| |
Back to Index
Zimbabwe:
An extreme case of bad governance and lawlessness
Farai Maguwu, Civic Alliance for Democracy and Governance (CADEGO)
November 23, 2005
Recently the
terms "governance" and "good governance" have
become buzz words in development literature. Countries that meet
the minimum standards for good governance have been given a right
hand of fellowship among the family of nations. Their citizens are
treated with honor and dignity and benefit from the global flow
of people, goods and services. Governments reputed for good governance
can borrow from financial institutions without any difficulty whilst
donors and investors assist them with developmental projects and
investments. Consequently the industry will expand, rural communities
develop faster while the gross domestic product will take an upward
trend. Countries such as South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Malawi,
Kenya, to mention just but a few, are enjoying tremendous economic
growth as a result of their commitment to meet the minimum standards
for good governance.
Bad governance,
on the other hand, is antithetical to good governance. It contradicts
and violates most or all the norms and practices of democracy. As
good governance attracts rewards and friendship among nations, bad
governance, like an epidemic, is shunned by the international community
and resented by its own people who must turmoil under the sweltering
heat of oppression and tyranny. Bad governance is dealt with harshly
by the international community through non – cooperation with the
ostracized regime, targeted sanctions, withdrawal of aid, confiscation
of properties and funds belonging to prominent members of the regime,
closure of foreign owned companies and withdrawal of investment,
among others. In short, the above penalties are being meted out
on Zimbabwe currently due to the government’s commitment to destructive
policies and neglect of the rule of law. The country has been a
pariah ever since President Mugabe adopted the scorched – earth
policy that saw the government sponsoring vicious scoundrels that
went around the country committing heinous crimes in the name of
ZANU PF. Indeed grievous crimes were committed at the behest of
the government particularly between 2000 and 2003.
In its report
issued on 4 July 2000, the European Union Election Observer Mission
on the Parliamentary Elections blamed the ruling ZANU PF for using
state apparatus to terrorize the opposition members. Below are some
excerpts from the report:
The evidence
showed that between February and June, ZANU PF was engaged in a
systematic campaign of intimidation aimed at crushing support for
opposition parties. Key groups of the electorate, whom ZANU PF deemed
to be opposition supporters, were targeted by war veterans and other
party supporters operating from bases on the white owned farms they
had invaded, from militia camps in other rural areas, and from government
and party offices in rural towns…thousands of incidents of assault,
torture, abduction and rape were recorded. Several prominent MDC
organizers were murdered. More than 7,000 teachers fled their homes,
forcing 250 primary and secondary schools to close. In campaign
speeches, ZANU PF leaders seemed to sanction the use of violence
and intimidation against political opponents and contributed substantially
to the climate of fear that overshadowed the election campaign.
The police frequently witnessed violence and intimidation, but appeared
to be under instruction not to intervene.
One of the prominent
indicators of good governance is how a country handles the issue
of succession. President Mugabe has been in power since independence
from Britain in 1980. There are basically two explanations for his
continued stay in power. One explanation is given to ZANU PF supporters
whilst the other is reserved for his challengers outside his party.
The ZANU PF ideology for Mugabe’s overstay in power is that ZANU
PF is internally fractured and it is only president Mugabe who can
hold the party together. They argue that all the factions in ZANU
PF respect Mugabe and hence he can hold them together despite their
differences. They don’t comment much about the consequences of having
an octogenarian presiding over the affairs of a nation struggling
to pull itself out of a bottomless pit of political confusion and
economic recession.
However, their
argument is a clear testimony that President Mugabe has failed,
in 25 years, to groom a successor in his party. This brings us to
another level of analysis. Failure by President Mugabe to identify
a probable successor in his party means the party lacks credible
leaders who can maintain the ZANU PF hegemony in Zimbabwean politics
after the decease of Mugabe. It means the party will die and be
buried at the Heroes Acre in the grave of Mugabe. Secondly, it means
ZANU PF does not have conflict resolution mechanisms and hence is
a party of malcontents who are held together due to fear of Mugabe
rather than a principled commitment to the party.
The explanation
given to Mugabe’s challengers is that Mugabe is there to defend
the gains of the liberation war, as well as to bring the revolution
to its logical conclusion. They say Mugabe brought independence
and must do everything possible to prevent the country from falling
into the hands of the former colonial master, Britain. Eldred Masunungure
wrote that ‘All evidence suggest the ruling ZANU PF’s almost congenital
intolerance of opposition politics in general, and electoral competition
in particular. This was starkly and tragically revealed in the aftermath
to the 1985 general elections. Instead of celebrating its electoral
success, ZANU PF went on an orgy of violence, outraged that PF ZAPU
had challenged it in the elections.’1
Mugabe promises terror to any party that opposes him. When the MDC
was formed in September 1999 Mugabe put on his warrior attire, affirming,
‘Let the MDC side with Europeans and the British, but we will conquer
them together. I am firmly asserting to you that there will never
come a day when the MDC will rule this country. Never, ever.’
Good governance
has much to do with tolerance, competition and diversity in political
opinion. The concept of democracy is inextricably interwoven with
good governance. A bad government is intolerant of opposition, undemocratic
and fixed in opinion. In Zimbabwe it is tantamount to treason to
oppose Mugabe and ZANU PF. To oppose Mugabe and ZANU PF is seen
as being ungrateful and disrespectful. Between 2000 and 2003 Education
Sport and Culture Minister Aenias Chigwedere told civil servants,
particularly teachers, that they are free to join politics but they
‘must be prepared to be bruised in the process’. His statement came
in the wake of inroads made by the MDC among the discontented civil
servants. Many teachers lost their lives, property and jobs after
being labeled MDC supporters. Other areas, particularly Mashonaland
East, Central and West, were declared ‘no go’ areas for the opposition
supporters. ‘The terror campaign was also directed against teachers
and nurses in the rural areas as these people were perceived as
possible supporters of the MDC and were likely to have political
influence over others.’2 Mugabe’s fear
of losing power is at the heart of Zimbabwe’s plunge. It is a one
man socio-economic earthquake.
The way Mugabe
handled the 2000 general election left his image tattered as a respected
statesman. It clearly showed that participation in Zimbabwean politics
is only tolerated if done within ZANU PF and with the blessing of
Mugabe. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001
was the United States’ reaction to the government’s onslaught on
democracy. Under this act the U.S government stops giving direct
aid to the government of Zimbabwe until the government is committed
to the rule of law, free and fair elections, control of the police
and military by civilian authorities and an equitable, legal, and
transparent land reform program. On the 2nd of November
2005 the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, reiterated
that his country takes great exception to the government’s Machiavellian
style of leadership: ‘Sanctions on specific high level individuals
and their families, are the vehicle that the United States and like-minded
countries use to signal international disapproval of the way that
Zimbabwe’s ruling elite has trampled on democratic freedoms.’3
Good governance
has 8 major characteristics. These are participation, rule of law,
transparency, responsiveness, consensus oriented, equity and inclusiveness,
effectiveness and efficiency, and accountability. This articles
looks at the level of participation Zimbabweans enjoy in politics
and decision making.
Participation
Every
citizen has the right to participate in decision making directly
or through representatives. However, where critical issues are decided
the citizens must be given the chance to express their opinions
through consultations or referendums. In Zimbabwe this was done
only once, that was in February 2000 when the government was roundly
defeated in a constitutional referendum. To date the government
has amended the constitution a record seventeen times without consulting
its citizens. The contentious re-establishment of the Senate was
never put to the public for approval, let alone public debate. Majority
of the citizens feel the senate is excess garbage for a government
that always pleads poverty when challenged to address the biting
economic hardships that has reduced its people to ‘stone age scavengers.’
If people had
been given a chance to air their views they would have rejected
Senate since it does not answer their socio-economic problems. The
people of Zimbabwe would dismiss the argument that says Senate would
introduce mature debates on national issues due to the age limit
placed on senators. Zimbabweans would argue that if age makes one
a good leader how come we have arguably the oldest president in
the world who has nothing to show for his ‘mature’ age. Instead
he is ranked by many schools of thought as being one of the worst
leaders this century has had, terrorizing more than 6million of
his people into exile whilst close to 13 million continue sitting
in the valley of the shadow of death – No food, drugs, fuel, employment
etc. If the people are consulted, their ideas taken into consideration,
Zimbabwe could be in a respectable state today. But alas, we have
a government of the government, by the government and for the government.
The government
is guilty of trying to silence civil society. As the 1990s decade
came to a close, there was growing concern with the ever worsening
living standards in Zimbabwe. The MDC was formed in the context
of the burgeoning of space for civil society that was rising to
fill the gap left void by the absence of credible opposition. Civil
society was agitating for freedom of expression, association, movement
and freedom from torture. Demand for these freedoms intensified
as we approached year 2000. "But, starting in the year 2000,
particularly after the defeat of the government sponsored constitutional
referendum in February (2000), the ZANU PF regime went on a concerted
effort to close the space for freedom of expression, association,
movement, and from torture."4
The government
shut its ears to criticism from both within and outside. It went
to an extend of attempting to close down all NGOs suspected of being
sympathetic to the MDC. The much condemned NGO bill acrimoniously
passed through the ZANU PF dominated legislature and could have
become law had Mugabe not bowed to pressure. Nevertheless, the government
has unleashed a reign of terror on dissenting civic society organizations.
Its intolerance to civil society was epitomized by the passage of
two draconian laws, the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and
the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
Some clauses of POSA outlaw meetings of more than two people without
being authorized by the police four days in advance. Other clauses
make it a criminal act to criticize President Mugabe, his wife,
the government, police and the army. "Indeed POSA amounted
to a state of emergency without one being declared.’5
Many have been prosecuted for criticizing Mugabe.
Under POSA it
is an offense to demonstrate without police clearance. This clearance
is hard, if not impossible, to come by if the demonstration is not
in favor of the ruling party, government or Mugabe. Many civic leaders
such as ZCTU leaders Wellington Chibhebhe, Lovemore Matombo, Lucia
Matibenga, NCA chairperson Lovemore Madhuku and his colleagues,
MDC leaders and their supporters, Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA),
and several others, have been arrested and detained for several
days and released without being charged under POSA. Zimbabwean laws
are being twisted by the ZANU PF regime to stifle democracy. Recently
the ZANU PF dominated parliament passed the seventeenth amendment
bill to the constitution of Zimbabwe. The bill makes it unlawful
for anyone to sue the government for land expropriated by the state
under the chaotic land reform exercise. Once more, the government
shut its ears to the voice of reason from civil society.
More than hundred
members of the legal profession petitioned the parliament of Zimbabwe
to stop passing this bill. Among other vices within the bill, they
observed that ‘the
amendment effectively usurps the authority of the courts of Zimbabwe
by denying the people of Zimbabwe recourse to the law in challenging
State action which violates fundamental human rights. This puts
paid to the principle of separation of powers, by allowing the executive
to initiate, implement and adjudicate upon its own actions ensuring
that the State will not be scrutinized nor its actions reviewed
by an independent and impartial tribunal.’6
Despite the
wise petition from members of the legal profession, the government
of Zimbabwe went ahead to sign the 17th amendment bill
into law. The government seems not prepared to listen to any who
do not fall within its ranks. Church advices have been falling on
deaf ears, with Mugabe telling church leaders to leave politics
to the politicians. Thus participating in decision-making in Zimbabwe
is a preserve of the few who claim to know what the people want.
The situation is distressing. The government is divorced from the
people it rules, always making laws and policies that hurt its population,
and leading to further deterioration of living conditions. As all
this is happening, Mugabe continues to tell the world that Zimbabweans
are a ‘happy lot’.
How can Zimbabweans
be a ‘happy lot’ when the future under Mugabe is gloomy and dreary?
How can young people be happy when the future promises them unemployment,
further isolation from the international community, homelessness,
severe police and military brutality, repression and a collapsed
health delivery system. How can they be happy in a country where
education mean little to a government that pays degreed teachers
an equivalent of US $35 per month!
If government
performance is going to improve there is an urgent need to give
civil society space in decision – making. The primitive notion of
understanding democracy as a mandate to make laws and decisions
for the people, without consulting them, must pave way for the modern
concept of participatory democracy where civil society continues
to participate in decision making despite the existence of an elected
government. The United Nations Under-Secretary General and Special
Adviser on Africa, Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari, pointed out that
civil society is the pulse of democracy:
When public
trust is abused and national resources are wasted through corruption
and maladministration, members of civil societies, and in particular,
the poor and unemployed suffer the consequences. Consequently, it
is in the interests of civil society to ensure that public officials
manage these resources in an efficient, transparent and accountable
fashion. Furthermore, civil society plays a critical role in strengthening
democracy in that, it has capacity to bring about the movement from
a bureaucratic to a more representative administration by providing
a credible bridge between the rulers and the citizens. Civil societies
help to build social capital by enhancing security, building trust
and creating organizational capacity.7
Electoral
Participation
Under
the Zimbabwean constitution anyone above the age of 18 has the right
to vote. Although voting is by secret ballot many in rural communities
do not believe that their vote is a secret due to heavy electoral
misinformation peddled by ZANU PF activists in rural areas. Rural
voters are told by ZANU PF activists that there are hidden cameras
in every polling booth that record which party a person voted for.
Illiteracy, intimidation and post-election violence is exploited
to the full by ZANU PF activists in rural communities. In Mutasa
District, Manicaland, ZANU PF activists went around villages demanding
ZANU PF T shirts from supposed MDC supporters after the March 31
poll accusing them of voting for the MDC. Asked how they knew where
these people had casts their vote, they claimed that hidden cameras
had revealed this to them. These activities took place in Kudumba,
Rashama, Kadzere, Duri and Mudzindiko villages. The effect of this
misinformation and intimidation is in two ways. Either people refrain
from voting or they vote for ZANU PF under duress.
The General
Laws Amendment Act of 2002 saw the government reversing one the
significant gains of independence: universal suffrage. The act excludes
from voting Zimbabweans holding two passports and outlaws postal
voting. This means more than 5 million Zimbabweans living in the
Diaspora can not exercise their right to vote. The Act was nullified
by a High Court ruling only to be effected through a statutory instrument.
Furthermore the Act restricts people to vote in constituencies where
they are registered, meaning tens of thousands of students are disenfranchised
if the ballot is held when they are at college.
Added to restrictive
legislation is the ruling party’s proneness to violence during elections.
On political violence Masipula Sithole made the following observation:
Often the
so-called war veterans and ZANU PF youth militias have disrupted
lawful meetings of opposition parties; interfered with the movement
of citizens by placing road blocks, demanding ZANU PF party cards
and confiscating their identity cards. But worst of all, incidents
of physical torture and rape have risen to alarming proportions
in recent months. The Zimbabwe Human Rights Trust registered in
2001 41 politically motivated killings, 307 abductions with a political
background, 2100 cases of torture and 1000 cases of illegal custody.8
Political violence
is against gender balance in politics as it effectively shuts women
out of politics, both as voters and candidates. If women are gang
raped by state sponsored thugs for supporting an opposition political
party they will develop an indifferent attitude to politics. For
this reason women in Zimbabwe feel insecure to discuss politics
in public. Government must protect the right of women to participate
in politics by doing everything possible to stop political violence.
Conclusion
This
article discussed one aspect of democratic governance: participation.
Zimbabwe, celebrating twenty five years of independence and democracy,
ironically falls short of this golden standard of a true democracy.
The Zimbabwe government continues to rule with an iron fist, closing
any space available for civil society participation through enactment
of primitive and archaic laws such as POSA and AIPPA. The political
playing field is still gender biased with little room for women
participation. At present, Zimbabwe seems to be the only African
country drifting eastwards where democracy is anathema whilst the
rest of the continent seems to be heeding the call to democratize.
However hope is not lost on Zimbabwe as civil society, despite the
many political challenges it faces under Mugabe’s repressive regime,
continues to be the voice crying in the wilderness: But let justice
roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!
*Farai Maguwu
is National Coordinator for Civic Alliance for Democracy and Governance
(CADEGO)
1. Masunungure
E, 2003, The travails of opposition politics in Zimbabwe since independence,
in ZIMBABWE: The Past is the Future, Weaver Press, Harare.
2. Feltoe, G, 2000, The onslaught against democracy and the rule
of law in Zimbabwe. http://www.Irf.co.zw
3. A paper presented at Africa University entitled: Plain Talk About
the Zimbabwean Economy, 2 November 2005. A few days later Mugabe
promised the ambassador that 'he will see hell in one of these days'.
4. Sithole, M and Mair, S., 2002, Blocked Democracies In Africa:
Case of Zimbabwe, Konrad Adenauer, Stiftung, Harare.
5. Masunungure, E, 2003, op cit ft 183.
6. Zimbabwe Independent, August 12, 2005.
7. Gambari, I., 2004, Tackling marginalization of Africa in the
age of Globalisation: The role of NEPAD/ African Union. A paper
presented at the graduation ceremony of Africa University, Mutare,
Zimbabwe.
Visit the Civic Alliance for Democracy and Governance (CADEGO) fact
sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
