ANOTHER VOICE enock c mudzamiri Not so much about freedom
NOVEMBER 2017 will go down in Zimbabwe’s history as the beginning of the end of Robert Mugabe’s 37-year tyranny. A tumultuous week culminating in his resignation on Tuesday. One cannot understate the jubilation at Mugabe’s demise and his desire to create a dynasty for himself through his wife, Grace.
But the optimism is misplaced because it doesn’t deal with the dearth of democracy in Zimbabwe.
First, contrary to popular sentiment that the coup was meant to usher in a new era of political liberalisation and democracy, the takeover is meant to deal with a succession crisis in Zanu-PF. The military made this clear when it said it was dealing with criminals around Mugabe. And the party’s secretary for legal affairs, Patrick Chinamasa, indicated that removing Mugabe from the party’s central committee was an internal party matter.
Second, I would argue that the military resorted to a “smart coup” only after its preferred candidate to succeed Mugabe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, was fired from the party and the government.
The way in which the military has gone about executing its plan upends any conventional understanding of what constitutes a coup d’état. It’s a “smart coup” in the sense that the military combined the frustrations of a restive population, internal party structures and international sympathy to remove a sitting president. It thereby gained legitimacy for an otherwise partisan and unconstitutional political act.
Is the military intervening for the collective good or for its own interests? It is baffling to imagine how the military has suddenly become the champion of democracy and regime change.
It’s clear that what motivated the military commanders was a fear of losing their jobs and influence after their preferred successor was purged. They launched a pre-emptive strike against Mugabe to safeguard their selfish interests as a military class and the future of their careers. Given the symbiotic relationship between the military and the ruling Zanu-PF party, it was inevitable that the top commanders would be embroiled in the party’s succession crisis. After all, the military has been the key lever behind Mugabe and the Zanu-PF’s power since 1980.
They have played a key role in neutralising political opponents. Back in the 1980s, the military was responsible for the massacre of thousands of civilians and Zapu supporters in Matabeleland. In 2008 it was responsible for the torture, death and disappearance of 200 opposition activists and the maiming of hundreds more. The UN has implicated Mnangagwa and the generals in the illegal plundering of resources in the DRC.
On top of this the military and Zanu-PF share a special relationship that has its roots in the liberation struggle. The Zimbabwe African National Union was the political wing of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (Zanla) during the liberation war. They therefore have vested interests in the survival of the party.
After independence, the relationship remained intact as the military became the guarantors of the revolution.
The same securocrats are also members of the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association. This quasi-paramilitary group is an auxiliary association of the ruling party and has fiercely opposed Mugabe’s attempt to create a dynasty.
Zimbabwe goes to the polls in
July to choose a new president and parliament. The elections – if conducted credibly – will provide the next government with the legitimacy it needs to take the country out of its political and economic crises. The hope is that the military will allow a democratic transition to take place.
For the elections to be credible, the transitional authority would urgently need to reform the electoral system. This would ensure Zimbabweans can freely and fairly choose their leaders.
Without this, peace and prosperity will continue to elude Zimbabwe.