City Waits with Open Arms for Wellcome on Valentine’s Day

Wellcome, Britain’s second largest drug company, is famed for its ability to bring together lateral thinking boffins and foot-in-the-door salesmen. When the company is floated on the stock market next month the City seems bound to unroll a red carpet, inscribed with an eponymous but fairly obvious message of greeting.

But the drugs group has been even cleverer. In order to guarantee a good reception for the shares, it has arranged for trading to start on February 14, St Valentine’s Day. It is hoping for love at first sight.


Even though the stock market has fallen recently, there seems little doubt that investors will be queuing up, cheque books in hand, to subscribe for shares. After the flotation the group will probably be valued at comfortably over pounds 1 billion.

A special poignancy attaches itself to the whole idea of a Wellcome flotation. Underlying its undoubted commercial success there is a hard core of traditional philanthropy, not unlike the Quaker traditions which are part and parcel of Rowntree Mackintosh. It is the commitment to human well-being, as well as a keen eye for the market opportunity, which has led Wellcome to plough huge chunks of its research and development budget into work on treatments for herpes and Aids.

Until now Wellcome’s only shareholder has been a charity, the Wellcome Trust. It was the trust’s decision to sell some of its shares, so it could spread its investment portfolio, that has led to the flotation.

According to Sir David Steel, chairman of the trustees, there was concern about having ‘all our eggs in one basket, notwithstanding the excellence of that basket’.

The relationship between the trust and the company dates back to 1936, the year Sir Henry Wellcome died. Sir Henry, a pharmacist and collector, founded Wellcome in 1880, together with Mr Silas Burroughs, a fellow American and a keen salesman.


From the start there was a tension between Sir Henry’s strong commercial instincts and his religious background. When he was 21 he wrote to his parents: ‘I have always had a desire for wealth and still have ..but I want to live a life devoted to the true God and to mankind’.

The trust was set up under the terms of Sir Henry’s will. It was to own the company, then called Wellcome Foundation, so it could use the profits for medical research. In the 50 years of its existence the trust has received pounds 150 million from Wellcome. It was able to spend pounds 22 million last year, making it the largest medical research charity in Britain.

Wellcome, the company, has an almost unrivalled reputation for producing new drugs. Historically it has attracted some of the brightest and best researchers available and, until last year, it had what many in the scientific community regarded as the best pharmacological department in the country.


It was led by Sir John Vane, a Nobel prize winner, and Sir James Black, another world renowned scientist. Their time saw the development of both Septrin, an important anti-bacterial, and Zyloric, a treatment for gout which still accounts for 10 per cent of Wellcome’s sales.

But their main contribution to Wellcome was their work on anti-virals, a field where Wellcome now has a commanding lead. Zovirax, a treatment for herpes, was forst launched in 1981, when many Americans feared an outbreak of epidemic proportions.

Wellcome is currently carrying out clinical trials on a new anti-Aids drug but, as the company is the first to admit, it could be years before the drug reaches the market.

The time lapse between discovering a drug and launching it on the market makes it difficult to assess the contribution of individuals. It is clear, however, that the presence of Sir John Vane and Sir James Black attracted other brilliant researchers, who seem to have been undeterred by rivalry between the two great men.

Whether or not it was as the result of a power struggle or on the advice of Arthur D. Little, the consultants brought in to report on the management of Wellcome’s research, both Sir James and Sir John left the company last year. As one academic put it ‘Morals was shattered. The two big names had gone and, as if to add insult to injury, the Trust gave a vote of no confidence by announcing its decision to sell some of its shares.’

Earlier this month Dr. Pedro Cuatrecasas, the head of American research, announced plans to join Glaxo, Britain’s largest pharmaceutical company. Wellcome’s public relations team did its best to play down the importance of the departure but its task was made by more difficult by subsequent events.

With only two weeks to go before the prospectus was due out, Mr Bill Sullivan, the head of Burroughs Wellcome, the American subsidiary, resigned very suddenly on January 13.

Wellcome’s chairman and chief executive, Mr. Alfred Shepperd denied there had been a dispute about who would be heir apparent, but Mr. Sullivan’s unexpected loss nevertheless underlines the tension between the American and British ends of the operation.

The United States has powered Wellcome’s growth in the past five years, when sales have doubled from pounds 500 million to pounds 1 billion and profits have risen from pounds 50 million to pounds 122 million.
The loss of four key figures in less than 12 months is particularly unfortunate in view of the imminent flotation.

Wellcome is doing its best to dispel the cloud hanging over it with roadshows and presentations to financial institutions. But there is no British Telecom style appeal to private investors.


Great play is being made of the company’s future plans, in which the anti-Aids drug clearly plays an important part. Other new drugs include Wellbrutin, an anti-depressant which will be launched in the US this year and a new antihistamine, and research continues on treatments for glandular fever and further uses of existing products. Wellcome is also trying to break in to the Japanese market.

These projects should keep Wellcome’s profits moving firmly forward over the next two or three years. This year, however, is proving more problematic, thanks to the vagaries of the exchange rates. The fall in the dollar has hit Wellcome hard so that it is not expected to push up profits very far in the year to end August. The flotation could have been better timed.

The shares will not be finally priced until January 29, when the prospectus is published. Unlike the Government, which has an interest in sponsoring people’s capitalism, Wellcome Trust only has an interest in raising as much money for research as possible. This means the margin for error is small. This time it is science and not the Treasury that benefits.

Women, Abortion, and Politics

Republican Ann Stone represents the new breed of pro- choice Republicans. Although she disapproves of government intrusion into women’s health care issues, she is personally anti-abortion.

‘You have to be very careful how you talk about the issue. Many people on our side are vehemently against the government having this control but they are not for abortion. In fact they would favour some restrictions, with third trimester and sex-selection eliminated as an option. By and large they are very much against abortion as a form of birth control.’

A member of the far right wing of the Republican party, Stone and her group, Republicans For Choice, are putting a conservative slant on the US abortion controversy where the movement to restrict women’s rights has been happening on a state by state basis.

In Pennsylvania, a woman who wants an abortion must first notify her husband, then undergo anti-abortion counselling by her doctor and finally wait a mandatory 24-48 hours before the operation. In Louisiana, abortions are illegal even when a woman’s health is endangered. Doctors who give them can get up to 10 years’ hard labour and a fine between Dollars 10,000 and Dollars 100,000.

The most effective pro-life organisations have not been extremists like Operation Rescue who have attacked abortion clinics and staff, but the more mainstream groups such as the National Right To Life Committee. When Stone talks about ‘birth control’ abortion, she is referring to that organisation’s eight steps to influence state legislatures, called ‘model state legislation’, which have framed the issue for the Republican pro-choicers and anti-abortionists alike.

‘Birth control’ abortion is when women using no other contraceptives abort unwanted pregnancies – hardly a practical solution. For women who do use contraceptives, the sub-text is more frightening. Abortion should be made available only in cases of rape, incest and under life-threatening circumstances. Abortion for sex selection is not an issue in this country. Yet as a National Right To Life Committee spokesman once suggested, tactics like this ‘get the public thinking’. Other model legislations, whether husband consent or the banning of state or even federal funding of public information, have formed the basis for the new statutes.

While in Britain abortion remains a matter for a woman and her doctor, in the US it has become one for the courts. Restrictive state laws, passed this year in North Dakota, Mississippi, Utah and Louisiana, have yet to be enforced, since appeals are still pending. However, one or more of the cases will reach the Supreme Court in an attempt to challenge Roe v Wade, the historic 1973 decision that legalised abortion in America.

‘Most people are saying that Roe v Wade will be overturned,’ says Valerie Syme, editor of Abortion Report, a nonpartisan, daily abortion newsletter. ‘The question is when. It could have a tremendous negative impact on the Republican party. There will be a big voter backlash if it is overturned before the 1992 presidential election.’

Recent polls show that 70 per cent of the American public are pro-choice, in the traditional sense of the phrase, meaning they support a wide range of contraceptive alternatives for women. Although the pro-life movement – with some groups advocating a total ban on contraceptives – is considered an extremist minority, it has had an impact. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, clinics giving abortions in rural areas dropped by 19 per cent, and in urban centres by six per cent, between 1985 and 1989.

Despite this, the number of women having abortions has been rising. Statistics from the Centres for Disease Control show that, in 1987, 29 out of 1,000 American women had an abortion. There has been an 18 per cent increase among girls younger than 15, an 11 per cent increase among 15-19-year-olds from the ethnic minorities. The highest rate was 62 per 1,000 among women aged 18 and 19.

Considering that minority women are three times more likely than whites to have abortions, this summer’s Supreme Court ruling, which prevents federally-funded family planning clinics from giving abortion counselling, has been seen as political. The ‘gag rule’ prevents doctors at the 4,500 clinics nationwide from referring patients or even mentioning abortion. Servicing four million lower income women, these facilities are the closest the US gets to Brook Advisory and Well Women clinics.

Planned Parenthood, the largest of the clinic groups, with 900 facilities nationwide, has refused to comply with the ruling and, as a result, has lost Dollars 34 million in government aid, a significant part of its operating budget. In June, Planned Parenthood of New York ran a newspaper ad featuring a picture of a gagged woman with the caption, ‘A pregnant woman needs her doctor’s advice. Not the Government’s opinion.’ According to Alex Sanger, its president and chief executive officer, public response to this ad raised Dollars 106,000; their South Bronx clinic alone needs to make up the loss of Dollars 450,000 in federal funds.

More than the restrictive, anti-abortion laws passed by various states, the Supreme Court ruling has effectively taken abortion out of women’s rights and made it a first amendment issue. Sanger explains, ‘We have framed this whole issue as the doctor-patient relationship and one of free speech. That has a much broader constituency in this country than those who want to have safe and legal abortion preserved. Even some of those in the Republican right wing say the gag rule is a mistake.’

In an effort to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, two bills have already been passed by Congress and to stress that it means business, the Senate has added abortion rights wherever possible. Recently the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labour, Health and Human Services included a provision to allow Medicaid, the government-sponsored medical reimbursement insurance for the poor, to pay for abortion in cases of rape and incest. Previously it would pay only when a woman’s life was in danger.

Although President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that comes before him, moderate and conservative Republicans have asked him to reconsider and not challenge the house and senate to override his veto.

For Republican political activist Mary Dent Crisp, the President’s position is a travesty. In 1980, she was the national co-chair of the Republican National Committee and witnessed the switch Bush made from his widely acknowledged position as a supporter of family planning to anti-abortion in order to join the Reagan ticket – a move that prompted Crisp to denounce his ‘political expediency’. For her grassroots political organisation, the National Republican Coalition for Choice, abortion cuts across party politics. Unlike Stone’s group, which will not withdraw support from anti-abortion Republican candidates, Crisp believes the abortion issue comes first. ‘If Roe is overturned next summer, it will be blamed on the Republicans and it will not only affect Bush’s re-election. Look at the federal elections, the senate and house, gubernatorial races, state legislative races – all these will also be affected.’

It was this scenario that National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater, author of the notorious Willie Horton ads for the Bush 1988 campaign, wanted to avoid. Before his death, he urged Republicans to reverse their anti-abortion stance and adopt a position less offensive to voters. A poll taken of Republican delegates after the 1988 convention showed that 68 per cent of the same people who elected George Bush described themselves as ‘pro choice’. Despite this, Atwater’s successor, Clayton Yeutter, insists that the policy should not be changed. With an election year looming, the Young Republicans have already voted to take the issue out of the platform altogether.

Another fight the President currently faces is the senate confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas, Bush’s choice to fill the Supreme Court seat made vacant by the retirement of liberal civil rights jurist Thurgood Marshall. ‘With Marshall’s resignation and Thomas’ nomination coming so close on the heels of the gag rule, far more people believe the use of the abortion issue by the right wing is simply an opening wedge on a broader attack on our individual rights,’ maintains lawyer Patricia Ireland, executive vice president of the National Organisation of Women (NOW).

The last Supreme Court appointment, David Souter, was a clear fifth vote against abortion, insists Ireland. ‘But there is a significant difference in having on the court Clarence Thomas or someone equally opposed to the bill of rights and women’s rights, and the way the court is currently structured. Now they have to play to the middle and what Sandra Day O’Connor (the only woman justice) thinks will be an undue burden on abortion instead of going all the way to the right.’

The attack on abortion has been, in part, a failure of the women’s movement, something that Ireland, who is slated to become NOW’s president in December, slowly acknowledges. ‘(We have) been victims of our own success. So many women have walked through those doors of opportunity who 20 or 25 years ago would have been struggling in the women’s movement, and now they have moved on to more personal career goals. A lot of young women have never known a time when birth control and abortion were not legal.’

As a result, NOW has started an intensive campaign against Thomas. In the past, Supreme Court nominees were not asked their views on abortion, something senators have vowed to change during Thomas’ confirmation hearings this month. Already he has refused to make public his views, but the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) recently leaked a copy of a 1987 speech in which he praised an essay by historian Lewis Lehrman who equated the anti-abortion movement with the abolition of slavery.

The anti-abortion movement officially began after Roe v Wade in 1973 and gained momentum in state legislatures where activists were voted in. Even though groups like NOW and NARAL are on the defensive, they have so far stemmed the tide of regressive legislation. In the year following the 1989 Webster decision, in which the Supreme Court allowed states to enact their own abortion legislation, 350 bills were introduced in state legislatures, of which the majority were either killed in committee or vetoed by state governors. Out of 270 bills introduced in 1991, only a handful have become law. But it takes only one case in the judicial pipeline to go to the Supreme Court. Many predict that restrictive laws in Pennsylvania and in Guam, initially passed by that state and US territory in 1989 and 1990 respectively, will reach the high court first.

What will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned? Ireland has no illusions. ‘Women will continue to get abortions but they will once again be unsafe.’ She sighs. ‘Women will start to die again.’

Special Report on Health at Work

The great success of the Clean Air Act, and the many health benefits it brought, are taken for granted by a generation which has never experienced the death-dealing pea-souper fogs that used to enshroud our major cities.

Today the focus has narrowed from environmental pollution of the atmosphere to the health hazards of the workplace. For the workplace is a microcosm of the environment, says Dr. Geoffrey Brown, secretary of the Society of Occupational Medicine, which commemorates its golden jubilee this year.

The factories and offices, the farmlands and oil rigs and shops, the hospitals and public utilities, the schools and print rooms and lorries and laboratories – where millions spend most of their waking hours – are no less in need of being free from hazard to health than the air we breathe.

The importance of health at work, established in legislation by the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974, and by thousands of regulations since, was acknowledged by the Prime Minister earlier this year.

Mrs. Thatcher was visiting the occupational and hygiene laboratories of the Health and Safety Executive, the large but impressively energetic and expert quango which is the Government’s watchdog on health at work. Commenting on their ‘meticulous’ research, she emphasized that for British industry to remain at the top level, it must not only be efficient, it must also be safe.

The need for controls has been recognized since the earliest days of the industrial revolution.

In 1775, Percival Pott pointed to the high incidence of scrotal cancer among chimney sweeps. The Factory Inspectorate began its work more than 150 years ago, in the same year, 1832, as the Great Reform Act. Later legislation effectively established the world’s first national industrial medical service.

Towards the end of the 19th century, an industrial disease notification scheme was begun and in 1898 Thomas Morrison Legge became the first medical inspector of factories.

Illness and death among munition workers in the First World War made the nation aware that both for humanitarian reasons and to preserve human resources, medical services at the workplace were essential. Even during the interwar slump, many businesses set up health facilities.

More recently, bodies such as Nuclear and Agriculture Inspectorates have done much to maintain and improve health standards among workers in those vital industries. Contrary to widespread belief, incidentally, farming is much more hazardous to health, through noise, dust, pesticides, machinery and animals, than atomic power.

For the past 50 years, the now 2,000-strong Society of Occupational Medicine has greatly advanced the cause of health at work, through scientific meetings, education and training, consultations on new measures and in forming a faculty in occupational medicine within the Royal College of Physicians.

It has, says Dr. Tim Carter, its official historian and director of medical services for the Health and Safety Executive, an ‘evangelical’ role. That has not always made it friends.

Its prime work has been to encourage and respond to government initiatives, its members trying to tread the path between state intervention and voluntary action. Unfortunately, doctors in industry have tended, unjustly, to be identified with the employers’ sectional interests, and their integrity has been questioned.

But with both employers and trade unions lukewarm at first about occupational health, many services might well not have come into existence when they did but for the Society’s proselytizing.

As Dr. Carter points out, Britain differs from most European countries in not imposing statutory obligations upon employers to seek occupational health guidance, but relies on voluntary action. The government’s involvement is chiefly regulatory and supervisory.

Nor, of course, does it provide a treatment service.

The National Health Service, which does, is not specifically concerned with health at work. The Robens Committee in 1972 thought occupational health services might wastefully duplicate the NHS.

It was against this background that the House of Lords select committee on science and technology last year, while calling for a major expansion of occupational health services to cover millions in smaller companies, favored voluntary codes of practice for employers to follow rather than compulsion.

The conflict between the advisory and enforcement roles of government agencies is not easy to resolve. Dr. Tim Carter, believes that employers and trade unions sometimes want occupational health advice to bolster some essentially political position rather than to solve a health problem or help remove a hazard.

As a result, the field services of the Employment Advisory Medical Service of the Health and Safety Executive act more as arbitrators than advisers. Scares about the supposed dangers of visual display units, alarmist talk about asbestos in situ, needless fears about occupationally related cancers, distract the service from the real problems.

That is not to say, of course, that asbestos is not dangerous or that some of the 30,000 or so hazardous substances in industry are not, carcinogenic. But the real challenge is different.

Though facilities in many major companies are first-rate-concerns like Esso, Shell, Marks & Spencer, Rank Hovis McDougall and Kodak are among the most notable – such companies form a mere 20 percent minority.

For the majority, however, mostly medium and small companies, to provide such services requires venture capital which they do not have or do not want to provide.

This means that the 60 doctors and 30 nurses of Dr. Carter’s medical advisory service act as troubleshooters and crisis managers with health problems that need never have occurred. Meanwhile, important new problems – and new technology means these constantly arise – are not being adequately researched.

Ensuring health at work has a further difficult dimension. Safety at work is one thing – it is easy enough to identify dangerous equipment or the need to reduce noise (about a million workers have noise-related hearing defects, often severe and distressing). But it may not be so easy to do something about it.

If work causes you to lose an arm, the issue are clear. But what if it causes you to lose your reason? How to pin responsibility for the ‘sick building syndrome’, the vague but disturbing malaise which afflicts so many who work in modern buildings? How even to know for sure when it is or is not manifest?

However, Dr. John Cullen, the former industrialist who now heads the Health and Safety Commission, which advises the Government and develops the policies which the executive puts into practice, points out that the British system is being used as a model by other countries.

The way it involves both sides of industry in forming its policies and executing regulations in detail certainly ensures that measures are workable and realistic. ‘We don’t tell people how to run their show’, Dr. Cullen says. ‘We are not seeking to be over-protective.

‘But a decade ago, health at work was peripheral. Today, it is part and parcel of management. It is considered at the highest level in companies’.

Clues to an African Enigma; Profile of Robert Mugabe

Robert Mugabe vanished from sight for a week in late May. He had gone to Switzerland for what was probably his first holiday of more than two days since he came to power in 1980.

Rested, he returned on Sunday, June 2, and stormed back into the rough and tumble of business within about three hours of landing at Harare airport on the all-night flight from Gatwick.

He has not paused since. In addition to attending to routine cabinet and government business, he has addressed more campaign meetings in the constituency he is contesting, the geometrically laid out rows of tiny homes that make up the township of Highfield in Harare, than has any other member of his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front).

In between, he has electioneered intensively through the western provinces of Matabeleland, the Midlands and now parts of Mashonaland in the east.

When the counting of the votes cast today and earlier this week for the 80 black seats in the 100-seat House of Assembly is concluded, Mr Mugabe will in all certainty launch himself with equal vigour into his second term as the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.

Five years of wrestling with Zimbabwe’s post independence problems have left little physical mark. His widish face, with the articulate mouth and high cheekbones, shows no trace of lines on the dark, glossy skin. The only concession to his 61 years are the few streaks of white, darting above the halo of grey lining his forehead.

From the fearsome and vengeful figure that was his image when he returned from running his guerrilla campaign to fight elections, a far subtler but still engimatic personality has emerged. He has not so much changed as become slightly better known.

At political rallies he turns orator, employing a fine sense of drama. In Barbourfields Stadium in Bulawayo last month, speaking deliberately in perfectly enunciated Shona, the vernacular of the east of the country, and articulating with his delicate hands, he thus urged the 30,000-strong crowd: ‘To turn from the Zapu (Zimbabwe AFrican People’s Union) party of Mr Joshua Nkomo. I want the people of Matabeleland to answer these questions. Is it war or is it peace? Is it development or is it retrogression? Do we move forward, or do we move backwards?’

Outside visitors describe meetings where he listens and has even to be coaxed into discussion. ‘If you go on talking, he doesn’t interrupt. There’s no dominating the conversation’, said an official of a private sector lobby group who sees Mr Mugabe several times a year.

The reticence is more attentiveness than awkwardness. Asked for an answer, he supplies it. Provoked, he retaliates decisively, with a knack for intimidating irony, as numerous opposition MPs have found to their embarrassment.

Those who know him testify that he is by no means all cold fish. ‘He has a twinkle that is always there,’ said a civil servant who has worked with him since independence. ‘Gentle, genteel, solicitous, sympathetic, he is all of those things’.

He objects to being referred to in honorific terms. In Parliament in 1981 on the subject of his gate guards referring to him as ‘chief’ in the vernacular, he responded: ‘It embarrasses me. I would rather they called me Comrade, or Prime Minister’.

His wife Sally, continually ill with kidney problems, speaks of his lack of bitterness after 10 years of being detained by the Rhodesian Government and after being refused parole from detention to go to Dar es Salaam in Tanzania to commiserate with her after the death of their only son, of cerebral malaria, in 1966.

He confesses to being withdrawn. Of the thousands of adulatory supporters at rallies, he told a television interviewer: ‘I find them very embarrassing. I’m rather a shy person, though I try to hide it. I never have been easy with crowds’.

The claim of shyness, however, sits uncomfortably on a prime minister who travels in a bullet-proof black limousine with an escort of three cars loaded with plain clothes guards, a Toyota Land Cruiser with a stick of heavily armed guards following behind and about eight motorcycles wailing as they weave in and out of the motorcade while the rest of the traffic pulls to the side of the road.

It is argued that this showiness is a result of persuasion by his security aides and, more likely, pressure by Mr Emmerson Munangagwa, the minister of state for security.

Also ill fitting the image of a compassionate Mr Mugabe is his refusal to speak to Mr Ian Smith since early 1981, and, more importantly, the continued use of detention without trial (and even after trial, despite an acquittal), his apparent turning of a blind eye to atrocities in Matabeleland in 1984, and his general deep hatred for Zapu.

But Mr Mugabe has a deep sense of moral indignation. At a rally in the north of the country in 1982, he made a point of going straght to a group of local white farmers and their families and introducing himself. A boy in the group was in school uniform, and Mr Mugabe asked him which school he attended. The boy gave the name of a school in the north Transvaal of South Africa.

Mr Mugabe angrily turned on his heel without a word, and went on to deliver to the crowd of assembled black supporters one of his more noted anti-white speeches.

The same trait resurfaced last weekend in his outspoken attack on the country’s whites for their continued electoral support of Mr Smith. Referring to them as ‘snakes’ and ‘racists’, he warned that he would make their lives ‘very dificult’.

Mr Mugabe does not trust Mr Joshua Nkomo, whom he believes is the sole embodiment of Zapu. Their association goes back to the late 1950s when Mr Nkomo led Zapu as the only organization of resistance to white rule, with Mr Mugabe as his secretary general.

Mr Mugabe was pivotal in the split from Zapu, when the Zimbabwe African National Union was formed. It came after Mr Nkomo tried to negotiate with the white government, to the chagrin of a great many of his officials.

The mistrust pervaded their uneasy union when they coordinated operations in the liberation war. It came to a head in early 1982 when security forces uncovered large arms caches in Matabeleland, belonging to Zapu.

Mr Mugabe has not been able to formally link Mr Nkomo to a plot of treason which he alleged Mr Nkomo was hatching. His stock reply has always been: the courts were not in possession of the information his intelligence organization had.

Mr Nkomo’s sacking from the cabinet was followed by the desertion from the national army of hundreds of ex-guerrillas of Mr Nkomo’s old army. Zipra. They turned renegade.

The solution Mugabe chose was to form a new military unit – the Fifth Brigade – which would not be undermined by pro-Zapu military men. The controversial brigade constituted members of Mr Mugabe’s Zanla guerrilla army.

The tactic badly dented Mr Mugabe’s moral reputation, as the poorly trained, ill-officered and bored troops went on the rampage. He was described as having reverted to the type of bloodlusting guerrilla boss.

Apologists argue that Mr Mugabe was not informed of the atrocities. (It is widely held that he is kept in the dark on numerous issues by his Cabinet). However, Mr Mugabe does appear to have a strong capacity to harden himself against the distasteful, for the single-minded achievement of his goals.

Parties to the various constitutional talks before independence have spoken of feeling near despair when confronted with the set, cold visage of a resolute Mr Mugabe. The degree of his knowledge of the horrors of Matabeleland may lie somewhere between the two positions.

On the issue of socialism, Mr Mugabe is more easily understood. He has never evinced the attitudes of a tome-thumping dogmatist. In 1980, he told the New York Times: ‘To me it is absolutely repugnant, it becomes a moral question, that those resources (of the country) should be the property of a few. If that is Marxist, than let me be called Marxist.’

Three years later he said in an interview with local journalists, that ‘There is nothing ..which can be regarded as true socialism ..There is not a single socialist country which has followed exactly the same path in its modalities of transforming its society into a socialist one, except in enunciating the principles and seeking the guidelines’.

The absence of any nationalization, the promise in the party’s election manifesto to allow the private sector to continue to thrive and the manifesto’s offer of tax incentives, all point well away from the rigid experiments of Tanzania, Ethiopia and Mozambique.

He expresses a strong dislike for the music and lifestyle of Rastafaria, both endemic among Zimbabwean black youth. Yet the puritanical leadership code, which requires party officials not only to divest themselves of the acquisitions of plenty but also always to be clean and neatly dressed, has yet to be enforced, despite a promise that there would be a purge after the party’s congress in August last year.He has little leisure time, rising early to work in his office built on to his official residence at Zimbabwe House in Chancellor Avenue, and retiring there for much of the evening after his day’s duties.

His good health and continued high energy is attributed to his non-smoking and drinking only when toasts are called for.

He enjoys spectator sports, and perplexes the ruddy-faced old school tie set in the ultra-colonial surroundings of the Harare Sports Club by watching visiting international cricket teams for hours at a stretch.

His public reticence has been complemented increasingly by the party’s tendency to shield him from informal appearances, as well as from the press. He has not held a single press conference during the campaign. A party political broadcast, part of a series which will have featured the leaders of all the other parties, will be done by Dr Nathan Shamuyariea, the Minister of Information.

The enigma and myth enfolding Mr Robert Mugabe is retained, and he grows ever more remote.

Born in 1924 near Kutama Mission, 40 miles west of Harare, Robert Mugabe has carved during his 61 years a reputation as a fearless fighter for black rights and equality. His skills as an orator and negotiator stem not just from his strong beliefs but from his extensive education.

He qualified as a primary school teacher in 1941 and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and history at Fort Hare University, South Africa, in 1951. This was followed in 1958 by a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from the University of London, having previously become a Bachelor of Education at the University of South Africa in 1954.

It was during his ten years in prison in Salisbury (now Harare) that he devoted himself to learning, becoming a Bachelor of Law and Master of Law from the University of London and a Bachelor of Administration from the University of South Africa.

It was not until 1960 that Mugabe entered full-time politics, when he was appointed secretary for information and publicity with the National Democratic Party. The following year he married Sally Hayfron, a Ghanaian.

When the party was banned in 1962 he became secretary general of its successor, Zapu, a position he also held with Zanu on its split from Zapu in 1963.

Two years later he was detained at Whawha detention camp in Salisbury until 1975, the year he took over the leadership of Zanu from the Rev Ndabaningi Sithole. He then left for Mozambique to lead the guerrilla war against the Rhodesian Government.

In 1976 he led the Zanu delegation to Geneva for talks with Henry Kissinger and subsequently rejected his proposals. A year later he was formally elected Zanu’s president. In 1979 came his successful talks at Lancaster House in London and in 1980 he became prime minister following Zanu’s general election win. He was re-elected party president in 1984.