Institute of Development and Education for Africa (IDEA)

webmaster@africanidea.org

ZIMBABWE : From Party-Mobilizing to Monopolistic-Hegemonial Regime

Ghelawdewos Araia

May 6, 2008

This essay examines the current political crisis in Zimbabwe and discusses why Robert Mugabe wants to cling to power and perpetuate a monopolistic-hegemonial regime even after staying in power for almost three decades.

Modern Zimbabwe (colonial Southern Rhodesia) got its name from dzimba dzamabwe, meaning ‘great stone buildings’ in the Shona language. Between 1200 and 1450 AD, an African civilization of stone masonry coupled with unique cylindrical fine architecture thrived in this part of the continent. Modern Zimbabwe is the product of a 14-year armed struggle that began in 1966 and led by Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) of Robert Mugabe, a Shona and Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) of Joshua Nkomo, an Endebele.

Following the 1979 Lancaster House peace agreement in London between ZANU/ZAPU and the Ian Smith white minority government, Zimbabwe became formally independent in April 1980 and Robert Mugabe became its first Prime Minister and later its president. In the formative period of the newly constituted Zimbabwe, Mugabe sought reconciliation rather than confrontation with his old enemies and even included in his cabinet white ministers who were part of the Ian Smith government. Also in the 1980s, Mugabe presided over a party-mobilizing regime, with a socialist agenda, and in many ways similar to Julius Nyerere’s Tanzania, Sekou Toure’s Guniea, and Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana. This honeymoon of reconciliation with the remnants of the former white regime and the ZAPU partners (old comrades-in-arms of ZANU), however, will soon be eroded. In fact the party-mobilizing regime soon gave way to Mugabe’s new monopolistic and hegemonial regime, and this type of regimes are characterized by centralization of power attendant with powerful but corrupt bureaucracy. Moreover, although monopolistic hegemonial regimes advocate abstract notions such as ‘justice’ and employ fuzzy concepts like ‘democratic-centralism,’ in reality they rule by an iron-fist and do not tolerate opposition whatsoever. Ultimately, thus, political operations are strictly guided by the executive (the legislative is reduced to rubber stamp approvals) whereby the prime minister and/or the president monopolizes power by becoming the head of state, head of government, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and chair of plethora of departments and government agencies. Such was the fate of Zimbabwe under Mugabe, but it is imperative to examine in some detail the complex political landscape of Zimbabwe in order to fully fathom the current crisis.

Mugabe’s present behavior had already been manifested as early as November 1980 when his cronies and ZANU officials began portraying ZAPU’s Nkomo as the enemy of the people of Zimbabwe and charged the ZAPU members with ‘plot’ against the government. As expected, in February 1981, with ZANU provocation, bloody conflict ensued in an armed clash in the Bulawayo of Entumbane (stronghold of ZAPU) that killed about 300 people. This unfortunate event led to Shona vs. Endebele ethnic strife and the Mugabe group, with government apparatus at its disposal, obviously had the upper hand. On top of this, the Ndebele are 16% of the population as opposed to 71% of the Shona, and this demographic factor was additional curse on the Nkomo group. Despite the public knowledge of the false charges and unfounded allegations directed against Nkomo by the Mugabe government, ZAPU was undone with and politically destroyed by pre-planned government actions. Subsequently, Nkomo was thrown out from the government and his property confiscated; a significant number of ZAPU fighters who were integrated into the national army now became easy prey to the Mugabe army. Some of them, who managed to escape the killings and beatings of the marauding government gangs were turned into roaming bandits and armed robbers; others flee to neighboring Botswana, reorganized themselves and started resistance afresh against Mugabe and the operations of these armed combatants continued till 1984 in the Matebeleland, the traditional Ndebele kingdom area in the south western part of Zimbabwe.

In the wake of ZAPU disintegration, Mugabe successfully reinforced his party ZANU – PF (Patriotic Front) and installed strict curfew measures against dissidents and his so-called Five Brigade, a special government force, was assigned to monitor the activities and movements of ZAPU fighters. The ruthless Five Brigade, in collaboration with Mugabe’s secret police virtually turned Matebeleland into an army occupied vast camp and rounded up and detained close to 8,000 Ndebeles. By the end of 1987, Nkomo was forced to sign the so-called Unity Accord, by which his already maimed ZAPU was to be integrated with ZANU – PF in lieu of amnesty.

ZANU – PF, now, has not only become the sole dominant party that monopolized political power in Zimbabwe, but also became a convenient vehicle for the party officials and loyal bureaucrats to loot the public purse, to systematically amass wealth, and own property. Under these circumstances, as pointed out earlier, a new dominant party elite and a protégé to Mugabe emerged; many new millionaires also emerged at the expense of millions of destitute of Zimbabweans. In fact, by 1990 cabinet ministers and high-ranking military officials became extremely rich by owning new lands formerly owned by rich white farmers. The propaganda of ZANU – PF of resettling poor African farmers in fertile lands increasingly became clear to the people that it was a scheme to manipulate the masses and rather benefit the new elite.

In the absence of ZAPU and the ascendance of a one-party state, Mugabe thought that he would remain unchallenged, and ignored the plight of the poor farmers and the unemployed multitude. However, Zimbabweans initiated a new struggle of opposition under former ZANU member Edger Tekere, the leader of a new party Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM) in 1990. ZUM participated in the 1990 elections despite intimidation from Mugabe’s forces and managed to secure 20% of the votes although many of ZUM members including the secretary, Patrick Kombayi were murdered. In 1992, Mugabe prohibited electoral financial support to the opposition and without hesitation he made funding eligible for ZANU only. The Zimbabweans relentlessly continued their struggle and another opposition, known as the Forum Party, under the leadership of Enoch Dumbutshena was founded in 1992. In the forthcoming election of 1996, however, the Forum Party has already undermined itself with infighting and its inability to reach out other opposition forces and hence was a propitious moment for Mugabe to be re-elected uncontested. Nevertheless, Mugabe did not win the 1996 election because of the weaknesses of the opposition but because all anti-Mugabe forces opted to boycott the election.

From 1992 to 1998, there were food shortages in Zimbabwe as a result of the inability of the corrupt officials to run and maintain the newly acquired mechanized farms. Ironically, the once breadbasket Zimbabwe turned into a typical third world food handout country. Thus, in 1998, the food riots in Zimbabwe became the real headache to the Mugabe government and again the government blamed the whites for the food shortages; it was meant to camouflage rotten government policies that resulted in corruption, massive unemployment, and the breakdown of the social system, which, in turn, triggered hyperinflation in the country’s economy.

By September 1999, in the spirit of ZUM and Forum Party, Zimbabwean professionals, civic groups and trade unionists, determined to challenge the monopolistic-hegemonial regime, formed the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and Morgan Tsvangirai, from the trade unionists, became the leader. MDC leaders proposed constitutional reform to restrict the president only to two terms in office and Mugabe, apparently agreed to the formation of a constitutional commission, but he soon started campaigning against the MDC. The government media, in an effort to cover up Zimbabwe ’s economic and social ills and distract the people of Zimbabwe began blaming the Bretton Woods institutions, Britain , and the Whites who are now portrayed as forces behind the MDC. To the uninitiated Zimbabwean, ‘MDC is the making of the Whites,’ and Tsvangirai is their ‘running dog.’ Thus, during the 2000 elections, MDC members were intimidated and attacked by government forces, but despite the government terrorist attacks the MDC won the majority of the ballots in the urban areas, mainly Harare and Bulawayo (two major cities of Zimbabwe) and ZANU – PF claimed to have won the rural areas, which incidentally was difficult to verify the results. At any rate, the official reports indicated that ZANU – PF won 62 seats and MDC 57 seats in 48% to 47% of the votes respectively.

The neck-to-neck of ZANU – PF and MDC in the election results made Mugabe increasingly uneasy and paranoid, and true to his nature he again unleashed terrorist squads to attack and murder MDC officials, members and supporters. Thousands of MDC members were forced to flee their homes and the government charged Tsvangirai with treason.

With the above background, we can now better fathom the 29 March 2008 election, which has spurred so much controversy and attracted world public opinion. This time, Mugabe was not completely successful in destroying the MDC group; in fact, if at all Mugabe survives the 2008 elections it would be only because of the splinter factions within the MDC. If the MDC high-ranking officials and leaders managed to iron out their differences and unite and mobilize their forces against Mugabe, they will win the day in the forthcoming ‘run-off’ elections.

According to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), Tsvangirai got 47.8% of the votes and Mugabe 43.2%, and as far as I am concerned this ZEC leakage to the international media and approved by Mugabe is very suspicious. Intuitively, I believe the MDC have won by a wide margin although Mugabe may have come by a treachery of make believe story. In any event, ZEC, in effect a government agency, inadvertently declared Tsvangirai as the winner. But, Mugabe, far from conceding defeat, has now proposed the run-off elections, in which case both men will compete again. Paradoxically, run-off elections can be conducted only in an event where the competing candidates are in a dead end of complete tie.

We shall see what will happen in the run-off elections! It seems to me, however, that Mugabe could prevail only if he deploys all his secret, army, and police forces all over Zimbabwe. This last political ditch may not work for Mugabe this time for three reasons: 1) Mugabe and his cronies are not as young and energetic as they were in the early 1980s; the wear and tear has taken a toll; 2) the bulk of the Zimbabweans, who got the brunt of the crisis, are sick and tired of the monopolistic regime; 3) Zimbabwe has now virtually became a desolate and isolated country in an increasingly globalized and interacting world, and the only hope for Zimbabwe’s resurrection is the MDC and other progressive Zimbabweans.

Either the post- run-off election can herald a new era for Zimbabwe with Morgan Tsvangirai as its new president or it could ignite a bloodletting arena where the MDC could yet encounter the fate of its predecessor opposition parties. Any setback in the MDC may give a new opportunity for Mugabe to consolidate but it is going to be temporary. But if Tsvangirai wins, he should not employ retributive politics against Mugabe and the ZANU – PF officials although he may carry out justice in a non-violent manner. Tsvangirai and the MDC should move on, resurrect Zimbabwe from the abyss, and uplift Zimbabweans materially and spiritually, and this would be a return to African ethos of regeneration and renewal.