Elite Conflict, Compromise, and Enduring Authoritarianism: Polarization in Zimbabwe, 1980–2008

• Author: Adrienne LeBas,Ngonidzashe Munemo
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218813897
• Subject Matter: IV. The Illusory Promise of Democratic Reform: Success and Failure

ANNALS, AAPSS, 681, January 2019 209

DOI: 10.1177/0002716218813897

Elite Conflict,

Compromise,

and Enduring

Authoritarianism:

Polarization in

Zimbabwe,

1980–2008

By

ADRIENNE LBAS

and

NGONIDZASHE MUNEMO

813897ANN The Annals of the American AcademyElite Conflict, Compromise, and Enduring Authoritarianism

research-article2018

How do elites play a role in crafting polarization? And

what effects do elite-led conflicts have on democracy

and mass politics? To examine these questions, we

compare two separate episodes of party-based polariza-

tion in Zimbabwe, from 1980 to 1987 and from 2000 to

2008. Each of these moments of polarization ended in

an elite power-sharing settlement, but a comparison of

the two moments yields insights about both the causes

of polarization and its effects. We find that the episodes

of polarization were rooted in elite instrumentalization

of conflict. They differed, however, in the extent to

which they activated foundational myths and built

larger master cleavages. We suggest that the latter epi-

sode conforms more closely to McCoy, Rahman, and

Somer’s pernicious polarization, which we argue is

marked by deeper societal penetration and segregation

than other forms of political polarization and is also less

amenable to resolution.

Keywords: polarization; Zimbabwe; institutions; elec-

tions; conflict

Do elites play a role in crafting polarization,

and under what conditions do polarizing

strategies produce durable changes in mass

politics? When do citizens remain captive in

polarized camps, and when do they become

free to reconstitute themselves into new demo-

cratic majorities? These questions are central

to the fate of democracy in divided societies,

since the reconstitution of interests and forma-

tion of new majorities is vital for democratic

health. Where membership in a minority comes

to be perceived as fixed, as often occurs during

polarization, this calls into question the idea of

Correspondence: lebas@american.edu

Adrienne LeBas is an associate professor of government

in the School of Public Affairs at American University.

She is the author of the award-winning From Protest to

Parties: Party-Building and Democratization in Africa

(Oxford University Press 2011), as well as several

articles on political parties, violence, and public opinion.

210 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

a shared civic realm in which ideas and interests can be debated. For Appadurai,

predatory majorities are especially likely to emerge in democratic contexts where

individual citizens cannot easily move from a minority to a majority group, and

group-based violence becomes more likely (Appadurai 2006). In terms of when

these kinds of fixed group identities emerge, the literature has tended to focus on

ethnicity, religion, and other ascriptive identities as particularly dangerous in

terms of violence and democratic survival (e.g., Montalvo and Reynal-Querol

2005; Østby 2008; Cederman et al. 2011). Ethnicity and religion are presumed to

be the natural raw materials with which elites will “gamble for resurrection”

when faced with electoral defeat or popular protest (De Figueredo and Weingast

1999; Kaufman 2001). Especially where there is a history of group violence,

democratization is seen to go hand-in-hand with exclusionary ethnic mobilization

(e.g., Horowitz 1985; Snyder 2000).

We argue that political science tends to wrongly elevate the importance of

ascriptive or semi-ascriptive differences, such as ethnicity and religion, in the

analysis of political polarization. In a number of cases, this focus on ethnicity or

other ascriptive difference has obscured the roles played by other forms of dif-

ference in shaping political debate. This article calls for greater and more

nuanced attention to the roles that ideology and conceptions of the state can play

in fostering polarization. We find that episodes of polarization are rooted in elite

instrumentalization of conflict, as one would expect, but they differ in the extent

to which they activate foundational myths and build enduring cleavages at the

popular level. We argue that polarization is likely to penetrate to the societal

level—and be sustained over time—when it capitalizes upon foundational myths

about the nation and the state’s purpose. These differences may be associated

with an ascriptive identity, insofar as political narratives built around pluralism or

regional autonomy might be attractive to ethnic or religious minorities. But these

kinds of foundational debates can be cross-cutting and can generate polarization

even if they have little association with pre-existing identity-based cleavages.

In democracies, polarizations built around foundational arguments are more

likely to be sustained over time, leaving strong marks on partisan loyalties and a

country’s overall political trajectory. In his analysis of regime instability and

democratic careening, Slater (2013) identifies one foundational argument around

which polarization is often structured: should democracy enhance vertical or

horizontal accountability? Or, in other words, should democratic institutions be

structured to check concentrations of power or to amplify the power of the elec-

torate? In more recent work, Slater and Arugay argue that tensions over vertical

versus horizontal accountability can play out—and polarize societies—via debates

over executive abuses of power (Slater and Arugay 2018).

Arguments over institutional constraint do not exhaust our options. In

Zimbabwe, the polity has been divided over the centrality of the liberation war

Ngonidzashe Munemo is an associate professor of political science and associate dean for insti-

tutional diversity and equity at Williams College. He is author of Domestic Politics and

Drought Relief in Africa: Explaining Choices (Lynne Rienner Press 2012), and several articles

on Zimbabwean politics, state response, and social protection.