What are the national, regional and international consequences of recent electoral violence in Zimbabwe? What triggered the outbreak? Read more from Senior Research Associate Dorina Bekoe.

Image on right: Riot police on the back of a pick up truck outside the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, (MDC), headquarters, during a raid in Harare, Friday April 25, 2008. During the raid police forcibly took hundreds into custody and arrested 300 people. The MDC and independent religious and human rights groups have accused President Robert Mugabe's regime of a violent crackdown on dissent since the March 29 elections. (AP Photo)

In Zimbabwe, after an apparent loss in the March 29 election, President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party launched a campaign of violence against the opposition that led to more than 100 deaths, thousands of missing and wounded, and hundreds of thousands displaced. International condemnation followed. The situation has spotlighted the role of African and international players in trying to forge a solution.

Dorina A. Bekoe is a senior research associate in the Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, where she specializes in African conflicts, political development, institutional reform and peace agreement implementation.

In this interview, Bekoe offers insights into the current situation.

 

How did Mugabe come to power? What is his personal history?

Prior to Rhodesia’s (the colonial name for Zimbabwe) independence, Britain had stipulated that power in an independent state should be shared with black Zimbabweans. Prime Minister Ian Smith rejected this condition and subsequently issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1965. An era of white minority rule was imposed. This situation sparked a civil war waged by two nationalist movements: The Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU)—led by Mugabe—and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), led by Joshua Nkomo.

After negotiations, the civil war came to an end with the 1980 signing of the Lancaster House Agreements. ZANU won the parliamentary elections. Mugabe was elected prime minister and included Nkomo in the new cabinet.

Nkomo was dismissed in 1982 when Mugabe accused him of planning a coup d’état. Subsequently, government security forces launched attacks in Matabeleland (western Zimbabwe), Nkomo’s stronghold. The government was accused of killing 20,000 Zimbabweans in the ensuing conflict, known as Gukurahundi. In 1987, a coalition government was formed to end the violence; Nkomo folded ZAPU into ZANU, forming ZANU-PF.



Describe Zimbabwe's political landscape. To what extent have its elections been free?

Zimbabwe’s elections have been seriously problematic since 2000, when the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) began to threaten ZANU-PF. As the MDC challenged Mugabe’s regime, the government responded with a campaign of violence and repression. Many international observation teams labeled the election unfair and not free.

In 2002, the MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai challenged Mugabe in the presidential poll. Mugabe won the election, but the campaigned was marred with political violence and intimidation. Again, international observers could not declare the poll free and fair. However, other election observers, notably those from the African continent, disagreed.



What is the role of the South African Development Community in this?

The South African Development Community (SADC) has been involved with Zimbabwean politics since 2001. However, for most of this time, the actions have been limited to expressions of concern regarding Zimbabwe’s deteriorating political environment. Indeed, the only sanctions leveled against Mugabe were SADC’s decision to deny Mugabe the chairmanship of SADC’s security committee in 2002, in response to his decision to deploy troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo without consulting the member states.

Only recently has the regional body taken steps to specifically address the political violence in the country. Instead, any direct mediation was left to South Africa, Zimbabwe’s powerful southern neighbor. Throughout, South Africa adopted a policy of ”quiet diplomacy” in dealing with Zimbabwe—for which it has been extensively criticized. In 2007, SADC formally designated President Thabo Mbeki to mediate the dispute between ZANU-PF and the MDC after Tsvangirai was severely beaten by government security services in March 2007.

Mbeki’s mediation process has been criticized for its lack of transparency and general failure to bring the two sides closer to a resolution. Many inside and outside the region feel that Mbeki’s soft approach to Mugabe in particular has provided him the tacit support to continue his repressive regime. While the mediation did produce some changes to the electoral law, many felt that the MDC was coerced into supporting the changes. To date, Mbeki has failed to criticize the political violence in Zimbabwe.

However, Mbeki now finds himself at odds with many in SADC and with South Africa’s political elite and civil society. Notable fissures have begun to appear within the SADC block. In the past, members were reluctant to publicly criticize Zimbabwe. But, as the violence has increased, neighboring states, in varying degrees, such as Botswana, Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Angola have openly criticized the political environment. They have received varying levels of support from other African states, notably Liberia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Swaziland, Namibia, Uganda, and Senegal, which have also voiced concern over the ongoing violence.

Finally, prominent South Africans, such as Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Jacob Zuma and Moeletsi Mbeki (Thabo Mbeki’s brother) have openly criticized the Mugabe regime’s tactics. Moreover, the African National Congress, South Africa’s ruling party, has openly criticized the tactics of ZANU-PF; the ANC is a long-time ally of ZANU-PF, as both have been liberation parties for blacks in Southern Africa.


Can some kind of national compromise be cobbled together?

A compromise would require more than each side has indicated it is willing to concede at this time. The African Union and South Africa advocate the formation of a government of national unity. In a meeting organized before the African Union summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Mbeki sought to foster discussions between the MDC and ZANU-PF to form a unity government. However, the MDC faction led by Tsvangirai has rejected this solution; the MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara, Tsvangirai’s rival, attended the meeting. The degree of legitimacy to be conferred upon Mugabe as the president of Zimbabwe is the pivotal issue. MDC-Tsvangirai believes that a unity government with Mugabe at the helm would unfairly legitimize his presidency. Instead, Tsvangirai supports a transitional government.


To what extent is Mugabe frightened of prosecution, such as that of former Liberian President Charles Taylor?

While ZANU-PF has committed numerous acts of violence and there have been calls for a process of transitional justice, it is unclear how heavily they weigh on Mugabe and ZANU-PF in clinging to power.

The regime is likely frightened because of a combination of factors: fear of prosecution for crimes—such as the massacre in Matabeleland in the 1980s (Gukurahundi), Operation Murambatsvina in 2005; acts of electoral violence over the past eight years; and fear of losing economic and political clout.

It is also unclear who is leading the upheaval. Indeed, some experts have cited Mugabe’s patronage network, which includes members of the military, as the genuine force behind the electoral violence. This group, which includes high-ranking ZANU-PF officials, risks severe losses if Mugabe loses power. In fact, it has been reported that while Mugabe was prepared to concede the March 29 election to Tsvangirai, the hardliners around him persuaded him otherwise.


Are other parties involved in the violence, beyond pro- and anti-Mugabe forces? Is the military a player?

Security forces have been both active and passive in fueling the violence. Although the military have denied it, the BBC has uncovered documents that implicate it in the violence preceding the run-off. Moreover, Army Chief of Staff Major General Engelbert was quoted as saying that his soldiers would force people to vote for Mugabe.

The national police have also allowed the violence to continue, according to several reports. There is little law enforcement presence or consequence when militant thugs and so-called ”war veterans” attack suspected opponents of Mugabe.

 


To what extent is this conflict along tribal lines?

While one can trace ethnic cleavages into the conflicts, they are not the dominant source of tension. Broadly, the MDC stronghold in Matabeleland mirrors tension between the Ndebeles and the Shonas which was highlighted in the war between ZAPU (led by Nkomo, an Ndebele) and ZANU (led by Mugabe, a Shona). However, the MDC is dominant in urban areas all over Zimbabwe, not just in Matabeleland (western Zimbabwe).

Further blurring the ethnic cleavages, the brunt of the recent violence has taken place in eastern Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF’s stronghold. Documentation of incidents of violence shows that 72 percent of all violence occurred in Mashonaland East, Mashonaland Central, and Mashonaland West provinces. Some analysts point to the conflicts between the elites in the Shona clans, namely between the Zezurus (Mugabe’s clan) and the Karangas and the Manyikas. However, Mashonaland is home to the majority of Zezurus. Moreover, in past elections, Mashonaland has suffered the bulk of the electoral violence and intimidation. Thus, claims of an ethnic dimension pale in comparison to the fight for political survival by ZANU-PF and their aim to punish those they deem to support MDC.


What about the role of Zimbabwe's devastated economy in the conflict?

The deteriorating economic situation seems to have had no effect on lowering the level of violence or increasing the commitment to resolve it. Indeed, Mugabe has exploited the worsening economy to support his argument that the West has deliberately taken steps to destroy Zimbabwe.


What can the international community do?

A number of proposals have been put forward by the international community. The African Union has called for a unity government, while the G8 this week pledged greater sanctions on individual members of the regime and recommended the appointment of a special envoy by the U.N. secretary general. A number of African leaders and Russia have criticized the imposition of additional sanctions, which South Africa warned could lead to civil war.

While it is important for the international community at large to speak out against the atrocities committed by the Zimbabwean government, the key international players are African countries themselves. Over the past eight years, criticism of the Zimbabwean regime from outside Africa has become an entry point to a larger argument about Africa’s relationship with the West—eclipsing the discussion of the Zimbabwean crisis.

Instead, resolving the crisis in Zimbabwe requires stronger and clearer African leadership. To some extent, the public criticism by African states of the violence in the lead-up to the run off election has begun to provide this leadership. It reflects both the growth of democratic institutions in many African countries as well as the strengthening of African civil society groups. The international community must take the lead from these African states in bringing the crisis in Zimbabwe to a peaceful resolution.


Describe USIP's Zimbabwe work.

Over the course of the last year, USIP has organized a number of public events on Zimbabwe. Topics have examined Zimbabwe’s political violence, the 2007 crackdown on the MDC, and the operating environment for the media. In addition, the Institute hosted Dr. Masipula Sithole as a senior fellow from 2002 – 2003. Dr. Sithole was a founding member of the Mass Public Opinion Institute, a Zimbabwean research organization.


The views expressed here are not necessarily those of USIP, which does not advocate specific policy positions.

Related Publications

COVID Raises the Stakes for Zimbabwe’s Civil Society Movement

COVID Raises the Stakes for Zimbabwe’s Civil Society Movement

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

By: Miranda Rivers;  Precious Ndlovu

Countries worldwide that suffer or risk violent conflicts face a new hazard amid the COVID-19 pandemic: governments’ use of the disease as a pretext to curtail democratic freedoms and punish opposition. As COVID has spread across Africa, Zimbabwe is emerging as one of the countries most vulnerable to the disease—and most illustrative of its threat to peace and democratization efforts on the continent. Two and a half years after a military coup installed President Emmerson Mnangagwa, his government has used the health crisis to arrest members of the opposition and journalists, and divert humanitarian aid to ruling party supporters.

Type: Analysis

Global HealthNonviolent Action

The Challenges for Social Movements in Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe

The Challenges for Social Movements in Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

By: Gladys Kudzaishe Hlatywayo;  Charles Mangongera

Civil society and social movements have long been at the center of pushing back against corruption and authoritarian practices. Zimbabwe was no exception in the run-up to the November 2017 coup d’état that ousted Robert Mugabe after four decades of unaccountable rule. This report, based on in-country interviews and focus group discussions, examines the transition that followed the coup to draw broader lessons for how the international community can support, without harming, grassroots nonviolent action initiatives in countries undergoing profound political shifts.

Type: Special Report

Nonviolent Action

Military Crackdown Mars Zimbabwe’s First Post-Mugabe Election

Military Crackdown Mars Zimbabwe’s First Post-Mugabe Election

Monday, August 6, 2018

Over 80 percent of eligible voters participated in Zimbabwe’s July 30 polls—a tense, reasonably competitive, and possibly historic election. After 37 years of authoritarian rule under former President Robert Mugabe, there was hope for a break with the past, with a halt to the political oppression of opposition members and civil society. But fears loomed large of a return to tyranny when protesting opposition members faced a violent response by the Zimbabwean army shortly after Election Day. 

Type: Blog

Global Elections & Conflict

View All Publications