justification for her conclusions. A lot of it seems a bit pulled out of a head, there are some contradictions in her conclusions and I feel a lot of it is overly simplified. I don't feel the complexity of human characters and political events is well represented. Although the amount of interviews and materials she collected given the political circumstances is impressive, it is still too little to make the statements she does make. I don't believe in psychological analysis without sitting down with the patient. On top of that I thought the structure and writing style to be utterly boring and as hinted already too biased and autorative. In general I do agree with the message of the book. The actual interview with Mugabe and the last view chapters pushed to book from 2 to 3 stars for me. But I would have preferred if the author structured it either as completely based on her opinion and avoided phrases like 'in fact' and 'actually' as if she had complete authority over the truth or I would have wished for a more academic, so to speak, handling of the topic. I found the representation of the material not professional enough and that is what made me cringe, too often to enjoy learning something new. It made me doubt the description, judgment and conclusion of the interviews which is a shame.
December 26, 2025
While I do appreciate the number of interviews Heidi conducted with various people who were acquainted with Mugabe, what doesn’t sit right with me is the depiction of Mugabe as a man with daddy issues and abandonment which later made him the political figure he became. It wasn’t clear what she really intended to delve into in this book. She says that the book is a psychobio on Mugabe but instead focuses on political decisions made (but not giving enough details) and spends only one chapter on her interview with Mugabe’s brother on his upbringing- this isn’t adequate. A lot of historical data is omitted that could have weaved piecemeal an account of Mugabe and his approach to governance and politics. She speaks of the massacre she blames Mugabe for yet it’s not detailed except a fleeting paragraph or so which doesn’t really help one understand what point she is trying to make. Her frequent repetition of daddy issues, mummy’s savior, country’s god sent messiah image of Mugabe doesn’t work. The fact that he did not want to get into politics but was pushed into being one of the surmises made by an interviewee which Mugabe contradicts gives a sense of feeling that more needed to go into getting the story right. I also did not like the fact that the ‘whites’ and Britain was being portrayed as the saviour needed to run independent Zimbabwe. The title is quite misleading.
December 2, 2017
Just reading this now. Started reading it about 2 months ago, but didn't like the intro, so I shuffled it to the bottom of my reading pile. Now with all the excitement in the past few weeks with Mugabe having surprisingly resigned out of the blue--I thought I would give it another chance. I find it quite insightful and she paints an interesting, if not complex or complicated, portrait of Robert Gabriel from his birth to statehood tyrant. His being fatherless has really come through and I think Heidi really called it right. It's a pity she committed suicide as I believe this book was published posthumously. No doubt, Mugabe was a difficult person to not only have as a friend and more so as a foe. Curious if he was implicated in the deaths of Herbert Chitepo (ZANU) and Josiah Tongongara (ZANLA) --who probably would have run ZANU-PF and Zimbabwe since its independence if not for their early deaths.
June 23, 2018
A different protective of Mugabe base on interviews with people who have known him and worked with him in different capacities. Not knowing much about his background or modern Zimbabwean history, this was a very worthwhile read. I thought the goal of trying to understand more about how makeup and mindset of Mugabe the man could lead to some enlightened, caring policies and others that have been disastrous and built on fear and hate, made for an interesting narrative and insights. I did find that the pop psychology analysis did become a bit repetitive and didn't quite achieve the depth it needed, some professional input would have made a worthwhile addition, and perhaps letting the interviews Suraj for themselves more. None the less I thought that Heidi Holland, despite her buses to which she admits, had some worthwhile insights to share gleaned from the interviews on the nature of tyrants and tyranny.
September 8, 2019
This is an important read for students of politics and leadership. Heidi's interviews with people in Mugabe's circles as well as enlisting psychologists in reviewing these interviews makes for a unique look into the man. It also offers an understanding of when and how he lost his way. I found her characterization of ZANU PF and Edgar Tekere particularly interesting.
Here is a quote from the book:
"It is possible that the one-dimensional demonized character of 'mad Bob Mugabe' is concealing significant secrets and lessons for history...
"Humanizing the monster, finding the three-dimensional Mugabe instead of a cartoon villain is a process of understanding rather than exoneration...
"...Observe how and why he lost his way. It might alert us to similarly dangerous propensities in other leaders."
_ Heidi Holland in "Dinner with Mugabe: The untold story of a freedom fighter who became a tyrant"
Here is a quote from the book:
"It is possible that the one-dimensional demonized character of 'mad Bob Mugabe' is concealing significant secrets and lessons for history...
"Humanizing the monster, finding the three-dimensional Mugabe instead of a cartoon villain is a process of understanding rather than exoneration...
"...Observe how and why he lost his way. It might alert us to similarly dangerous propensities in other leaders."
_ Heidi Holland in "Dinner with Mugabe: The untold story of a freedom fighter who became a tyrant"
July 27, 2019
Much like Kapuscinski’s The Emperor on Haile Sellassie, Heidi Holland seeks to understand the rise and fall of Mugabe. She interviews family, friends and foe to understand how the self described peasant’s son (with seven degrees) evolved from enlightened liberator to ruthless dictator. I have found Holland’s reliance on a psychologist and an emotional intelligence consultant for the writing of this « psycho-biography » both enriching and annoying, but her historic framing makes for a great introduction to Zimbabwe’s modern history. A good read overall - thanks Jon for the tip and Tony and Jan for lending me the book in Harare...
April 14, 2025
I’ve read quite a bit about RG Mugabe but most of the work just scratches the surface and regurgitates the soundbites we hear everyday. But this should arguably the most comprehensive biographical work on the iconic man, though it’s written from e European point of view, it’s reasonably balanced and it seeks to understand the man and not the headlines. It’s a shame we don’t have such works from within Zimbabwe’s borders when there’s multiple individuals who interacted with him alive today to draw from. I found an interesting characterisation of ED Mnangagwa in the books as well, keeping in mind it was published only in 2009!
August 25, 2017
A very interesting read, although I do understand why some people were not impressed by this book. For me its important to hear directly from those who knew Mugabe personally, like Tekere, Vambe, Donato his brother, Mukonori and many others.
Robert Mugabe is a tyrant, he is a bad guy we all know that but the book with its psychoanalysis tries to hard to paint a picture of a bad guy. Some of the times, I do not agree with the psychoanalysis. To me, it seems as if its laced with eurocentric paternalism. But she does not hide that she is European and thus holds eurocentric view.
Robert Mugabe is a tyrant, he is a bad guy we all know that but the book with its psychoanalysis tries to hard to paint a picture of a bad guy. Some of the times, I do not agree with the psychoanalysis. To me, it seems as if its laced with eurocentric paternalism. But she does not hide that she is European and thus holds eurocentric view.
November 6, 2017
Holland does impressive work securing interviews with Mugabe himself, Ian Smith, Baron Carrington, and a host of others who played key roles in Mugabe's life or were involved in the creation and recognition of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The interviews are probing and very informative.
My beef with the book is its attempt to psychoanalyze Mugabe from a remove. It's speculative and amateurish, and, imho, diminishes the book considerably.
Nonetheless, a very interesting examination of a formidable person.
My beef with the book is its attempt to psychoanalyze Mugabe from a remove. It's speculative and amateurish, and, imho, diminishes the book considerably.
Nonetheless, a very interesting examination of a formidable person.
January 17, 2023
Heidi Holland did write a compering psychological biography of Mugabe based of interviews with Robert's family members, childhood acquaintances, former colleagues and one last interview with the man himself. This book give a broad but important outlook on what went on in the making of one of the well-known African's statesman whom we all come to love and hate as Africans from a psychological perspective.
January 16, 2019
Interesting read in terms of the history of Mugabe and of Zimbabwe, and the reader can gain insights into Mugabe's personality from various interviews however in terms of a real psychological assessment the author can only guess at the impacts of the events in Mugabe's life and what makes him tick so I feel he is even more of a mystery by the end of the book as at the beginning.
May 19, 2025
Heidi’s attempt at deconstructing a complex man like Mugabe is commendable. I do feel in part she does successfully paint a picture of the man we have always wanted to know. However I do find the book rather Eurocentric making it quite hard. The way the interviews are woven feels a bit clumsy and disjointed in my opinion but a worthy read nonetheless.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews