By Jonathan Chando-
Lawyer, Political Analyst and Commentator on International Law and Politics.
Democracy defined
Democracy is a system of governance in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. It is sometimes referred to as “rule of the majority”. Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. Democracy must have three pillars of governance, Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary, which all must be separate and independent of each other, exercising impartiality when dealing with each other.
It may also be described as a form of governance in which the general public , not just the political personalities, deeply get engaged in the process of public decision making, through representatives in Parliament.
The word democracy is often used in place of freedom, but these two words are not synonyms. Although democracy consists of ideas and theories regarding freedom, it also consists of rules , procedures and policies that have been carved through history.
Chincotta defines democracy as an institutionalised form of freedom, ( Cincotta, 2006).
There are five major types of democracy:
1. Representative Democracy
2. Liberal Democracy
3. Direct Democracy
4. Illiberal Democracy
5. Deliberative Democracy
For the purpose of this article I will give the definitions of only two of these types of democracy which represent what Zimbabwe’s democracy (i) *should be* and what it (ii) *has been*, since independence. These are (i) *Representative Democracy* and (i) Illeberal Democracy.
Representative democracy
This is the form of democracy in which people elect representatives who rule them. Many of the nations in today’s developed world are representative democracies, albeit with limited adherence to its norms and values. In such nations, a flag represents a nation, a lawyer represents a client and elected politicians represent the nation on international and national levels. The rulers or the representatives allow the general public to have considerable influence or control over them. According to Joseph Schumpeter, representative democracy gives the general public the right to accept or refuse the person who would rule them.
This in essence is the type of democracy the people of Zimbabwe have always believed they had since 1980. Sadly it is far from that, as this article will explain.
Illiberal democracy
This is the type of democracy where the leaders or rulers pay no, or very little attention to the rights of the individual citizens. The process of democracy is limited to the elections. And in some cases the elections are heavily disrupted by the influence of the rulers and they may turn the election process in favor of their party. Within the party itself, members are not given free will to nominate or elect the candidate of their choice.
The individual who wields power at the moment imposes undue influence to whip members into conforming to the choice of candidates desired by him or her. Members rally in timid support of the candidates desired by those in power. Bootlicking and hero worshipping is rampant in such a setup, and the will of ordinary stakeholders is stifled and crushed. This is reminiscent of the events that have been more visible within ZANU PF in the past decade plus. Although on paper it is portrayed as democratic, people have had no influence in the choices of their representatives. The creation of one centre of power worsened, the already flawed process of democratic realisation.
Illeberal democracy is the actual type of democracy the people of Zimbabwe have experienced since attaining what they called independence in 1980., and it goes further within ZANU PF to the time of the liberation struggle.
How the military has always been the power behind
The starting point will be stating that ZANU PF has never experienced a smooth leadership change in its entire history. The only elected leader of ZANU PF (then ZANU) was Ndabaningi Sithole at its Congress in Gwelo in 1964, having been formed after a split from ZAPU, on 8 August 1963. Robert Mugabe became its Secretary General.
The party was subsequently banned by Ian Smith’s government and Sithole alongside Mugabe, Tekere, Nyagumbo and Takawira, and others were incarcerated.
ZANU had formed a military wing (ZANU being the political wing), called the Zimbabwe African Liberation Army (ZANLA). While in prison, the leaders authorised Hebert Chitepo to continue as leader of the struggle from Zambia, representing Sithole.
A rebellion occurred while Chitepo was in charge in Zambia when a group of commanders, led by Nhari and Badza revolted against the High Command which included Josiah Tongogara. The group’s reasons included the lavish living styles of the senior leaders (members of the High Command), while middle and junior commanders, together with cadres, suffered in camps and at the front. There was also a complaint about Tongogara having taken Nhari’s wife and sending him(Nhari) on a risky mission in the battle front. Abuse of female combatants was also part of the grievances on the list. The rebellion was subsequently crushed, with the rebels being brought before a disciplinary hearing, and some of them being demoted.
Tongogara was not happy that Chitepo had decided to punish them by demoting them instead of killing them. Information available says Tongogara then secretly went to Chifombo camp, where the rebels had been, and organised their execution without Chitepo’s knowledge and approval. Animosity is said to have grown between Tongogara and Chitepo following this rebellion, and Chitepo was subsequently car bombed soon after at his home in Lusaka.
Sithole had been released from prison in 1974. He attempted to assume the leadership, but there was a revolt by ZANLA combatants, against him at Mgagao camp in Tanzania in 1975, because he had been a proponent of detente, which meant to stop the war. The combatants made a declaration deposing their party leader, Sithole, and preferred the leadership of the party to Mugabe. This was in essence the first coup by the military in ZANU , which literally imposed Mugabe as leader.
Mugabe, after being released from prison in November 1974, crossed the border with Edgar Tekere in March 1975, into Mozambique, to take up leadership of the party. Samora Machel was sceptical of him and held him at a house in Quelimane with travel restrictions. Machel was unsure whether to recognise him as ZANU’s legitimate leader.
A year later, Machel would, after a lot of persuasion from ZANLA commanders, including Josiah Tongogara and Rex Nhongo, accept Mugabe as leader of ZANU. In August 1977, Mugabe was officially declared ZANU President at a meeting of the party’s central committee at Chimoio. This meeting was largely influenced by the military as it was held in a military environment, with a few civilian leaders, as some members of the then DARE were not present.
After taking the leadership, Mugabe began to consolidate his grip on power, as he was suspicious of many of the military commanders. Mugabe was to merge the posts of President with that of Secretary General, a post which had been held by Edgar Tekere. Having been instrumental in deposing Sithole while in jail, Mugabe knew that the post of Secretary General, which he had previously held, wielded enough power to depose a president, hence his abolishing it.
Some commanders who led ZIPA, the Zimbabwe People’s Army, which incorporated ZANLA and ZIPRA, realised Mugabe’s insatiable power hunger and his resistance to the military alliance. They revolted against the leadership of Mugabe in 1977. This group consisted of the senior and middle level commanders, mainly the intellectual group, which called itself Vashandi led by the likes of Dzinashe Machingura (Wifred Mhanda) who was second in command of the military, and Parker Chipoera. The revolt was crushed and the commanders were incarcerated with the help of Frelimo. The remaining members of ZIPA, who included, Rex Nhongo, Tonderai Nyika(Paradzai Zimondi), Muparuri and Webster Gwauya were on Mugabe’s side.
This was followed a year later by the Gumbo/Hamadziripi rebellion, where Muparuri and Gwauya were also purged, by Mugabe and some commanders who had taken sides with Mugabe. What many may not have realised is that the crushing of revolts or purging of these leaders and commanders was, in essence, the crushing of divergent opinion within party and military. Every cadre who offered a different way of thinking became an enemy or a reactionary, which was essentially not wholly true. This marked the undemocratic nature of ZANU PF, where only a few with influence called the shots.
This purging marked the grip on power by Mugabe, with the backing of military commanders. All decisions of the party became Mugabe’s sole responsibility and the commanders were the guarantors of the power regime. While the people were mobilised for the revolutionary cause in the war front, they did not have any contribution in the direction and decision making in the party and in the war.
Backed by ZANLA , ZANU, now called ZANU Patriotic Front (ZANU PF ), won the elections resoundingly in 1980, on the background of its influence in the country, both through voluntary persuasion and coercion . The people of Zimbabwe believed at this point that they had entered a democratic dispensation. It appeared so on paper, and it seemed to be the same in practice. But did the people really have a say in how the country was to be governed?.
The answer is negative.
People were tired of the war, and voting against ZANU PF would mean the return to war, according to ZANLA. So most voted ZANU PF out of their will, but some voted simply to avoid the experience of war again.
After independence , decisions were made by the leadership with little consultation of the voting members. All they were given was the revolutionary rhetoric which was either forced upon them or persuaded on them as the right decisions. The military was in all essence always the guarantor of this power. War veterans became the custodians of ZANU PF governance and any divergent opinion was viewed as reactionary, or of colonial puppets. The selection of candidates in primary elections of the party were not exactly according to the people’s choice, but according to who the leadership and the military viewed as towing the line.
ZANU PF became a little complacent, having cowed the citizens into believing that only them had the right to govern.
MDC was formed in 1999, following the decline in the economy due to Mugabe’s catastrophic adoption of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), the lump some payout to war veterans in 1997 which collapsed the value of the Zimbabwe dollar, and the DRC intervention in 1998.
This brought the realisation by both Mugabe and the ZANU PF leadership that they could lose the support of the people to MDC. The military was then roped in, together with the war veterans, to campaign and force voters to vote for ZANU PF in the 2000 and 2002 general elections, as well as during the farm invasions which led to the fast track land reform.
Since then, the hand of the military became more visible, with war veterans playing the front role in unleashing terror on citizens who supported the opposition or expressed divergent views. Any person within or without ZANU PF who expressed divergent views was punished, called a reactionary, puppet of the West and brutalised.
ZANU PF leaders who saw the undemocratic tendencies in ZANU PF and tried to highlight them were expelled, the likes of Edgar Tekere and Margaret Dongo being cases in point.
2008 marked the real turning point where ZANU PF was turned into a monster after MDC had won elections and Mugabe had been defeated by Tsvangirai. In the words of the now President, ED Mnangagwa, Mugabe was ready to cede power to Tsvangirai, but Mnangagwa, with the backing of the ZDF commander, told Mugabe to stay put.
It took a whole month, while election results were being cooked to suit a re-run. The military would unleash a reign of terror in the run up to the re-run, killing many opposition members, and abducting many more. Tsvangirai withdrew from the race, fearing for more deaths of his party supporters and for his own life at the hands of the military. He sought refuge in Botswana in fear of the military onslaught.
Statements have always been released by the military, to the effect that, the ZDF would never acknowledge, nor salute any individual who was not of liberation war background, should s/he assume the Presidency of the country.
In its whole existence, ZANU PF has never embraced free selection of candidates when appointing leadership throughout its structures. Imposition or buying of loyalty has been the norm, where a leader sets up his or her functionaries in positions across the structures for expedience, when time comes for their nomination. Intimidation and the threat of expulsion has always cowered those of different choices. The punishment meted on those expelled has been so harsh, and is meant to be a warning to any would be rebel.
This was evident when Mujuru was expelled in 2014, where members were cowed into denigrating their Vice President at rallies at the instigation of Mugabe’s wife. Even those in Mujuru’s camp, had to turn against her, for fear of retribution the same way Mujuru had faced. SK Moyo, who was touted to be a Mujuru functionary, had to turn against her to save his skin and post within ZANU PF.
It is ironic that SK Moyo, was ordered to announce the firing of Mujuru in 2014, to fire Mnangagwa, last month, and to fire Mugabe three weeks ago. No one would envy SK Moyo’s turncoat position right now as he is being used as a door mat by whoever ceases power on the day. Such is the undemocratic and autocratic nature within ZANU PF.
A month ago, many were singing praises to the nonagenarian and his wife donning regalia with their portraits, while castigating Mnangagwa. But today they have swiftly changed sides and are castigating Mugabe and praising Mnangagwa, whom they were happy to see fired a month ago, and they are all seen wearing regalia with his face. They are now castigating Grace Mugabe and the G40 cabal, without blinking an eye. That is the bootlicking and hero worshipping that is rampant within both the party and government.
This has ultimately thrown any sense of democratic semblance into the dustbin, while the ZANU PF constitution and the national constitution have been trampled upon in the process. Meanwhile, the military has eventually asserted its previously hidden power over both party and government, with military commanders now in Cabinet. It is not surprising that by the weekend, the country may have a military VP.
As much as the people of Zimbabwe have clamoured for a Representative Democracy, it has never reached their hands, and it remains an illusive object currently. The military is governing since the end of the liberation war, and continues to do so. The notion that the pen rules the gun, as espoused by Mao, has never occurred in Zimbabwe’s history.
It is therefore not at all surprising that Zimbabwe has been under invisible military rule, which has now unmasked itself and deposed its formerly imposed Mugabe through a coup. The military has imposed Mnangagwa after deposing Mugabe through a coup, in the same way they did in 1975 when they installed Mugabe after deposing Sithole. The CDF warning two days before the coup, referred to the Mgagao Declaration (coup), giving Mugabe an indication that the military had imposed him as leader after deposing Sithole, and would remove and replace him in the same way.
When the leader preferred by the military ceases to serve its interests, and refuses to tow the line, the military will get rid of that particular leader and impose another. There will be a semblance of normalcy disguised in elections which will never be free nor fair, to legitimise the regime and fool both citizens and the international community.
Illiberal democracy in the opposition*
It may also be noted that the operation of pseudo democracy does not only occur in ZANU PF. It is also prevalent in the opposition, where cults and factions have loyalty syndicates, thus causing divisions and splits within them, all for personal rather than national interests.
In conclusion
Zimbabwe has still not attained representative democracy status and it will take greater efforts by dedicated citizens to overturn this patronage system which rears its head both in ZANU PF and in the opposition. What Zimbabwe currently experiences is illiberal democracy, where leaders only care for their personal or group interests. Thus Zimbabwe has always had a democratic deficit.
Jonathan Chando is a
Lawyer, Political Analyst and Commentator on International Law and Politics.~
Comments
About Author
