The grim saga of Zimbabwe’s so-called election drags on, with Robert Mugabe’s grip on power proving as effective as his ability to reduce a once-prosperous country to ashes.

Mugabe has long been a comic book villain, the epitome of a corrupt African dictator. Yet when he won the ‘freedom’ election in 1980, even London’s right-wing Daily Mail described Mugabe as ‘so meek and mild’, even speculating that arch enemy Ian Smith – who declared white-majority independence from Britain in 1965 – might join the new government. This did not happen. "Maybe Zimbabwe’s future will prove less sombre than many have forecast," commented the Daily Mail’s leader writer. Alas, the pessimists were proved overwhelmingly right.

In defence of the Daily Mail, I should add that the paper’s George Gordon penned a far more pessimistic article headlined ‘Power of a black dictator within his grasp’. Gordon argued that the repressive state created by Ian Smith gave Mugabe the apparatus of dictatorship. Few could argue that Gordon has been vindicated by Mugabe’s actions since he took power in 1980.

No-one could be surprised that Mugabe has stolen the election. Two weeks ago, a Mugabe crony said ‘Who else could it be but our own dear old man, Robert Gabriel Mugabe’. The chilling message was clear: no other result was possible, despite Mugabe’s suicide of a country. The despot and his gang would not contemplate surrender.

On a lighter note, the surrender of rebel Rhodesia to Britain was marked with ceremony and farce. Lord Soames, Winston Churchill’s son-in-law, arrived in Salisbury (now Harare) to the sound of God Save the Queen, as the British South African Police formed the salute. But the rebel flag of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia flew rather than the union jack, an airport official exclaiming: "We can fly whatever bloody flag we like." So ended 14 years of rebellion. Almost 30 years later, the people of Zimbabwe are no nearer controlling their own destiny.