There've been interesting discussions on Twitter since the fall of Mubarak. It puzzles me a bit that people can say that it happened in Egypt, ergo, Zimbabwe is next. It's important for the world to understand that you can't transfer a revolution- no such thing as a cut-and-paste revolution (or solution), especially in Africa. And certainly not for Zimbabwe.

While I admire the seemingly relatively 'easy' transition in Egypt, I suppose I must be considered a bit of a skeptic. I don't think overthrowing a government is a solution, especially because it leaves a power vacuum (currently being filled by the military in Egypt). The masses are always pleased by sudden changes in such a situation, but what happens next?

The current political crisis in Zim is very telling. Just today there was a demonstration against Tsvangirayi ('because he's not doing enough'). I have always said MDC's biggest problem is that it's a conglomeration of people and groups with wildly different interests, united by one thing: to remove Mugabe from power. It's a protest movement, standing for nothing, but against something. Once he's gone (if, maybe), will the MDC splinter into many groups pulling the leadership in different directions? Shouldn't we think at least a little about where we're going before we create chaos?

That's my ideological issue with the Egyptian revolution as a solution; removing Mubarak seems great today, but will whoever replaces him be tomorrow's horror?

Or is that just fear?

One blogger's take on the Egypt/Zim question: Hope For Zimbabwe