Back to Index

Human rights developments in Zimbabwe 2000-2004
Zimbabwe Solidarity
Extracted from the Zimbabwe Solidarity Newsletter Issue 01
February 18, 2005

The popular rejection of the government-inspired constitutional proposal in February 2000- the first electoral defeat suffered by the ruling party ZANU(PF) since taking power in 1980- indicated eroding support for the ruling party among the electorate. The political opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and civil society, both who had campaigned against the government’s draft constitution now presented a credible and present threat to ZANU(PF)’s monopoly on political power. Historically averse to political opposition, and fearing the imminent loss of legislative power in the then upcoming parliamentary election, the ruling party sought to reconsolidate and ensure its political primacy through a systematic campaign of repression, violence and intimidation aimed at stamping out dissent of any kind. It is this response that has consequently spawned the human rights crisis that has been developing unabated in Zimbabwe over the past few years.

The government’s campaign to stamp out political dissent was framed as a re-launch of the liberation war. The political opposition was now cast as nefarious agents of colonialism. State sponsored violence began under the guise of a land redistribution exercise, ostensibly aimed at redressing outstanding historical imbalances in land ownership between whites and blacks. The reality however, was that this exercise was used to obscure and legitimate the perpetration of gross human rights abuses by portraying these abuses as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of much needed and morally justified social justice reforms.

Despite this characterization, documented evidence has indicated that peaks in violence were neither confined to commercial farmland, nor necessarily a result of land invasions. Rather, violence intensified during periods of elections and those targeted were perceived as or actual members of the opposition in every community, both rural and urban. The government’s use of violence was not only meant to punish the opposition but also to inflict psychological harm on those victims’ families and communities who bore witness. It is evident that the much broader aim was to relay a message to the electorate at large: support and vote for the ruling party or face retribution.

The partisan nature of violence and human rights violations in this period has been well documented. Violence has been largely attributed to ruling party supporters and functionaries, and includes summary executions, torture, extra-judicial killings, kidnapping, rape, disappearances, unlawful detention, illegal arrest, arson and beatings. The perpetration of these abuses has been significantly aided both by the introduction of restrictive laws designed to erode basic constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and by the state’s aggressive drive to re-structure the state apparatus aimed at ensuring the subservience of the police, judiciary, army, and civil service to party dictate. Through the politicization of law enforcement agencies- often themselves perpetrators of violence- not only were victims effectively unable to access legal relief or remedy, but more importantly, the perpetration of violations could occur with almost absolute impunity creating the impression that the ruling party was not only the law, but they were above the law.

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