Probably the most important question for Zimbabwe today is that for how long shall this great country be covered by a dark cloud of tyranny? The ‘saints of dictatorship’ have defied the popular will to transform the country to democratic politics via the infrastructure of tyranny. Zimbabwe offers a classical example of a state which is in a state of ‘arrested democracy.’ By the year 2000, the support ZANU PF used to enjoy had patently plummeted. By 2002, Mugabe had surely become a ‘fully-fledged persona non grata’ within and beyond the borders of Zimbabwe. There is no doubt whatsoever that the people of Zimbabwe have become ‘prisoners of lost legitimacy.’ Legitimacy is whereby the government governs with the express consent of the governed. Legitimacy can be given or revoked through the conduct elections. This is because it is in and through elections that power can be given or revoked. When conducted responsibly, elections are an essential means of legitimizing governments and preventing the emergence of violent conflicts. Conversely, when they are patently hijacked, they can be a potential source of protracted conflicts and in some cases deadly ones. For example, in 2007/2008, a patently hijacked election by the Mwai Kibaki regime in Kenya invoked iniquitous violence in which hundreds of thousands of Kenyans lost their lives and livelihoods.

THE MEANING OF ELECTIONS

In Cote d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo refused to accept the results of the 28 November 2010 election in which he lost to Alassane Ouattara. On 4 December 2010, Gbagbo was inaugurated president and on the same day, the investiture of Ouattara as president also took place. This occasioned an unprecedented political impasse in Cote d’Ivoire in which the country plunged into a calamitous civil conflict. This situation was resolved when (on 11 April 2011) forces loyal to Ouattara, with assistance from French forces, launched a titanic knockdown offensive on Gbagbo’s banker and captured him, together with his wife Simone. The basic truth is that elections can either be meaningful or they can be devoid of any meaning depending on the spirit and manner in which they are conducted.

The contact of elections in Zimbabwe has come to be synonymous with violence and the retention of lost legitimacy. The forthcoming elections are going to be the country’s hotly contested and highly controversial elections, with ZANU PF and MDC-T not willing to accept defeat. ZANU PF will go out of its way to ensure a victory, especially with regards to the presidential election. The party may afford to lose the parliamentary majority to the MDC but it cannot afford to lose the presidential election. However, although the MDC has lost a significant constituent of supporters, it is difficult to see how ZANU PF can win a free and fair election. If not conducted properly, the forthcoming elections may see Zimbabwe going through the experiences of Kenya and at worst of Cote d’Ivoire.

REVERIES FROM THE MOUNTAINTOP: THE 2008 HARMONIZED ELECTIONS

It is important for any government anywhere to respect the sacrosanct right of the citizens to elect a government of their choice through the ballot. According to the ‘New York Time’ of 31 October 1990, the nineteenth-century US President Abraham Lincoln, while a member of the US Congress, made a passionate speech on 12 January, 1948, apropos of the US invasion of Mexico in which he stated that:

‘Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is the most valued—the most sacred right which we believe, is to liberate the world.’ (Nzongola-Ntalaja, 1998: 82).

It is regrettable that the people of Zimbabwe have been divested of this sacred right by the post-colonial state. During the liberation struggle, Zimbabweans fought a spirited struggle with the inextinguishable faith that the end of colonial oppression will mark the advent of a new epoch in which democracy; good governance and material prosperity are embedded. This is what Amilcar Cabral realized when he was leading the independence struggle for Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde Islands and he puts it incisively:
‘Always remember that people do not fight for things, for ideas that exist only in the heads of individuals. The people fight and accept sacrifices. But they do it in order to gain material advantages, to live in peace and improve their lives, to experience progress and to be able to guarantee a future for their children.’(Young, 1982:90).

Zimbabweans did not sacrifice their lives for ideas that exist in the heads of ZANU PF old guards. The conduct of bogus elections and the rise of authoritarian rule in Zimbabwe have betrayed the letter and spirit of the liberation struggle. There is not an ounce of doubt that Zimbabweans voted for change during the 29 March 2008 elections. These elections marked a watershed in Zimbabwe’s electoral history. They were the first harmonized elections (they consisted of the parliamentary, the presidential, and the local council elections) that were held following the unanimous passing of the constitutional amendment Act 18 by parliament. The act stipulates that all these elections be held together, unlike the past when they were held separately. Unlike the 2000 parliamentary and the 2002 presidential elections, the pre-electoral period of the 2008 elections was fairly violence-free.

However, it was tainted by some electoral malpractices, such as the monopolization of the state media by ZANU-PF, irregularities in voter registration, impartiality of bodies responsible for the contact of elections, politicization of food and other forms of aid, gerrymandering of constituency boundaries, and isolated incidents of political violence. For the first time in history, ZANU-PF lost the majority of the parliamentary and council seats to the MDC and Mugabe lost the presidential race to Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC.

When Mugabe realized that he had lost the presidential elections to Tsvangirai, he ordered the chairman of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), George Chiweshe, to withhold the results. Chiweshe and other influential ZEC officials are confessed ZANU-PF supporters. Mugabe needed ample time to manipulate the results in his favor. However, having realized that Tsvangirai’s victory was transparent, Mugabe could not manipulate the results to the degree that he could declare himself the winner. In fact, Mugabe had been caught in an inextricable cobweb of illegitimacy. He saved himself in extremes by making capital of section 110 (3) of Chapter 2:3 of the Electoral Act, which stipulates that ‘where two or more candidates for President are nominated, and after a poll taken in terms of subsection (2) no candidate receives a majority of the total number of valid votes cast, a second election shall be held within 21 days after the previous election in accordance with this Act.’ To manipulate this act, Mugabe declared Tsvangirai the winner but with less than the required 50 percent needed to be declared the outright winner in Zimbabwe’s first-past-the-post-electoral system.

Mugabe took some time to engineer this strategy. The most interesting thing about these results was that the Herald publicized the facts that no presidential candidate had won an outright majority and that a runoff between Tsvangirai and Mugabe was to be held well before ZEC officially announced them. When they were finally announced, it was but a formality. The results were announced on 1 May 2008 (a month after the polling day), following a catcall from sections of the national and the international community. According to Matyszak (2010:13) the lengthy delay in announcing the results gives credibility to the idea that they were manipulated to cut Tsvangirai’s votes to below 51 percent necessary for him to be declared the duly elected President of Zimbabwe. ZEC announced that Tsvangirai had polled 47.9 percent, Mugabe polled 43.2 percent, and independent candidates Simba Makoni and Langton Towungana shared the remaining 8.9 percent of the valid votes cast. Under these circumstances, a presidential runoff between Tsvangirai and Mugabe was definitely inevitable.

THE DEVIL AND HIS ADVOCATES: THE PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ‘ELECTION’

After the full announcement of the results, ZEC declared that it would decide the date on which the runoff will be conducted. It finally settled on 27 June 2008, despite the fact that the law stipulates that the runoff should be held within 21 days after the previous election. ZEC justified its decision on logistical problems. Although it is undeniable that the preparation for such an election was cumbersome, and therefore ZEC needed more time, it is equally undeniable that ZANU-PF needed more time before the run-off in order to reinvent itself through the orchestration political violence. Mugabe was cognizant of the fact that if the runoff was going to be free and fair, he was going to lose to Tsvangirai with a very large margin. The pre-electoral period leading to the runoff elections witnessed political violence characteristic of a country at physical war. Hundreds of thousands of homesteads, business premises and other effects of known and suspected MDC supporters were torched by ZANU PF bastards. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, maimed, raped, tortured, harassed, and arbitrarily detained. In Murewa, a number of people were abducted and never seen again.

In Mutoko, some confessed supporters of the MDC were abducted and tied to a heavy log before being thrown into a deep river to die. In some of the nastiest incidents, victims would be shot dead before a chanting congregation. These cases were mostly committed by war veterans, members of the CIO, the ZANU-PF youth militia, and in some few cases by the soldiers. In both rural and urban areas, the ZANU-PF youth militia forced people to attend rallies on a daily basis. Most of those who were MDC polling agents during the harmonized elections were victimized, harassed, and in some cases killed. For example, Clemence Makombo, who was a polling agent in Bikita, was killed by ZANU-PF youth. Gift Mutsvungu, who was a polling agent in Harare, was killed and his decomposing body was found on 3 July 2008.

The police embarked on a titanic campaign of arresting, detaining, and torturing those who were MDC polling agents during the 29 March election. For example, Peter Chihombori and scores of other MDC polling officers in Masvingo were arrested and detained at Mutimurefu prison and later transferred to Bikita prison in Masvingo. When he was interviewed by this writer, Chihombori said, ‘I went through hell that I survived by sheer luck; I will never be a polling agent again in my life.’ In his letter to ZEC dated 25 June 2009, Tsvangirai claimed that more than 2,000 MDC polling agents were arrested nationwide. Violence against MDC agents was intended to make sure that many people will not be willing to be MDC polling agents on 27 June. As a result, there would be a number of polling stations without MDC agents and this was going to present ZANU-PF with the opportunity to freely manipulate votes right at the polling stations. In the period between the 29 March and the 27 June run-off elections, at least 80 MDC supporters had been killed, hundreds had been abducted, scores had lost their livelihood, thousands had been tortured and detained and hundreds of thousands had become homeless (Timberg, The Washington Post: 5 July 2008).

ZANU-PF elements also embarked on a massive, systematic, and widespread confiscation of identity particulars of MDC supporters with the view to divest them of the opportunity to vote on 27 June. They told their victims that they would return their particulars after the elections. Mugabe himself and his wife, Grace, vowed that they will not vacate the state house regardless of the outcome of the elections. Mugabe and other high ranking ZANU-PF elements vowed that a full-scale civil war would be fought should Tsvangirai win the elections. These threats were taken seriously by the majority of the electorate, especially considering that the soldiers had already been ordered to vacate their barracks and take positions on mountains and bushes. The slogan ‘27 June ini nemhuri yangu tinovhotera vaMugabe chete!’ (On 27 June myself and my family will vote for Mugabe only) became the catchphrase for the runoff elections.

Another slogan was kumuda kana kusamuda ndiyeye, kumuvhotera kana kusamuvhotera ndiyeye, kurohwa kana kusarohwa ndiyeye (whether you like him [Mugabe"> or not he is the one, whether you vote him or not he is the one, whether you are beaten up by his supporters or not he is the one). Every household and vehicle had to display a ZANU-PF campaign insignia in order to avoid being victimized by the vicious ZANU-PF youth. Individuals had to buy ZANU PF party cards and produce them whenever they are asked to do so in order to avoid being victimized. They also had to master ZANU PF slogans so that when asked to chant them, they could do so. And people had to refrain from buying and travelling with independent newspapers which are known for being critical of ZANU PF. They also had to refrain from putting on any red clothes and from stretching their hands, even when they are warming them on fire or a heater.

Throughout the period leading to 27 June, ZANU-PF sent a strong message to the entire nation that although ‘elections’ were to be held, the presidential post was not an elective one but was ‘eternally’ reserved for Mugabe, the ‘sacred cow.’ In cases where the rampageous youth wanted to cut off part of their victims’ arms, they would ask whether he/she wants a ‘short’ or a ‘long sleeve.’ Meaning should we cut your arm from the elbow (‘short sleeve’) or from the wrist (‘long sleeve’)? In most areas, the youth were based at local shopping centers from which they could engage in their infamous witch-hunting activities. Many villagers who are known or suspected MDC supporters lost their cattle, goats, chickens, and other belongings to the youth. The youth embarked on a door-to-door campaign in search of any MDC campaigning materials. Those who were found in possession of such material were dealt with ruthlessly. The youth established torture camps where their victims were taken to and tortured. Even though the police knew about these issues and the location of the torture camps, they did not do anything to protect the victims of this wave of violence.

Most of these youth were illiterate individuals whose derelict lives had been abandoned to drug abuse and destitution. For the better part of the pre-electoral period, most rural people lived in mountain caves or along river banks. Teachers were victimized such that virtually all schools were closed. Soldiers were ordered to go out of their barracks and take positions on mountains and bushes, where they gave the public the impression that a war would ignite should Tsvangirai win the elections. Most areas were declared ‘no-go areas’ for supporters of the MDC. The police and ZANU-PF leaders not only encouraged and participated in this wave of political violence, but they had the effrontery to attribute it to supporters of the MDC. A number of covert military operations which were intended to ‘punish’ the voters were contacted in the run up to the run-off elections. For example, a campaign of terror codenamed ‘Operation Makavhotera Papi’ (who did you vote for?) was embarked on. The operation targeted those people who were believed to have voted for the MDC. Those who were targeted were tortured, maimed, harassed, abducted, detained and in some cases they were killed. It was contacted by members of the army, police, CIO and CID, and the youth militia. The entire country was clouded by an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The climate could be scarcely distinguished from that of a country which is going through a deadly civil war. People had to avoid travelling because of the fear of potential victimization.

Tsvangirai had initially agreed to participate in the run-off elections. However, as this ferocious cyclone of political violence engulfed the country, it was clear that the conduct of democratic elections was certainly inconceivable. Tsvangirai then went on to set strict conditions for his participation. These included the cessation of all forms of violence against MDC supporters, unrestricted access by international observers, the reconstitution of the partisan ZEC, equal access to media, and the provision of peacekeeping forces by South African Development Community (SADC) in order to curtail political violence. ZANU-PF refused to concede to these demands. Barely two days before the polling day, Tsvangirai publicly withdrew his candidature for the runoff elections.

In his letter to ZEC dated 25 June 2008, Tsvangirai anchored his withdrawal on the following reasons: disenfranchisement of voters and the MDC’s lack of access to rural areas; the partiality of ZEC itself in the conduct of elections; political violence (in which the MDC recorded at least 86 deaths, 10,000 homes destroyed, 200,000 people displaced, and 10,000 people injured); threats of war made by Mugabe, the participation of the uniformed forces in ZANU-PF campaigns of terror; intimidation of MDC supporters and its lack of access to the media; and the banning and disruption of its meetings and rallies nationwide. ZEC ruled that the ‘elections’ would be held because the law required Tsvangirai to formally withdraw his candidature 21 days before the harmonized elections. This ruling demonstrated that ZEC had no elaborate regulations of dealing with the run-off elections. This explains why it initially thought of declaring Mugabe the unopposed winner.

Tsvangirai instructed his supporters to either refrain from voting or to spoil the ballot papers. The ‘elections’ were indeed held, and Mugabe was declared the winner. He was quickly inaugurated president. It is clear from this discussion that the June 27, 2008, ‘elections’ were a mere farce that they came to be popularly referred to as a “one-man race.” They were the most ignominious ‘elections’ to be held the world over even if one is to compare them with the “pseudo elections” that were held under the fascist regime in Italy and the Nazi regime in Germany. These ‘elections’ were reprobated by the national and the international community. The date June 27 is evocative of the evil political violence which was perpetrated against innocent people who had exercised their democratic right to elect a government which suits their interests.

LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE VIA THE PAST: DISSECTING THE FORTHCOMING GENERAL ELECTIONS

After the 2008 electoral fiasco, Zimbabwe witnessed the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in which ZANU PF, MDC-T and MDC-M (now MDC-N) came together and formed an all-inclusive government. The core purpose of the formation of the GNU was to implement broad democratic reforms with the view to ensure that the post-GNU elections will be free and fair in order to avoid a repeat of the 2008 situation. In Article VI of the Global Political Agreement (GPA), the parties to the pact agreed to mend ‘once and for all the current political and economic situations and charting a new political direction for our country.’ It is therefore essential for the coming elections to be analyzed in the context of the end-and-the-means nexus. The end refers to the actual conduct of the post-GNU elections while the means refers to the implementation of broad electoral reforms as a prerequisite to the contact of these elections.

As far as the means side of this nexus is concerned, the GNU can be characterized as a ‘betrayed business.’ This is because it has not only failed but it has actually betrayed the business of implementing broad democratic reforms in preparation for the coming elections. Instead, the GNU implemented ‘metaphorical reforms’ like the adoption of a cosmetic constitution which is devoid of anything except a façade of constitutionalism. To exacerbate this betrayal of business, the GNU did not adopt even ‘metaphorical reforms’ as far as key institutions such as the security sector, the media, the judiciary, and electoral management bodies are concerned. With these institutions as intact as they were in 2008, the contact of democratic post-GNU elections will remain a mirage. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay urged the parties to the GNU to implement key reforms because the next election could be ‘a repeat of 2008 election which resulted in rampant politically motivated human rights abuses, including killings, torture, rapes, beatings, arbitrary detention, displacements and other violations.’ It is important to note that the context of the 2008 elections discussed above is crucial for the coming elections in many respects.

It is difficult to see how one can discuss the coming elections without making reference to the events of 2008. These are the events which led to the formation of the present-day Government of National Unity. The formation of the GNU was primarily intended to address the events which led to its formation in the first place. The tortuous negotiations which led to the formation of the GNU gave ZANU PF negotiated legitimacy after the party was rejected by the electorate via the electoral verdict. The most important question that can be asked at this point is that to what extent (if any) has the GNU addressed the events which led to its formation? The degree to which the electoral field of the forthcoming elections will be dissociated from that of 2008 as a result of electoral reforms determines the credibility of these elections. Kenya, unlike Zimbabwe, managed to implement largely bona fide democratic reforms which have credibly managed to ensure a peaceful transfer of power from Mwai Kibaki to incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta. This has avoided a repeat of the 2007/2008 post-election violence and the country is now moving forward.

The major question is that who betrayed the GNU business of implementing reforms? The answer is simple; ZANU PF. Since the formation of the GNU, ZANU PF exposed its cast-iron willpower to thwart the implementation of any meaningful reforms. Mugabe has been calling for the conduct of elections since 2010. He has stated over and over again that elections will be contacted with or without reforms. The principal reason as to why ZANU PF betrayed electoral reforms is that the party knows for certain that democratic reforms will definitely facilitate its loss of power in the coming elections.

In order to ward off broad democratic reforms, ZANU PF carefully diverted attention from other essential issues and concentrated it on the enactment of a compromise constitution. The party knew that the adoption of a new constitution will pave way for the contact of elections. With this constitution in place, the major question now is when these elections will be contacted and not what other reforms need to be put in place. Even if other political parties continue to propose the implementation of other essential reforms, there is no longer time for such reforms at this point. This is because elections are expected between June and November 2013. The MDC and other political parties may push for the postponement of the conduct of these elections. However, the most important thing is not whether the elections are postponed or not but whether ZANU PF has the willingness to implement democratic reforms before the elections. It is clear that from the beginning of the GNU, ZANU PF has focused on the end (the conduct of elections) and not the means (democratic reforms).

The forthcoming elections are the MDC’s ‘decisive moment’ because they will witness the MDC taking its way either to the state house or to a dense political wilderness from which not even some remnants will return. If Tsvangirai lose the coming presidential elections to Mugabe (whether through drastic loss of popular support or through electoral irregularities) that will mark the swansong of his political career and the gradual but sure decline of the political fortunes of the MDC.

The enactment of a new constitution should not be seen as a major electoral reform. It is simply a metaphorical metamorphosis of Zimbabwe’s political dispensation which marks a bogus ricochet towards a democratic political order. It is difficult to see how this constitution will contribute to the conduct of democratic elections, especially considering that the elections are likely to be conducted before its institutionalization. It is therefore clear that there are cogent reasons to support the view that the electoral field is not germane to the contact of free and fair elections. Zimbabwe cannot afford another unity government. This is no longer the time to let ZANU PF once again use elections to confer on itself a façade of legitimacy. ZANU PF is a tottery regime which cannot recuperate from the loss of support which it has encountered during the last decade or so. Its only best bet is to manipulate elections through an array of irregularities including the perpetration of political violence.

In fact, violence is ZANU PF’s anchor of its power retention strategy. Because of its overreliance on violent and terror tactics, ZANU PF can be hardly distinguished from terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab in the thickets of Somalia. The outcome of the coming general elections is of titanic national importance. They will determine whether the country will restore its fortunes and take its way towards a democratic dispensation or maintain its “thorn in the flesh status” and drift towards a calamitous humanitarian crisis. If it takes the later route, it means the country is going to relive the economic and political crisis with excruciating consequences not only for the present but for succeeding generations as well.

Mugabe is widely known for maintaining that he cannot let the power which he acquired through an armed struggle depart from him via the ink of a pen (elections). This explains why he does not have the strength of will to adopt democratic reforms. The status of the electoral playing field in the run up to the coming general elections suggests that there are basically three potential outcomes to these elections. These are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Potential outcomes (in order of their likelihood) and their potential consequences

Potential outcome 1: ZANU PF may win both the presidential and parliamentary elections with a small margin via electoral malpractices. In this case, it will proceed to form the next government. This outcome will engender precarious political and economic consequences for the country. The MDC will boycott government business and call for Zimbabwe’s isolation. The national and international community will strongly disapprove the outcome. The sanctions regime will broaden the scope and ferocity of existing sanctions. Zimbabwe will become a “persona non grata” in the international system and this will clamp its economy. A complex, intricate and protracted humanitarian catastrophe will probably ensue.

Potential outcome 2: The formation of GNU 2? Zimbabwe’s potential tragedy is that the conduct of the coming elections is likely to engender a situation which necessitates the formation of yet another GNU. This may occur when ZANU PF wins the presidential election but lose the parliamentary election to the MDC. Even if the current electoral field will give ZANU PF a head start over the MDC, chances are high that the MDC may win the majority of the seats in the house of assembly. In this case, it will be difficult for ZANU PF to govern the country without the support and cooperation of the MDC. However, given the poor performance and the disunity that characterized the GNU, there is no doubt that there will be little or no political will to form GNU 2 though conditions may require its formation.

Potential outcome 3: MDC-T win but will it govern? The MDC may win the presidential and parliamentary elections. In such as case, there are two possibilities, that is, the MDC will form the next government or the army will stage a military coup. If the former possibility happens, the country will restore is fortunes and move forward. However, if the later possibility happens; the country will plunge in a protected political stalemate which might be restored through international intervention. However, because of the skewed electoral playing field, an MDC victory is the “most unlikely likely outcome”.

WHAT IS ZIMBABWE’S PROBLEM?

At this point, it is important to ask the question: ‘what is Zimbabwe’s problem’? It is disturbing that after 33 years of national independence, Zimbabwe remains in the clutches of a scarce form of dictatorship. Since independence, many African countries have made significant developments as far as the democratization agenda is concerned. Some of them have tottered and faltered along the way but at least the most important thing is that they are on the way. Zimbabwe does not have a democratization agenda, even an amorphous one. Not only that it does not have such an agenda, but it has institutions (particularly the security sector) which are inimical to the realization of a democratic dispensation. The most important thing to ZANU PF is not the democratization of the state but the retention of power at all costs. Zimbabwe is a country which is beset by a myriad of problems whose collective effects have been and continues to mount a death blow to the county’s development and democratization prospects. The problems of Zimbabwe are summarized below.

CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP

The worst thing that can happen to any society anywhere is to be led by a crop of irresponsible leadership. The difference between a progressive society and a retrogressive one is embedded principally in the leadership of these societies. It is essential to always remember that leadership is not only about today, but that it is essentially about tomorrow. A life that is lived without preparing a future for succeeding generations is a derelict one. I believe in the patent truth that each generation is dutybound to duly honor its responsibility to prepare a future for succeeding generations for this is what makes a generation a generation. Those societies and states which honor this responsibility are always more progressive and forward-looking than those which shirk it.

Irresponsible leadership is Zimbabwe’s problem incarnate. Leaders with an ounce of responsibility cannot hijack an election and massacre hundreds of thousands of citizens simply because they want a change of leadership. It seems that ZANU PF quotes from Milton Obote’s Paradise Lost in which the devil, in consequence of having been deposed form heaven, maintained that it is better to rule in hell than to be a servant in heaven. It does not require one to conduct cutting-edge research in order to discover the source(s) of Zimbabwe’s problem. Zimbabwe’s problems are rooted in the leadership crisis, period.

Zimbabwe is led by a macabre and lunatic fringe regime that composes of diehard kindred spirit kleptomaniac ‘kingpins’ whose insatiable desire for power and material aggrandizement has cosigned the country to a scarce form of confiscatory dictatorship. Zimbabwean leaders need to know that Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans and not for ZANU PF, the MDC or any contemporary or future political formations. Zimbabwe’s major problem is that political leaders have an inclination to ‘institutionalize themselves.’ A country cannot be progressive without sculpting strong institutions which will in turn regulate human behavior. In the case of Zimbabwe, instead of building institutions which are intended to further the interests of the nation, the leaders have turned themselves into institutions. What Zimbabwe is experiencing is not bad governance, it is rather evil governance. Mugabe in particular and ZANU PF in general should know that the excruciating consequences of flagrant repression of citizens who are exercising their democratic rights are inevitable. It is time Africa should sculpt rarefied intellectual leaders of this age. Africa needs selfless leaders who have a vision not only for their countries and the continent but for the international community in its entirety.

WEAK INSTITUTIONS

Zimbabwe needs strong independent and democratic institutions which can regulate the behavior of individuals, groups and particularly that of the government. Such institutions are essential because they avoid the personalization of the state and they play a pivotal role in the transformation of the state. They also inculcate democratic values and practices in the citizens and the government. Institutions play a crucial role in determining what individuals, groups, communities and the government can do and should refrain from doing. Strong institutions do not merely guide the behavior of people and the government but they make such behavior largely predictable. Zimbabwe has weak and in some cases ‘captured’ institutions which alienate the people instead of incorporating them. Zimbabweans are therefore ‘worlds apart’ from institutions which should protect and promote their welfare and interests. Credible institutions are those which put citizens at the depths of their objectives and purpose as opposed to those which alienate the very people for which they were established to serve. It should be noted that good leadership is a sine qua none for the establishment of good institutions. The reason is simple. Leaders create institutions and in turn, those institutions determine what people and the government may do may refrain from doing. Mugabe rules Zimbabwe as a personal fief and instead of putting strong institutions in place; he has made himself the institutions. A society cannot expect to have John Locke’s ‘limited government’ in a state where the leaders have made themselves the institutions. In such a society, state institutions often offer their services to people on the basis of their political affiliation. This is something which is common in Zimbabwe. However, it should be noted that the responsibility to build strong institutions is not for the leaders alone but the citizens in general have a strong role to play.

ENTRENCHED IMPERIAL INTERESTS

Imperial interests in Zimbabwe are as ancient as the state itself. Pristine imperial interests continue to sway the trajectory of Zimbabwe’s economic dispensation. Zimbabwe’s ‘daunting dilemma’ is that before the country recuperated from centuries and centuries of colonial exploitation, it immediately found itself environed by ferocious forces of the ‘neo-Berlin Conference’ whose consequences are more lethal than those of the Berlin Conference of 1884. The behavior of the world’s powerful states of ‘bereaving the children of their bread’ is one of the major sources of Zimbabwe’s economic problems. In his analysis of Africa’s development challenges, Walter Rodney has this to say:

‘…the question as to who, and what, is responsible for Africa’s underdevelopment can be answered at two levels. Firstly the answer is that the operation of the imperialist system bears major responsibility for African economic retardation by draining African wealth and by making it impossible to develop more rapidly the resources of the continent. Secondly, one has to deal with those who manipulated the system and those who are either agents or unwitting accomplices of the said system.’ (Rodney: 1982).

During the struggle for independence, the people of Africa religiously believed that the end of colonial oppression will mark the swansong of all forms of domination in the continent. This belief was especially embodied in Kwame Nkrumah’s aphorism in which he beseeched the people of Africa to ‘seek ye first the political kingdom and everything will be given unto you.’ However, the end of colonialism did not mark the end of fierce imperial interests in the continent as envisaged by the majority of Africans. Instead, it marked the dawn of a phase in which these interests became more intricate, sophisticated and merciless than before. The titanic hegemonic agenda of the world’s powerful states in Africa manifest itself in many forms, many of which are disguised in colorful packages such as foreign aid and Foreign Direct Investment.

When policies which are intended to redistribute resources in order to redress the entrenched injustices of the past are implemented in Africa, they are labeled a violation of human rights but when they are implemented in developed countries they are called affirmative action or positive discrimination. At independence, the colonial regime made an egoistic provision in the Lancaster House Constitution which states that the government should not redistribute land for a period of ten years after independence.

The patent purpose of the provision was to ensure that despite political independence, the land (which is the linchpin of Zimbabwe’s agrarian economy) remains in the control and ownership of the minority white population while the majority of black Zimbabweans live in brutish poverty and inertia. These are the same forces which are renowned for saying constitutions should be people-driven and should embody the values, needs and aspirations of the people. They are also keen to refer to Africa as a ‘dark continent.’ When the Zimbabwean government moved to redistribute land in 2000, the land reform programme was widely condemned. To the imperialists, it is not a question of the chaotic, corrupt and violent way in which the policy was implemented but it is a question of the policy itself which is contrary to their economic interests in the country. Although, the land reform programme was poorly implemented, its adoption was indeed necessary in the context of black disparities which obtained between the blacks and the whites from the colonial period.

Apart from Zimbabwe, let us briefly discuss the case of South Africa. South Africa is a “bogus democracy” but it is regarded by the international community as a ‘paragon of democracy.’South Africa’s economic dispensation is owned, cramped and controlled by a minority white population while the majority of black South Africans are chained on its periphery where they feed on ‘calories which fall from the master’s stable.’ It’s a country in which the black South Africans are harassed and bruised day in day out by the imperial edifice. To regard South Africa as a democracy is to divest the term democracy of its meaning. Democracy is not limited to the contact of free and fair elections. It is difficult to see how democracy can be realized in a country where there are two worlds, one world of a few people who are filthy rich and another of many people who are living in brutish poverty. South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world with a gini coefficient of 0.6. The inequalities do not matter to imperialists, what matters is that the economy is in the clutches of their interests. The institutions which were put in place by the apartheid regime to segregate the South African black population are still largely intact. As long as these institutions are in place, imperialists will be happy and will continue to perceive South Africa as a ‘democratic and progressive’ state which is investment-worthy.

In the case of Zimbabwe, the steps which are being taken by ZANU PF to empower the local people through land reform and other empowerment policies are commendable as long as the imperative to redistribute resources is concerned. The problem with these policies is that they lack proper planning, coordination and implementation. It is difficult to regard for example, the land reform programme as a policy because the problems mentioned above. Africa needs to be always alert to the painful reality that there are a myriad of lethal imperial interests which are already entrenched in the continent and others which are emerging from the “imperial horizon”. This means that Africa is going to suffer not only from old but also new imperial interests. Africa needs leaders who can combat imperialism and ensure that the resources of the continent are owned and controlled by Africans themselves. Mugabe can be credited for his struggle against the imperial empire in Zimbabwe although his strategies are poorly thought out and implemented. There is not a vestige of doubt that Mugabe has a legacy to leave when he dies, but it is a tainted legacy. Some will remember him as a ‘hero of emancipation’ while others will remember him as a ‘saint of dictatorship.’ To mesh these diametrically opposed vantage points, the recalcitrant Mugabe will be remembered in the quicksand of history as a ‘defiled hero.’

A CAPTURED SECURITY SECTOR

The security sector is Zimbabwe’s problem number one. Of all the institutions in Zimbabwe, the security sector is the least trusted one. In fact, it is the most dreaded of all institutions because it is the main source of insecurity in the country. It is at the depths of the travail of Zimbabwe’s transition to democratic politics. Zimbabwe’s savage, oxymoron, and brutal security sector is inimical to the democratization and development needs of a modern state. The oddity and infinitude nature of suppression of dissent by the security sector has reduced Zimbabwe to the status of a ‘secret society.’ There is no universal agreement as to how widely the security sector should be defined. For the purpose of this article, the security sector shall be defined to include institutions such as the army, police, intelligence services, border management agencies, election management bodies, the parliament, the media, war veterans, women’s leagues, youth militia, and the judiciary. However, this article expends its focus on the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA), the notorious Central Intelligence Organization (CIO), war veterans and the youth militia. The primary reason is that these are the institutions which are notorious for their open support of ZANU PF.

For these institutions, security is synonymous with ZANU PF’s retention of power. Their activities have engendered an atmosphere of fear, secrecy and insecurity among the people of Zimbabwe. This has caused a situation in which people have to always take stock of their surroundings (especially when they are in the public) before they say anything against ZANU PF in general and Mugabe in particular. This has ‘crippled’ the freedom of expression in the country, a development which has always undermined the country’s development prospects. The Central Intelligence Organization is the most dreaded institution in the country. It is regarded by many Zimbabweans as an ‘occult organization’ whose mandate is to stalk and harass, intimidate, detain and in some cases massacre perceived and real opponents of ZANU PF. It is disturbing to note that billions of tax payer’s money are used to finance activities which are intended to intimidate, victimize, harass and even kill the very owners of that money.

The ZRP is renowned for its deliberate unwillingness to protect real and perceived opponents of ZANU PF from arbitrary attacks and victimization by ZANU PF elements. In some cases, members of the police force themselves have been involved in the perpetration of violence against ZANU PF opponents. The police is also renowned for denying other parties the freedom of assembly and for overzealously and arbitrarily disrupt their gatherings. The police is also well known for taking little and in some cases no action at all against ZANU PF supporters who are known for their violent activities such as the Chipangano group in Mbare. This action by the police has sent a strong message to ZANU PF supporters and the nation at large that ZANU PF supporters can defy the law and escape scot free. This has inculcated a belief among ZANU PF supporters that they are above the law. This is one of the developments which account for the total breakdown of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

The majority of Zimbabwe’s high-ranking security personnel, particularly the heads of the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) and the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) have repeatedly vowed that they will not accept any electoral victory by any other presidential candidate other than Robert Mugabe (CRS Report for Congress, 2008:4). For example, in an exclusive interview with the Zimbabwe Independent on 26 May 2011, ZNA commander brigadier-general Douglas Nyikayaramba said that Mugabe should be Zimbabwe’s ‘life President.’ Nyikayaramba said:

‘Why do you want to force him to go? Where were you when he crossed into Mozambique to fight in the liberation struggle and why didn’t you go? If you can change your father in your family, then we can do the same. But has anyone changed his or her own father just because he is old? Until your father dies only then can you have a step father-that is that.’ (The Zimbabwe Independent, 27 May 2011).

Nyikayaramba insisted that the ZNA wants elections to be contacted in 2011 despite overwhelming public opinion that any contact of elections in Zimbabwe should be preceded by broad democratic reforms in order to ensure the credibility of the outcome of such elections. He further claimed that the army would ‘do anything’ to ensure that Mugabe retains power even if the people vote him out of power. Other generals such as Trust Mugoba and Martin Chedondo also made statements to the effect that there will be a ‘bloodbath’ should the MDC win the coming elections.

The army is widely known for vowing that it will not accept anyone who does not have ‘liberation credentials’ to be elected Zimbabwean president. The army has reputedly maintained that it will stage a military coup should Tsvangirai be elected president. Mugabe has elevated himself to the position of a ‘deity’ by maintaining and propagating the position that elections cannot depose him from power. This comportment by the Mugabe regime has occasioned a myriad of brutish political and economic challenges that by 2005, Zimbabwe had degenerated into a tumbledown state. The restoration of durable peace and the construction of a stable economic edifice in Zimbabwe depend on the implementation of sincere democratic reforms (particularly in the security sector) which will form the basis for the conduct of democratic elections.

There is a chasm between the values and needs of the people of Zimbabwe and those of the security sector. What is imperative is the alignment of the principles, values, needs and aspirations of the security sector to those of the nation and not of ZANU PF. It is essential for people to repose their trust in the security sector and this trust can be built and consolidated if the people and the security sector share common values, needs and aspirations. People tend to cooperate with a security sector which they trust and such cooperation is essential in the construction of a peaceful and prosperous society. ZANU PF has maintained the position that no security sector reforms will take place in the country.

IRRESOLUTE CITIZENS?

It is undeniable that the people of Zimbabwe have tried valiantly to combat dictatorship through the ballot, especially since the 2000 parliamentary elections. They have braved, through and through, widespread incidents of intimidation, harassment, arbitrary detention, abduction, torture, rape, massacres, confiscation and destruction of their livelihoods by ZANU PF supporters, including state security agents. The people should be credited for such spirited fight against tyranny. Always remember that resolute citizens always have the power and cast-iron determination to shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better but irresolute ones are always prisoners of defunct legitimacy. When leaders deny citizens their fundamental freedoms, particularly the freedom to elect a government which suits them better, it is the responsibility of the people to take shake off the existing government.

In The Wretched of the Earth, Franz Fanon maintained that each generation should unearth its mission and either fulfill or betray it. It appears that the present generation of the people of Zimbabwe has largely ‘betrayed’ its mission, something which it has to be answerable to succeeding generations. Since the emergence of the Zimbabwean crisis, the majority of Zimbabweans have demonstrated the determination and willpower to ‘vote with their itineraries’ and abandon the country and its diverse resources to ‘consuming locusts.’ Zimbabwe is today a “bifurcated state” which consists of a Zimbabwe of Zimbabweans who are in Zimbabwe and another Zimbabwe of Zimbabweans who are in the diaspora.

Some have ‘voted with their itineraries’ while others have ‘voted with their feet’ but Zimbabweans should always remember that going beyond borders does not solve the country’s problems. Those who did not vote with either their itineraries or their feet have tried to find resourceful ways of surviving in a derelict economic order. Most of these ‘resourceful ways’ have contributed significantly to the decline of the national economy. Either fleeing the country or concentrating on finding resourceful ways of surviving within the country is not good for the country. These ‘twin injustices’ which the people of Zimbabwe have committed have had a knockdown effect on the country’s development and democratization prospects. The problems of Zimbabwe can be resolved only when the people of Zimbabwe organize themselves with the unflinching determination to extricate their country from the clutches of flagrant dictatorship. This can be achieved when the people themselves, through distinguished leadership, demonstrate the iron-clad willpower to free their country from the ‘consuming locusts’ and introduce a new political dispensation. This is a shared responsibility, a responsibility which cannot afford to be betrayed any longer. This is not to suggest the people of Zimbabwe should take up arms against ZANU PF. They should organize themselves and depose ZANU PF from power through means which are short of a civil war but there are sacrifices to be made.

The other problem with Zimbabweans is that they repose an unnecessary amount of their hope in the international community. They expect too much from this community and in the process they tend to forget that they themselves should shoulder the primary responsibility to obliterate dictatorship root and branch, with or without the assistance of the international community. There are consequences which come from bearing this responsibility but the people should brace themselves and get prepared to suffer them with the knowledge that they suffer such consequences for a noble cause. The basic truth is that the international community’s responsibility in the resolution of Zimbabwe’s daunting problems is residual and not primary. This is not to say that the international community can and should not be expected to play a role, but always remember that what it can do is always limited. The efficacy of the influence of the international community largely depends on the degree of cooperation that ZANU PF exercises. ZANU PF is not prepared to cooperate fully with the international community because of the consequences of such degree of cooperation as far as its agenda to retain power is concerned.

The only likely decisive way through which the international community may disencumber Zimbabwe from ZANU PF is via the use of force under the rubric of saving strangers beyond boarders which is embodied in the principle and practice of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This option is very unlikely in the Zimbabwean context. This is because any talk of R2P in Zimbabwe has to satisfy two conditions. First, Zimbabwe has to go through a humanitarian catastrophe whose gravity and consequences should reach the minimum threshold of a “large scale loss of life”. Second, the international community should be able and willing to intervene, ideally following authorization by the United Nations Security Council via a unanimous resolution. It is difficult to see how these conditions can be met in the Zimbabwean situation.

Even if these conditions are met, the implementation of R2P in Zimbabwe is undesirable because it will mean that the country has to go through a physical state of war with potentially more disastrous consequences. It is therefore important for the people of Zimbabwe to have limited expectations of what the international community can do to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis. It is only when the people of Zimbabwe awake to this reality that they will begin to talk of the possible transformation of that country. It is essential for the people of Zimbabwe to outbrave the ZANU PF regime which has made the country an ‘out-Herod of tyranny.’ It is clear that ZANU PF will always use force against such determination. The use of violence by ZANU PF has largely enabled the party to maintain power. However, the continued use of this strategy will come to a point where it becomes is a bind alley and at worst, a form of precarious jaywalking. Like Muammar Mohammed Gaddafi of Libya, the use of violence will possibly make Mugabe a victim of changed history. When people decide to make history they can make it. When history has changed, it does not matter how long a certain regime has been in power and how authoritarian it is. The people of Zimbabwe need to join hands and build an all-inclusive, tolerant and democratic Zimbabwe which will stand as an ultimate rebuke of ZANU PF dictatorship.

Zimbabwe has to close the regrettable dark chapter in its post-independence history and turn over a new page. At this point, the road on which the country has traveled does not matter. What matters is that it is here and that it has to find its way towards a destination which is called by the name democracy via an unstoppable wind of change.

A large constituency of Zimbabweans is wishing Mugabe to die so that the country can transform to democratic politics. They question why a number of vice presidents have died with Mugabe remaining alive. This shows the degree to which many Zimbabweans have drifted to desperation. It shows that they are largely convinced that no elections or anything else can make Mugabe cede power except via fate. What these people need to understand is that Mugabe is not the sole problem of the country. His death does not therefore guarantee a transition to democratic politics. The institutions which Mugabe has put in place, and especially the political culture, will continue to betray the democratization agenda in the country, even in his absence.

A CULTURE OF INTOLERANCE FOR DIVERSITY

The heavy-handed repression of dissent during the gukurahundi massacres is probably the cradle of intolerance for diversity in Zimbabwe. The celerity, ferocity and catholicity of acts of indiscriminate killings, raping, harassment, maiming, torture and all other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment was fathomless. The fiendish brutality with which the gukurahundi massacres were executed was evocative of the brutality which the people of Zimbabwe suffered during the colonial era. Since this period, ZANU PF has continuously embarked on carefully orchestrated egregious violations of fundamental freedoms. The formation of ZUM by Edgar Tekere in the aftermath of the seemingly defunct Unity Accord was regarded by ZANU PF as a negation of national unity. From that period, national unity came to be regarded as synonymous with monopoly politikos. This culture will remain embedded in Zimbabwe’s political system as long as ZANU PF retains power. There is imperative need for the people of Zimbabwe to change their political behavior and value, respect, and promote the truth that diversity is the kernel of societal progress. Mugabe has learnt the art of ‘immunizing’ himself against criticism via the promulgation of draconian legislations and other forms of suppressing dissent. He uses state institutions to guard his political interests and to entrench himself in power. These institutions are used to victimize diversity. There is need to extirpate this savage culture from the country’s political order.

ENDNOTES:

Rodney, W. 1982. ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.’ Washinton DC: Howard University Press.
Matyszak, D. 2010. ‘Law, Politics and Zimbabwe’s “Unity” Government.’ Harare: The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Research and Advocacy Unit.
Tofa, M. ‘The Trajectory of Iniquitous Dictatorship in Zimbabwe: Implications for Democratization in Southern Africa and Beyond’ in ‘Regime Change and Succession Politics in Africa: Five Decades of Misrule’ edited by M. A. Amutabi, & S. W. Nasong’o. London: Routledge (Taylor and Francais Group).
Tofa, M. & Tofa, E. 2007-2008. ‘Zimbabwe and Mugabe’s Politicization of State and Civic Institutions’ in ‘Democracy in Practice: Elections, Campaigns and Voters.’ The Georgetown Public Policy Review Volume 13/1/ 2007: 36-46.
Ntalaja, N. 1997. ‘The State and Democracy in Africa’ in ‘The State and Democracy in Africa’, edited by N. Ntalaja, & M Lee. Eritrea: World Press Inc. 1-18.
‘The Responsibility to Protect.’ Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001.
CRS Report for Congress, 2008. ‘Zimbabwe: 2008 Elections and Implications for US Policy.’ Congressional Research Service.

*Moses Tofa is the author of ‘Humanitarian Intervention in Metaphorical Metamorphosis: Memories from the Experiences of Libya and Cote d’Ivoire.’ He is a political analyst and a Peace, Security and Development Scholar with the African Leadership Centre.

Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.