Lost Chance at Democracy

Z

Coup not a coup

November 2017 marked the beginning of what many thought would be the long-awaited road to democracy after the military assisted removal of Robert Mugabe who had brought the country to its knees through a repressive dictatorship. Prior to this, Zimbabwe had maintained an outward appearance of a multi-party democracy since it gained independence from the minority rule in 1980 yet, in reality, it was a one-party dictatorship. The world over, Zimbabweans included, hoped that finally, Zimbabwe had begun its journey towards democracy. For the first time in four decades, civilians and the armed forces were on the same side. People viewed the army generals and the soldiers as their saviors, social media was buzzing with people excited that Mugabe had been ousted, people were posting selfies with the soldiers and some even having the audacity of climbing on top of the army tankers and posing for a photograph. The euphoria was amazing, hope was restored the long walk to freedom had come to an end and it was the beginning of a new era, a new Zimbabwe, a new dispensation. Emmerson Mnangagwa, who had been up to this point Mugabe’s right-hand man nicknamed “the crocodile” due to his ruthless nature was the man behind the Military takeover, assisted by the Generals, they managed to orchestrate a “coup that is not a coup”. Coups are considered illegitimate and a violation of international norms.  They managed this intervention with the people on their side and no violent takeover.

The Election

To legitimize the change of government elections were scheduled. Elections are an instrument of democratic and peaceful transfer of power thus the transitional government quickly declared that election would be held in a few months after the military intervention. The euphoria was still present and the election campaigning period was filled with messages of hope were both Emmerson Mnangagwa and the main opposition Candidate Nelson Chamisa promised democracy, development and the end of Mugabeism. Emmerson Mnangagwa needed the election to go well in order to gain international credibility. He did this by allowing international electoral observers, allowing the opposition free access to media and not having a violent campaign period, unlike his predecessor. Election turnout was high, with over 70 percent of the eligible voters participating. Emmerson Mnangagwa won with a disputed 50.8 percent which was enough to avoid a run-off.  The opposition disputed the election and protested, there was a crackdown from the armed forces resulting in the death of at least 6 unarmed citizens. The country had managed to run a peaceful election but only a day after the traits of an Authoritarian military government were fully displayed.

Authoritarian rule

According to Svolik 2012, “all authoritarian regimes must resolve two fundamental conflicts. First, dictators face threats from the masses over which they rule, second a separate challenge arises from the elites with whom dictators rule”. In the case of Zimbabwe, the second challenge is what Robert Mugabe succumbed too. Emerson Mnangagwa just a day after the elections succumbed to the first challenge, he faced threats from the opposition and in true dictator and authoritarian style he unleashed the army to the civilians.

Where the electoral system lacks integrity the public loses interest in the election and faith in its outcome and the government formed remains weak and has no support from the public. After the elections, the spirit of democracy was dampened and government formed was authoritarian as the one of its predecessor under Robert Mugabe. Authoritarianism in Zimbabwe survives because a coalition of political and military elites stands ready and willing to employ violence when opposed by civilians.

The authoritarian government has recently shown its true face again after another crackdown on the civilians when they were protesting a threefold fuel price increase. On top of the crackdown, the government shut down the internet and social media as a way of controlling the situation which is also a trait of an authoritarian government. This has wiped out any hope that this is a new dispensation and any hope for democracy. Potential international investors are shying away and development

All things being equal democracy is preferred to authoritarian rule, the jury is still out on which one is better for development. Studies by Kelsall, 2014 have shown that in fragile states authoritarian rule is better for development and democracy might make things worse. However, even though some occasional authoritarian growth miracles such as Korea, Rwanda, and Ethiopia do emerge, the risks are all too high. If Zimbabwe is to recover and sustainably grow as an economy and develop, there is a need to address the bad history of human rights abuses and to transform the leadership have progressive policies and improve governance.