Zimbabwe to re-join Commonwealth? Absolutely not, old boy

If you maybe had a suspicion that the jolly old British Commonwealth has had its jolly old day, here is yet more evidence.

Hard on the heels of accepting into its fold the likes of Rwanda, Gabon and Togo (among the more repressive authoritarian regimes in Africa), the Commonwealth is apparently considering the merits of re-accepting Zimbabwe as a member.

You may remember that Zimbabwe's Commonwealth membership was suspended back in 2002 for its farmland seizures, tainted elections and other human rights abuses. When the suspension was later extended, then-president and autocrat Robert Mugabe decided enough was enough and pulled his country out of the Commonwealth. 

Twenty-odd years later, Mugabe's successor Emmerson Mnangagwa (remember when we thought his accession after a military coup might actually be all for the best?) is re-applying to join. So, has Mnangagwa cleaned up Zimbabwe's act and established a vibrant democratic regime in a country where such luxuries are all but unknown? Well, no. In fact, Mnangagwa may be even more repressive than Mugabe, crushing opposition meetings and imprisoning activists.

So, why is the Commonwealth (including Canada) even stopping to think about it? Beats me. Proponents argue that allowing Zimbabwe back in might allow other Commonwealth members to nudge the country in a more democratic direction. Ha! Do they really believe that? Others, more pragmatic and less idealistic, argue that the Commonwealth's reputation (such as it is) could suffer "severe damage" if it re-admits such a country. Well, that's putting it rather mildly, old boy.