Zimbabwe's militarized, electoral authoritarianism.

• Author: Masunungure, Eldred V.
• Position: Inside the Authoritarian State

Authoritarianism in Zimbabwe survives because a coalition of political and military elites stands ready and willing to employ violence to execute the Machiavellian vision of President Robert Mugabe and perpetuate his control of the state. Several variables reinforce the durability of this regime--chief among them the mass out-migration and the large inflow of remittances that has decimated the middle class and dampened the political voice of those who remain in the country. Beginning in 2000, Zimbabwe's authoritarianism became militarized with the overt intrusion of the security sector into the political arena, a process that reached its peak before the June 2008 presidential runoff election. The electoral dimension of its authoritarianism stems from the fact that the regime unfailingly holds elections in search of popular legitimacy but then manipulates them for its own ends. This article dissects Zimbabwe's militarized form of electoral authoritarianism with specific reference to the 2008 reign of terror. It concludes that the factor that best explains the regime is the symbiosis between the party and the security sector, with Mugabe providing the glue that binds them together in pursuit of regime survival

**********

Many one-party and dominant-party regimes survived the demise of the Soviet era despite the broad sweep of modern political democratization. Among the survivors was Zimbabwe. (1) This article focuses on the case of Zimbabwe with specific reference to the country's elections in 2008 and the factors that played critical roles in the maintenance of the political regime. It argues that the security factor looms larger than other explanations, but also brings into the equation variables that work to cushion the regime but that are not intrinsic to it.

EXPLAINING THE PHENOMENON OF AUTHORITARIAN DURABILITY

Authoritarian durability is not a new political phenomenon, nor is it a dying one. The euphoria generated by the collapse of many seemingly robust one-party and dominant-party regimes overshadowed the preceding interest in studies of authoritarianism to a point where "the end of the twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of studies of democracy and democratization." (2) Thomas Carothers notes that a dominant characteristic in the last quarter of the twentieth century was the "simultaneous movement in at least several countries in each region away from dictatorial rule toward more liberal and often more democratic governance." (3) Indeed, the implosion of the Soviet Union led some scholars to triumphantly declare "the end of history" and the global victory of liberal democracy. For instance, Francis Fukuyama declared that we had reached "the end point of man kind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (4)

But end-of-history triumphalism was quickly dampened by the return of history when authoritarianism found ways of mutating under new conditions. Instead of brutally suppressing liberal-democratic institutions, dictators manipulated them. Thus, Carothers observes that "the widely hailed wave of democratization that washed over the [sub-Saharan African] region in the early 1990s has ended up producing many dominantpower systems." (5) Andreas Schedler concurs, detecting "the startling spread of multiparty elections without democracy," and explains:

The new stars in the constellation of nondemocratic governance are "electoral authoritarian" regimes, which conduct regular multiparty elections at all levels of government yet violate basic democratic standards in serious and systematic ways." What happened? This question has confounded many and lies at the core of the puzzle about the resilience of authoritarianism in its many subtypes, especially in the era of democratization. Several schools of interpretation have emerged to account for this puzzle. Some scholars place explanatory primacy on elections. Even if manipulated, elections under authoritarian conditions generate the legitimacy regimes desperately need in order to govern and obtain compliance from the governed. (7) According to this interpretation, rather than destabilizing authoritarian regimes, elections may actually act as a buffer, conceding the form of democracy while denying its substance. The regimes hold regular elections with predetermined outcomes.

The alternative school questions the causal link between elections and regime durability and instead posits that it is political institutions--especially parties-that explain regime resilience. This interpretation has several variations and has attracted many scholars?

This article argues that the endurance of authoritarian regimes stems from two sources: internal and incidental characteristics. The former refers to factors that are intrinsic to the regime--such as the personality of the leader, use of coercive instruments and manipulations of electoral institutions and processes whereas the latter represents those that are not inherent mechanisms for the regime's durability. Most research has focused on the former and neglected the latter. In the neglected category are various actions that citizens take in response to regime behavior, including exiting the country, voicing dissent and withdrawing from the political process. Also overlooked for regime survival are the roles of remittances and a shrinking middle class. Though these variables are not organic mechanisms for regime endurance, they work in the ruling party's favor by numbing citizen protests and facilitating regime longevity. In fact, these actions represent citizen responses to the regime's failure to provide valued services, including security, public services, employment and civic rights and liberties.

The literature explaining authoritarian durability also downplays the role of external forces, which is surprising given that most authoritarian regimes of the Cold War largely depended on support from the two superpowers and their allies. In other words, exogenous factors loomed large in explaining the durability of authoritarian regimes at that time. In the post-Cold War world, authoritarian survivors soon discovered new friends in the international community, and China is the prime example. Larry Diamond makes this point when he observes that "the arrival of China as a major aid donor, investor, and geopolitical player in Africa has given a new lease on life to authoritarian regimes that now have in Beijing an alternative political patron whom they can play off against the West." (9) Richard Joseph similarly notes: "Unhindered by commitments to democracy and human rights, and proceeding under an avowed policy of eschewing involvement in host-country politics, China's growing presence has been complicating prospects for further democratization in Africa." (10) China's role in blunting democratic reforms is particularly relevant in the case of the dominant-party regime of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).

AUTHORITARIAN DURABILITY IN ZIMBABWE

Zimbabwe's authoritarianism is historically rooted. The political history of the country is an uninterrupted progression of various shades of authoritarianism, first under white-settler colonialism from 1890 to 1979 and under a black postcolonial regime since 1980. African traditionalism, settler colonialism and liberation war politics are the three major streams that have fed into Zimbabwe's political culture. All three are anchored in authoritarianism and have worked, individually and in combination, against the growth and development of democratic attitudes and behaviors. The toxic combination of these three streams, reinforced by post-independence autocratic practices, has produced the hardened strain of authoritarianism that we see today in Zimbabwe. In sum, authoritarianism has been the only game in town, and its resilience was openly displayed in the run-up to the presidential runoff election in June 2008.

Of the three sources of Zimbabwe's political culture, settler colonialism seems to have had the most enduring effect on the structural foundations of the postcolonial order. The structural pillars of white-settler colonialism were inherited intact by the incoming, victorious black nationalists who, after capturing the state, proceeded to systematically reinforce these authoritarian pillars. Hence, the security sector (military, police and intelligence) and legal framework that undergirded colonialism were not reconstructed to be compatible with the new political order that the nationalists had fought so hard and long to establish. Dismantling colonial structures is no easy task, particularly given the extrinsic factors that aid the current government in its quest for regime prolongation.

FACTORS THAT FACILITATE REGIME DURABILITY

Zimbabwe witnessed a nationwide demonstration widely known as the Zimbabwe Million Citizen March on 1 March 2011. The aim of the mass protest was to "demand the end of the thirty-one-year rule by the iron-fisted and corrupt Robert Mugabe," but fewer Zimbabweans took to the streets than expected, especially in light of "It]he seismic events taking place in north Africa" where the Arab Spring was unfolding)' This was not the first time that calls for a mass protest had gone unheeded.

This apathetic public reaction had become the default response to calls for collective mass action against the increasingly repressive regime since 2000, when the country's descent into a syndrome of crises accelerated. For instance, in September 2006, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions organized countrywide urban protests against state repression in the midst of a deepening economic crisis. Under normal circumstances, there should have been an overwhelming response to the demonstrations. Instead, the protests dismally flopped when only a few dared to go into the streets. At the time, this author noted: "The paradox is that as the overall situation...