Back to Index , Back to article index

Another One Party State Effort: Zimbabwe’s Anticipated NGO legislation
Brian Kagoro, Chairperson, Crisis in Zimbabwe
July 28, 2004

State-Civil Society Relations: A Historical Perspective
State-civil society relations in Zimbabwe have always been contentious. Examples abound of serious curtailment of civic formations during the Rhodesian era. This was often done under the guise of defending national sovereignty or fighting the so-called 'terrorists' (in reality 'black freedom fighters'). Advocating for democratic governance was seen as terrorism by the minority racist regime of Ian Douglas Smith. Thus the contours of an authoritarian state were fashioned under the seemingly benign guise of defending state security and national sovereignty. Rhodesian authoritarianism was rooted not only in racism but also in its denial of equal citizenship and rights to those citizens who dared question the government of the day. It made human rights an entitlement dispensed at the discretion of state elites. Violence and political xenophobia were justified as patriotism. Supervision and surveillance were entrenched as a culture of containing discontent. Laws were enacted not to serve the interests of the citizenry, but rather to limit their rights to question repressive state practices. The Rhodesian state sought to avert the questioning of its legitimacy by criminalizing dissent.

In this regard the Smith regime enacted many repressive laws such as the Law and Order Maintenance Act (LOMA), which empowered the police to detain and restrict citizens without trial. These laws were aimed at stemming the growing tide of urban-organised African nationalism. They sought to root out and forestall the growth of a social movement opposed to colonial rule. Zimbabwe's pre-independence history demonstrates a trend whereby civic formations transformed themselves into political entities that later waged war against colonial rule and also contested for state power. There is also a trend where the state's predictable response has been either banning or introducing stringent licensing requirements against civic formations.
The Rhodesian regime's response to African calls for democratisation can be framed into three broad approaches, namely:

1. Criminalisation:
This had dual application in that the state criminalized all forms of democratic protest and discourse and the citizenry saw the state and its agencies as criminal elements viz the exercise of their rights. This severe limitation of democratic space and voice led to the armed struggle. Deviance or extra-legal activity became part of the inevitable strategy of self-liberation from colonial rule. Arguably criminal laws passed by a criminal settler regime could only be responded to through acts of defiance. The settler's notions of criminality thus became the black majority's notions of justice and redemption. Mr Mugabe eloquently argued that:

"Only a government that subjects itself to the rule of law has any moral right to demand of its citizens obedience to the rule of law . . . "

2. Coercion (Force):
Coercion naturally followed from criminalisation. It gave the arms of state such as the intelligence unit, army and police force the power to maim and kill on the most nebulous suspicion of commission of a prohibited political act. This power became a hanging sword over the heads of those citizens who dared to defy the colonial state and its multi-layers of illegitimacy. Notably, repressive laws gave rise and justification for the pervasive problem of police brutality. Brutal treatment of the state's perceived political opponents became an acceptable institutional practice amongst the disciplined forces (army; police and intelligence services). It is arguable that the administrative arms of government had equal disdain for oppositional voices under colonial rule.

3. Co-optation/Fraud:
Media, state security and public order laws contained various inducements that sought to entice citizens to spy on each other. Consequently, several citizens became willing spies for the colonial state. These laws also attempted to create false distinctions of so-called "good" and "bad" citizens. Perhaps one can call this a state determined civic morality. There were consequences (good and bad) for associating with either group of citizens.
Given this reality the success of colonial civil society and related social justice movements was in their capacity and willingness to creatively defy unjust laws. The growth of authoritarian state politics expressed through crude force and fraud, supervision and surveillance is directly related to the growth of civil society formations advocating for the democratization of social power.

Zimbabwe's colonial rule teaches us that authoritarian state politics require certain pre-conditions for its survival, namely:

• Efficient, loyal and ruthless coercive arms of state;
• Complicit civic authorities and institutions such as courts and the civil service;
• Weakened civic, economic and political spaces. This enables patronage and repression due to the fact that outside of the state there exists no other organized conduit of expression or action;
• Organized (mis) information through tightly controlled public media that serves as a mouthpiece for political elites. Through its monopoly over the public (print and electronic) media the political elites define for the country what is to be 'true', what has to be true, those entitled to know such truth and the form in which such 'truth' should be told . The net result is that the ruling elite assumes a monopoly over all legitimate conduits of expression and information. The ultimate hope is that they become the only source of knowledge within a given society.
• Tight controls over the operation of all social movements, NGOs and civil society. This is often achieved through a complex system of licensing, supervision and surveillance. The state seeks to control the funding and leadership of these groups through a bogus system of supervision.

The rationale for repressive legislation in Rhodesia went beyond the limited intention to silence dissent and criticism .The real objective was to create a compliant citizenry . The futuristic critique of proposed NGO legislation below seeks to demonstrate how political and legal systems generally have the capacity -if not resisted - to drastically impinge upon our 'citizenship'. It is hoped that the reader will be able to - using the above framework - draw parallels between Rhodesia and independent Zimbabwe where these are applicable.
It is also hoped that this historical context will assist those that are interested in engaging the state and/or resisting the erosion of democratic space.

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