Statesman

Alan Little gave an interesting summary on the Today programme this morning:
here
His comments on Mbeke's and Mugabe's respective background have me thinking what is the difference between a statesman and a politician.
The entry in Wikipedia
here
is a good one.

Mugabe has proved he is not a statesman.
Bush, despite leading the most powerful nation for years, is still a grubby politician.
Blair talks more the part
has more of "the vision thing"
but lacks rational principles.
Zimbabwe has given Mbeke an opportunity to show he is more of a stateman.

(I raise the "'statesman' v 'politician' debate" in the context of some of the world's "leaders". If "statesman" gives a clue to desirable qualities for world or national leadership - or just political leadership - then it may be worth defining that more closely. An informed, intelligent electorate is better than one which elects on the basis of hairstyle, willingness to ride a bike, or similar minutiae.

The Wikipedia quote particularly appeals to me because of the use of "disinterested" i.e. "free from bias or partiality; objective" (O.E.D. definition). "Disinterested" in the context of world leadership raises questions about much of the assorted machinery of "democracy" - and, for instance, the power and role of the U.N. Security Council.

The Today piece I referred to, Alan Little, struck me as a short but very thoughtful analysis of the current crisis in Zimbabwe including a brief attempt to explain some of it in the context of some recent African history, colonial past, the distribution of world power (i.e. China), and some personal psychology.

I hope the situation in Zimbabwe - and southern Africa - can be resolved satisfactorily and that lessons learned can be applied to the many other troubled regions of the world.)