Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Of civil society, change and sovereignty; reflections on the presidential runoff elections
National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO)
July 03, 2008

The distinctive institutional hallmark of African regimes [are] relationships of loyalty and dependence [that] pervade a formal political and administrative system and [in which] leaders occupy bureaucratic offices less to perform public service than to acquire personal wealth and status. The distinction between private and public interests is blurred. The essence of neo-patrimonialism is the award by public officials of personal favors, both within the state (notably public sector jobs) and in society (for instance, licenses, contracts and projects). In return for material rewards, clients mobilize political support and refer all decisions upward as a mark of deference to patrons. (Democratic Experiments in Africa, Bratton and van de Walle, 1997)

The structure of most authoritarian political systems is buttressed by power being centralized around the executive president (patron) and his/her coterie of ruling party supporters (clients). All forms of associational life are controlled from the top. To oppose the state, even in a constructive democratic manner is regarded as a threat to 'national security-. Civil society groups that opt for autonomy from state cooptation are labelled 'enemies of the state-. The state determines and bases the supply and access of national resources on political grounds. State resources are then used to regulate actions of party cadres and citizens for purposes of defending regime security at the expense of human security, fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Zimbabwe-s long history of patronage and clientele politics has entrenched authoritarianism. Consequently this authoritarianism has bred a culture of intolerance and disempowerment which exists as of a dark cloud over the 2008 Harmonized Elections thus emaciating the elections- capacity to facilitate a genuine opportunity for people to freely express their will.

The Presidential Runoff contest brings to the fore the fractious relationship between the dominant discourses of democracy and sovereignty, espoused by the self-acclaimed democrats (i.e. opposition political parties and some sections of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)) and the so-called nationalists (ZANU-PF and war veterans). It is about the "moreness of Morgan" and Mugabe-s "fist of fury" and little about the people-s conceptions of the Zimbabwe they want. As such there seems little or no room for the agendas of the disabled, unemployed, those living with HIV/AIDS, cross border traders and other groups whose lives will no doubt be impacted by the outcomes of these elections.

We see in the Runoff elections; on the one hand, ZANU Pf espousing the 'siege rhetoric- posturing as the sole and legitimate guardian of Zimbabwe-s sovereignty and making intimidating references to detractors, puppets, enemies of the state, revolutionary gains etc. Then on the other hand we have the 'democracy proponents- attempting to counter the siege discourse with the broadly ambiguous change agenda, characteristically scant on detail and leveraging on the very real reality of the existence of a suffering electorate, desperate for some sort of improvement to their deteriorating standards of living. The parochial interests espoused by patronage politics and these restrictive political discourses relegate the electorate to the realms of at best beneficiaries of a process which in real terms belongs to the big shot politicians and their vested interests.

In 1997, the late Professor Masipula Sithole remarked in high optimism that 'authoritarianism in Zimbabwe is eroding-. However, the new political order that Sithole envisaged and celebrated, perhaps prematurely, simply failed to materialise. Conversely; there has been a systematic militarization and patronization of all major and strategic state institutions for purposes of defending the ZANU-PF regime. In turn, this has grossly compromised the jurisdictional provisions of a rational-legal bureaucracy that guarantee efficiency and accountability of the government and is currently the greatest threat to democratic transition in Zimbabwe, before and after the 2008 Harmonized Elections.

The 2008 elections, coming as they did, at the backdrop of 11 years (from 1997) or 8 years (from 2000) of political and socio-economic crisis, were supposed to herald a new political dispensation, vis-à-vis, restoration and respect for human life and dignity, political and civic rights and associated freedoms and economic recovery. However, the aftermath of the polling process has been marked by electoral, political and humanitarian crises following the unprecedented delays in announcing the results; the politically motivated violence in urban and rural areas pitting political party supporters and the clampdown on Civil Society.

On the 25th of April 2008, police officers from the Law and Order unit raided offices of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), and seized election documents that they claimed were subversive and meant to overthrow the ZANU-PF government. The raid on ZESN offices came a few days before the announcement of the presidential results and perhaps aimed at harassing, intimidating and therefore preventing ZESN from announcing election results that would contradict ZEC-s official results. These and other subsequent raids on civil society are paralleled by arrests of MDC supporters who are alleged to be perpetrating the same violence on ZANU-PF supporters.

According to the UN Country Team Statement of 13 May 2008, the violence in rural areas disrupted many food aid distribution operations by UN agencies and other humanitarian NGOs. A joint report from the Ecumenical Zimbabwe Network and the Cooperation for International Development Solidarity, also contended that 'the intimidating presence of security personnel and the physical violence taking place across the country is severely limiting Humanitarian Organisations- ability to fulfil their humanitarian objectives. This security situation severely limits access to certain areas of the country-.

Civil Society field operations involving humanitarian activities and the mobilisation or organisation of large numbers of people are currently under indefinite suspension by the government pending the finalisation of investigations into allegations of the politicisation of food aid by humanitarian agencies. As Zimbabweans ready themselves for the Presidential runoff elections on the 27th of June, it is the position of Zimbabwean Civil Society that the two contesting political parties (and their coterie of real and imagined supporters) should tone down the discourse extremist positions and to peaceably give the people of Zimbabwe a fair opportunity to take centre stage in the finalisation of the Harmonised Elections process. NANGO as a non-party political, non-profiting making and non-denominational co-ordinating body of NGOs in Zimbabwe believes that this is the best way forward to guarantee that both a meaningful change and a consequential sovereignty are achieved, not for the parochial interests of ZANU-PF ruling elites and MDC privileged politicians, but for ordinary citizens of this once a prosperous and proud nation.

Contact the NANGO Advocacy and Public Policy Unit by emailing info@nango.org.zw or visit www.nango.org.zw

Visit the NANGO 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