Zimbabwe’s infamous nonagenarian ruler, Robert Mugabe’s 37-year presidency ended abruptly after his former lieutenants, and protégés in the army and the ruling ZANU-PF party (The Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front) staged an unprecedented, “soft coup” in November 2017. This was mainly a climax of factional battles within the nationalist party. Although several analyses of the causes of this turn of events have emerged so far, the nature and character of ZANU-PF as a political party, and what this means for democracy, is a crucial case in point.
In my view, former national liberation movements that became ruling parties have mostly created dominant party regimes that are associated with authoritarian rule, corruption, and dynastic politics, and this largely explains the failure of democracy in several countries in Africa. This emanates from the nature, organizational structure and culture that the former national liberation movements espouse.
National liberation movements were largely responsible for championing the end of colonialism in different parts of Africa. Most of them reorganized themselves as political parties when colonialism ended, and created the first, and in some instances the only governing regimes since then.
Colonial rule in Africa had taken two main forms: settler, and non-settler. Settler colonies had larger settler populations, and often experienced the most contested transitions to independence. Zimbabwe, which is a former British colony is a classic example. The transition to independence in 1980 resulted from the activities of two main nationalist movements, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and former vice president Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU). Both parties had military wings, Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA), respectively. At independence in 1980, ZANU absorbed nationalist leaders and senior-ranking soldiers from the party and ZANLA, and later, from ZAPU, and ZIPRA when the two parties created a unity government in 1987, thus creating “ZANU-PF”.
ZANU-PF did not completely shed its liberation war-era paramilitary hierarchical structure, organizational traditions, and narratives. This largely accounts for Mugabe’s prolonged stay in power, and the presence of the same crop of political leaders in government for the last 37 years.
Military movements thrive on strict adherence to hierarchy, seniority, rigid command systems, emphasis on discipline over internal criticism, and unquestioned loyalty to the top leadership. They maintain a narrative of being involved in a revolutionary fight against an enemy, imagined or real. They use this narrative to legitimize oppressive methods, including brutal assaults on dissenters, both from within, and without. This, needles to say, contradicts the tenets of democracy, such as interactive leadership, inclusiveness, pluralism, tolerance of dissent and vigorous debate, promotion of civil rights and liberties, and results-oriented, transparent leadership.
This paramilitary culture of violent authoritarianism had thrived under Mugabe’s rule. It was expressed through the narrative of the revolutionary war, or “Chimurenga.” Accordingly, Mugabe was the revolutionary messiah who would lead Zimbabwe to the promised land of milk and honey. Instead, of course, he led the country to political and economic desperation. Yet Mugabe and ZANU-PF consistently used this revolutionary narrative to justify violence against the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party, and civil society activists. They used it to justify the manipulation of election results as well.
The anti-imperialist tone in this narrative was merely pretext to crack down on the opposition. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC were branded as “puppets of the British”, or “sellouts” used by the “West” as fronts to subvert the “gains of the liberation struggle,” by allegedly seeking to bring Zimbabwe back to British imperial rule.
This is why one of Mugabe’s most popular slogans read, “Zimbabwe will never be a colony again” — as if anybody ever wanted that.
ZANU-PF also deployed the revolutionary mantra to illegally retain power after Mugabe lost the election to Morgan Tsvangirai in 2008. The argument was that “the independence that was won through the barrel of the gun would not be lost through the barrel of a pen”.
The same language also surfaced during the coup in last November, which the army branded as “Operation Restore Legacy.” Senior army officials claimed that the coup was intended to preserve the legacy of the liberation struggle. This entailed bringing a leader who participated in the Chimurenga War, Emmerson Mnangagwa, into power. Mnangagwa’s new government, unsurprisingly, is dominated by individuals who have a history of participating in the liberation struggle. And unsurprisingly they show a powerful desire to cling on to power.
This story is not unique to Zimbabwe. Other countries in the continent such as South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, and Zambia have all had political challenges with democratization, partly because the ruling parties are former national liberation movements that claim a monopoly on legitimacy.
These countries will move forward towards democratization only when they realize that it is not only about liberation from foreign rule. It is also about liberty from the dictators and oligarchies which claim to be the only “liberators.”
Shingirai L. Taodzera is a Zimbabwe-born political scientist, international development specialist, PhD Candidate in International Development and Trillium Scholar at the University of Ottawa. He is the inaugural Freedom Project Dissertation Fellow starting in Fall 2017.