This week, police in Zimbabwe used tear gas, water cannon and live ammunition to crush Sunday's gathering by the Save Zimbabwe Campaign, a coalition of opposition, church and civic groups, in Harare's western township of Highfield. Police shot and killed one opposition activist, Gift Tandare. Lawyers and fellow opposition activists said Tsvangirai had suffered a suspected skull fracture after being beaten by police. Patrick Burnett summarises voices from the ground and highlights some key messages from articles published in Pambazuka News in the recent past. Is it a year of hope or will it all simply collapse into a quagmire?

'In pairs we were being led to the cells where there were five people dressed in police uniforms holding baton sticks who were beating the hell out of us," relates an unnamed woman opposition activist. "They would beat each pair for between 15 and 20 minutes after which they would order the pair out to fetch the next pair from the van." The woman describes how her head was banged against a wall causing her to fall down to the ground. "It took a long time according to what I was seeing and I was only praying if they could stop," she tells the camera in this video as her testimony is interspersed with shots of police brutally beating arrested protesters with batons in order to force them into a police van.

Another activist states in the same video: "We wanted the government to see and show the world at large that the Zimbabweans are suffering. The money they are getting is peanuts, it does not take them anywhere. It is the government that regulates the prices. You can hardly pay for a child at school. You have to feed the family and sometimes you have only one meal a day. We wanted to show the leadership of Zimbabwe that what they are doing is not fair."

Even video sharing site knows what's happening in Zimbabwe. This video was not testimony from Sunday's protest, though, but of a peaceful labour union demonstration in September 2006 in which 23 people were beaten and tortured. No doubt, videos of Sunday's march will find their way onto youtube, providing a valuable window into the situation – the above video already has over 12 000 views - but in the meantime compare testimonies from the video quoted above with that of MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, as told to the BBC:

"It was almost as if they were waiting for me…Before I could even settle down I was subjected to a lot of beatings, in fact it was random beatings but I think the intention was to inflict as much harm as they could. I suffered injuries on the head, six stitches, body blows, a broken arm. I also suffered injuries on the knees and on my back several body blows, but I think the most serious injury was the head injury because I lost a lot of blood. They have just administered almost two pints of blood."

Police used tear gas, water cannon and live ammunition to crush Sunday's gathering by the Save Zimbabwe Campaign, a coalition of opposition, church and civic groups, in Harare's western township of Highfield. Police shot and killed one opposition activist, Gift Tandare. Lawyers and fellow opposition activists said Tsvangirai had suffered a suspected skull fracture after being beaten by police.

World outrage followed news of the crackdown, with calls for more stringent sanctions and renewed engagement with Zimbabwe. African leadership, long muted on the issue of Zimbabwe, was also more strident. Ghanaian President John Kufuor, also the African Union chair, said: "I know personally that presidents like (South Africa's Thabo) Mbeki tried desperately to exercise some influence for the better," as reported by numerous media. "Please don't think that Africa is not concerned. Africa is very much concerned. What can Mbeki as a man do? Are you proposing that Africa compose an expedition team to march on Zimbabwe and oppose? It does not happen like that. We are in our various ways trying very hard."

As demonstrated by the youtube video and numerous human rights reports in the past months and years, Tsvangirai's beatings are the result of long term repression to which numerous Zimbabweans have been subject over the past years.

At this stage its worth trolling through a few of the articles published by Pambazuka News about Zimbabwe over the last five years, not because they are the only record of the Zimbabwean crisis or because they comprehensively cover all the issues faced by the country, but because they show the progression of events in the country, and provide useful analysis and insight into the complex Zimbabwean situation. At times like this its important to remember that short-term political outrage shouldn't mask the long-term nature of the situation in Zimbabwe – nor the long-term nature of political inaction.

Perhaps the most useful insight into Zimbabwe's path is provided in a series of articles written in March of each year since 2002 by Mary Ndlovu, a human rights activist from Zimbabwe. Her articles take readers into the heart of life in Zimbabwe, documenting the politics and effect of the land reform crisis, the controversial elections and the downward economic spiral and its effect on the Zimbabwean people.

In March 2004, Ndlovu writes: "On our side of the looking glass, the mounting catastrophe has political, economic, social and cultural components. Most objective observers would trace the economic problems back at least to the late 1980's. Certainly the introduction of structural adjustment at the beginning of the 90's can be seen as the process which eroded the living standards of Zimbabweans, and spawned the first broad-based opposition party. It also generated pressure from interest groups such as war veterans and ambitious black businessmen who felt they had waited too long to share in the country's wealth. The government's response to these developments sent the country into the downward spiral which today ensnares us. Instead of taking the criticism and the pressure and sitting back to plan a coherent strategy of how to deal with the inter-related issues, ZANU PF panicked, saw their ruling position threatened, and from 1997 on have responded piecemeal, reactively and irrationally, bringing us to the tragedy which unfolds before our eyes."

In another article, she writes: "In February 2000, ZANU PF discovered, in a rare moment of truth, that they were unpopular enough to be defeated at the polls, in spite of all the advantages they had in controlling most of the media, the electoral machinery and all the state security apparatus. They immediately began the process of ensuring that no matter what the people wanted, never again would ZANU PF lose a vote. The electoral process would be turned into a stage-managed spectacle."

Following on from this and assessing the 2005 Parliamentary elections, Ndlovu warns of economic collapse and "dire consequences" for the region should ZANU PF take power against the wishes of Zimbabweans. She makes three points on the back of this:

- SADC unwillingness to insist that regional electoral standards be upheld appears to signal that they are not prepared to implement them for their own countries either.

- Democrats should be aware that governments cannot be trusted with the task of defending democracy, in their own countries or anywhere else.

- There is a long road ahead for the building of democracy in Southern Africa, "from the bottom up, with much struggle to claim rights against the autocratic tendencies of all the governments and ruling parties of the region".

The startling lack of progress on the Zimbabwean front is evident in Ndlovu's articles. In March last year, Ndlovu wrote that: "Certainly we know that the multiple crises which embody Zimbabwe's millennium experience are intensifying, making life barely livable for the majority of the population. The crises have engulfed the working world, the learning world, the consumer world, the world of the supermarket and even of sport. The economy limps along, agriculture crawling, tourism virtually defunct, manufacturing crippled, and mining, the one still flickering light of the economy, under recent assault from government policies. Electricity comes and goes at will, water likewise in many places; fuel supplies (black market only) are erratic and prices exploitative. Schools are places of confusion, teachers demoralized, pupils unable to afford textbooks if they manage to pay fees, and only finding bus fare for half the school days. Courts barely function, police cells are filthy putrid hell holes, prisons even worse."

Writing in 2004, Steve Kibble points out the long-term nature of Zimbabwe's problems. "The inheritance of violent colonial dispossession and dehumanisation with the response of (in Brian Kagoro's words) a 'violent and hegemonic struggle for decolonisation…culminated in a largely symbolic independence devoid of material gain for the majority black population.' This meant an authoritarian elite unable/unwilling to transform the repressive state colonial structures into democratic institutions, and the emergence of neo-patrimonialism and clientilist structures along with long lasting cultures of intolerance and impunity."

In pointing to why regional responses to the Zimbabwean situation have been muted, Kibble writes in another article that: "The 'national security' strategy of the ZANU PF elite has led to economic collapse, severe repression, flight and severe economic consequences for the region, but as yet there has been no concerted regional reaction to this in terms of security. This in turn relates to national elites being unable to formulate a path directed to human security, and largely because of their lack of engagement with and mistrust of new social forces (which of course are not themselves necessarily united or coherent)."

Kibble questions how to shift the security focus from military to human security to focus on those without power and those affected by poverty, environmental degradation and human rights abuses. Values would include peace and the promotion of human rights. "It may not seem obvious when there seem more immediate concerns, but the fight against repression in Zimbabwe illustrates much of this, and involves what values postcolonial states and regions should have, their road to development, democracy and overcoming of colonial and apartheid structures, all of which pose human security dilemmas."

Patrick Bond and David Moore, in April 2006 ask what can be done to offer solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe: "…the real solidarity action ahead may revolve around COSATU and broader civil society forces. They must shake free of Mbeki's influence and establish a strategy for longer-term support. This would more forcefully and surgically target Mugabe and his cronies, and nurture the unpredictable resurgence of Zimbabwean protests, which certainly still lie ahead." More broadly, one could add to this the need for pressure on the African Union and other regional and international human rights bodies.

Perhaps the last word, before noting that based on the progression of events in Zimbabwe the happenings of the last week are hardly surprising and without concerted effort on behalf of all stakeholders worse will surely follow, should go to Ndlovu, writing in 2006: "The tension of expectation is building as the people's misery becomes unsustainable. Will this be the year, and if it is, will it hold hope for the future, or will we simply all fall down together?"

* Patrick Burnett is contributing editor of Pambazuka News
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

I have been struggling with a commissioned article for an online journal about ‘the rule of law’. I was not sure which angle to take, given the multifaceted entry points to this widely used and abused concept and the even more diverse practice and bad practice in real and lived experiences. The question is whether the rule of law is simply a concept used by powerful nations or classes to legitimise their domination of the poorer and weaker nations and classes. When it suits their interests, they will preach rule of law. But they will quickly dispense with any notion of the law, if their interests are threatened.

Another related issue is the normative assumption that all citizens or countries are equal before the law, that our actions are circumscribed by the law whether we are rulers or the ruled, prisoners or presidents, men or women, the minority or the majority, whatever our religion, region, ethnicity, race, nationality, class or clan, whether we are rich or poor countries.

Globally these are not good times both for the concept of the rule of law and the notion of equality before the law. Western countries in general, the US in particular, demand democracy, rule of law and compliance with ‘international standards’, in spite of their continuing flouting of those same standards. Only last week, the US State Department released its annual ritualistic reports on human rights conditions everywhere around the world, except in the US itself!

The report predictably condemns those labelled pariah states - Sudan, Eritrea, etc, and remains silent or lenient about the current darlings of the US - Ethiopia, Kenya and others, while avoiding its own abuses. How can a country that bombs other peoples as it pleases; illegally detains thousands in a third country; and abducts citizens of other countries in the name of ‘rendition’ be so shameless as to be issuing such reports? After Guatanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Somalia, the US should be humble enough not to lecture anyone about rule of law: because it is the most powerful rogue state today. It is so law abiding that it has never signed up to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will go to war for ‘UN resolutions’!

Bad practices of the West, the US in particular, undermine any regime of international law, and aid other countries in their flouting of international and national law. A situation where everyone is guilty, or potentially so, does not create an environment in which everyone would wish to voluntarily respect the law. Instead the law is interpreted in terms of what you can get away with. For instance, so far, the ICC has been bedeviled by accusations that it is only poor countries, along with regimes and dictators that are out of favour, which are facing trials, such as the late Milosevic or Charles Taylor. Until the day George Bush, Tony Blair or their generals are brought to trial before the ICC for foisting a war that even the UN, albeit belatedly, declared ‘illegal’, no one will believe that international law respects either persons or nations.

However the hypocrisy and lawless behavior of the US should not excuse other states not being law abiding. The bad manners of others should not be a license for the lawlessness of our own leaders. We should ask why is it that only they want to copy Western leaders or declare their sovereignty when it comes to bad practice? Why can they not copy them in terms of respecting and defending their citizens?

For instance, drought regularly occurs in some regions of America but does not become famine, because the country stores enough to take care of most emergencies. Ethiopia and Eritrea on the other hand are ready to beg for food for their citizens but willing to fight wars on behalf of the same citizens. Why is Meles Zenawi willing to be a Bush in Somalia, but not vis-a-vis his starving compatriots?

The past two weeks have not been good for law, human rights, citizenship rights and the democratic movement in Africa in general. As I write, the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai, and other colleagues are in hospital as a result of injuries sustained from the police and other security agents who had arrested them allegedly for participating in an ‘illegal’ prayer meeting. You do not have to be a sympathiser of the opposition MDC to condemn the callousness of the Zimbabwean police and other security thugs. Does Tsvangirai really deserve to be beaten up on the television?

Assuming he and his colleagues are indeed guilty of an illegal act, is it not the responsibility of the courts to convict or acquit them? Is it the duty of the security service to administer punishments to suspects? Supposing they are acquitted by the courts, what penalties would the police thugs pay for their brutalities? Even an accused person has human rights, as do prisoners, irrespective of the gravity of their crimes.

In Uganda, the judiciary that many members of the opposition and human rights activists have always criticised - if sometimes unfairly - as too timid, complacent or conservative, has finally found its voice. It confronted the excesses of the executive over the years, after being pushed against the wall by consistent lawlessness of security agents. All observers and critics agree that rebels and judicial activists are made of sterner stuff than the painfully moderate and loyal personalities of Justice Odoki and Kanyihemba. When such legal luminaries begin to support strikes instead of the President and his over zealous boys (and boys they all are), berating the judges, or threatening to ‘fix the judges’, then they should look at their own bad manners. No government that claims to be based on the will of the people, rule of law and constitutionalism can disobey the courts as and when they please, and expect the citizens to be law abiding.

What threatens a culture of the rule of law taking root in Africa is not the criminals, rebels or disloyal opposition, rather the many reluctant democrats who occupy state houses across this continent. Because we deify them as presidents, they think they have the right to preside over any matter that concerns their citizens: from our toilets not flushing, through who we sleep or should not sleep with, to how judges should interpret the law.

Consequently those who serve them in the security and intelligence agencies believe they can get away with anything, including torture, abuse, humiliation, corporal punishment, intimidation and other kinds of excesses, in the service of their masters. The rule of law will remain a pipe dream so long as presidents perpetrate or condone these acts. It must be a ‘first’ that President Museveni made a grudging apology to the judges. More importantly however, both the president and his trigger-happy security elements need to accept that the rule of law is not a ‘katogo’ meal (a Ugandan delicacy for the masses, bits of this and that, similar to what Kenyans call Sukumawiki) made in state house that they can cherry-pick.

In Nigeria, Obasanjo has the same a la carte attitude to parliament, judiciary and the country. He simply goes on regardless of what the law says, or the people feel. These cavalier attitudes to the law are undermining the principle of separation of powers, and any notion of checks and balances. They are creating elective dictatorships across the continent.

If these presidents think the law is wrong, they can change it through the parliament. But they should have no discretion to choose which of the laws they obey. Similarly, citizens who think a particular law is wrong or unjust, can exercise their right to lobby or campaign to change it, including even defying such laws - as many defied the infamous Pass laws in apartheid South Africa or many colonial laws in the nationalist era. But they must also be ready to face the consequences. The state is not the personal property of the president. Therefore those opposed to him or her should not be treated as if they are ungrateful tenants. We have to deliberately de-programme ourselves, so as not to see opponents as ‘enemies’, and difference in opinion as treason.

Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, is Deputy Director, Africa, UN millennium Campaign and more recently General-Secretary of the Global Pan-African Movement.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org