Mugabe was a shitty ruler who literally implemented the neoliberal policies that killed his country when he took advice from the IMF and followed through on their orders even when he was in a position to deny them. Just because he kicked whitey off some land doesn't mean he's an altruistic figure who doesn't bear responsibility for the absolutely shit state of his nation.
Read this WSWS article to become more informed you mugabe supporting brainlets:
www8.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/08/zimb-a18.html
The present wretched situation in Zimbabwe is itself the product of the IMF's structural adjustment programmes.
Unlike other developing countries, Zimbabwe was not suffering from an unsustainable foreign debt crisis when it turned to the IMF for help with its budget deficit in the early 1990s.
But far from helping Zimbabwe's economic development, the aim of the structural adjustment programme (SAP) outlined in the Framework for Economic Reform (1991-95), written by the IMF and World Bank, was to remake Zimbabwe's economy in the interests of the transnational corporations.
Its first step was to insist that the government halve the fiscal deficit to 5 percent by 1994 through cutting taxation. Between 1989 and 1995, the top rate of tax was reduced from 60 percent to 45 percent, and corporation taxes from 50 percent to 37 percent. Huge tax breaks were given to the commercial farming sector producing for the international market. The net result was to reduce government revenue as a share of GDP by 5 percent—even more than envisaged in the original targets.
The IMF's SAP has wrought untold havoc on economic and social conditions in Zimbabwe. It struck at the very heart of the political and economic programme followed by Mugabe's government since independence. This was to expand social and public services while leaving the white settler community's share of the country's land, wealth and income intact. By cutting social provision, structural adjustment removed the very limited safety net for the nation's people at the same time as increasing the overall level of poverty.
By 1994, the cost of financial “liberalisation”, devaluation, hikes in interest rates and the other measures that come with SAPs, meant that the cost of government debt more than doubled from 13 percent of domestic revenue in 1989 to 27 percent in 1994. Since the payment of this debt to the international banks could not be avoided, and tax revenues had fallen, the burden of adjustment fell on non-debt expenditure.
These factors taken together led to a massive contraction, equal to 15 percent of GDP between 1992 and 1995 in order to meet the IMF's fiscal targets. In absolute terms, the fiscal deficit actually increased over the period.
Impact on social conditions
The cuts in public expenditure triggered a collapse in public investment and the disintegration of the basic infrastructure. It has led to the re-emergence of diseases such as cholera, malaria and yellow fever, and the spread of new ones such as HIV/AIDS. With 25 percent of those aged 15 to 49 infected with the HIV virus, Zimbabwe is the worst affected country in Africa.
Social services suffered deep cuts. A recent Oxfam report, Education No —Break the Cycle of Poverty, showed that the effects on education were catastrophic. Over the period 1990-94, there was a 20 percent decline in real spending on primary education. Taking into account increased enrolment, real expenditure per pupil fell by about 40 percent. Teachers saw their jobs, wages and conditions go. School fees were introduced in 1992 for all urban primary schools. Although rural schools were supposedly exempt, in practice even before the SAP schools were resorting to all sorts of charges for uniforms, books and levies for building funds. In 1992, the average cost of sending a child to a rural school was $11 per pupil per annum. The more school budgets came under pressure, the more the charges rose.
Not surprisingly, there was a 5 percent drop in primary school completion rates in the early 1990s. The transition rate for girls into secondary education fell by 30 percent, with the dropout rate increasing by the same amount. Less than 4 percent of pupils entering secondary schools now graduate with a leaving certificate.
The deterioration in social provision and rising costs went along with increasing poverty, especially in rural areas. Even before the 1991-92 drought, one of the worst in recent history, an estimated 2.6 million out of a population of just over 10 million could not meet their basic needs. Communal farm areas accounted for over 75 percent of this poverty.
During the first half of the 1990s, poverty increased dramatically in rural areas. At the same time, urban poverty intensified as real wages fell by one third due to raging inflation. Remittances to rural areas, an important source of income for the rural poor, dropped sharply.