The Key Tasks of Zimbabwe’s Democratic Opposition in an Authoritarian Regime.

This piece is a reflection on the key tasks of the democratic opposition in eroding authoritarianism within the context of the new wave of protests that have hit Zimbabwe. It is argued in this this piece that Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has managed to regain its former glory and increased the cost of authoritarianism. Alfred Stepan outlines five key tasks of the democratic opposition: resisting integration into the regime; guarding zones of autonomy against it; disputing its legitimacy; raising the costs of authoritarian role; and creating a credible democratic alternative. Stepan further argues that the democratic opposition should contribute to the incremental erosion of authoritarianism. The democratic opposition has been composed of mainly political parties, trade unions, kombi drivers, cross border traders, the unemployed, human rights organisations, residents associations, the churches and social media activists. There is a resurgence of protests and newfound activism that have galvanised Zimbabwe’s citizenry in challenging a seemingly omnipresent and invincible authoritarian Mugabe security apparatus.  Finally, Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has managed to satisfy four out of the five key roles that Stepan outlines and are necessary in eroding authoritarianism. It is the fifth one of creating a credible democratic alternative that remains the missing link.

Resisting integration into the regime

The incorporation of the mainstream opposition and certain elements of civil society into the Government of National Union (GNU) signified a failure to appreciate the first principle any democratic opposition should not fall prey to: incorporation. Although by default rather than design; the 31^st of July elections provided the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe with a chance to extricate itself from attempts of incorporation into ZANU PF authoritarianism. Whilst the 2013 elections somehow had created a gloom and doom scenario in the immediacy of the aftermath of the elections, the long term of the post-election environment has been galore with positive fortunes for the democratic opposition. To its credit, the democratic opposition has been patient and persistent, when it almost seemed logical to surrender to ZANU PF’s nationalist authoritarianism. In particular, the continued MDCs’ challenge to Mugabe rule, Zimbabwe People First (ZimPF) to Mugabe’s dictatorship and refusal of the civil service unions to be cajoled by a $100.00 salary advance among others proved to be a game changer in guarding against co-optation. This laid a solid foundation that emboldened the citizenry as the regime capitulated after realising that the stayaway had successfully shutdown business and had the potential to fast track it towards the exit door.

Guarding zones of autonomy

 The post 31^st of July 2013 elections saw the democratic opposition losing its hegemony within the public sphere as citizens became highly demoralised by the electoral defeat. In addition, some sections of the international community wrote off the democratic opposition and moved towards re-engagement with the ZANU PF authoritarian regime based on arguments of political pragmatism. In short, Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition had lost its key zones of autonomy. However, the internecine factional struggles and politics of vindictiveness in ZANU PF and ultimately the purging of those perceived disloyal to President Mugabe’s continued rule created the cleavages upon which the democratic opposition could prise further apart to its advantage. From the MDC-T’s jobs demonstrations and marches, the launch of the Zimbabwe People First and its successful rallies, Kombi drivers’ protests against extortionist police roadblocks, civil service union strikes, and church led #ThisFlag movement signified the democratic opposition reclaiming its once lost zone. The tapping into social media managed to create new public spheres, where citizens could freely express themselves outside the reach of the oppressive state.  This expanded the zones of autonomy into the virtual world as the state became clueless in reigning in on the many faceless e-citizens. The democratic opposition has further managed to reclaim its zones of autonomy as international solidarity started to stream back towards the quest to democratise Zimbabwe.

Disputing the legitimacy and raising the cost of authoritarianism

Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has successful continued to question the legitimacy of the ZANU PF authoritarian regime. The continued disputation of the 2013 elections results and authority of President Mugabe has remained an Achilles heel for the ZANU PF led government’s efforts to mask its dictatorship. The democratic opposition has continued to exert pressure on ZANU PF authoritarianism, a foundation upon which the recent citizens’ movements have managed to amplify and made authoritarianism costly. The sprouting of grassroots protests by various formations of the democratic opposition as well as the emergence of new players has galvanised the citizenry and stretched the authoritarian regime. Stepan argues that, “The more that new or pre-existing democratic trade unions, parties, or community movements take root and flourish, the less space is left for the implantation of new-model authoritarian institutions”. Authoritarianism need to be given no breathing and breeding ground. It is the call to duty for the democratic opposition to shrink the space for, and suffocate authoritarianism. Seemingly small they may be, these actions slowly erode authoritarianism as the regime is continuously kept on its tors. There is a need to sustain the cost and overstretch the regime to its point of elasticity until it crumbles. Lieutenant General Phillip Valerio Sibanda’s threats to social media activists signify a regime feeling the heat.

The embrace of the beleaguered war veterans’ leadership and rendering them solidarity at the courts despite the criticisms and cautions from sections of the democratic opposition has also raised the cost of authoritarianism. The solidarity to war veterans has in some way created a headache for ZANU PF authoritarianism as one of its former key pillars questioned President Mugabe’s divisive and dictatorial politics. In addition, ZANU PF is caught in a quandary on how to depose the war veterans’ leadership after its acolytes were interdicted by various court orders not to masquerade as war veteran leadership. The disclaimer by George Mlala from speaking as the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans’ Association leadership at the ZANU PF organised supposed War Veterans’ solidarity march in support of president Mugabe show how the regime is slowly becoming clueless in dealing with dissent. Stepan argues that, although other factors may buckle authoritarian regimes, “…they are more likely to collapse under the strain of conflicts and contradictions that are purely internal”. Therefore, “If it performs its multiple functions well, the active democratic opposition can exacerbate discord among the authoritarians, as well as prepare the indispensable political foundations for a democratic successor regime”. It is within the context of attempting to create disharmony within the camp of ZANU PF authoritarianism that the solidarity to war veterans has to be interpreted. Yes, the results has the potential to boomerang catastrophically but it is worth a try.

Creating a Credible Democratic Alternative

The democratic opposition in Zimbabwe has successfully managed to push the first four key tasks whilst the last one of creating a democratic alternative remains a missing link. Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has behaved almost like it is at some power pageant. It has continued to pile pressure on ZANU PF authoritarianism in variegated forms. There has been less if not failure to appreciate the complimentary role they play in eroding authoritarianism. It is within this context that the democratic opposition now need to coalesce under some sort of United Democratic Front. The political parties, trade unions, informal sector, ordinary citizens, social media and the subalterns, need to begin dialogue on creating a grassroots based movement that acts towards the attainment of a new Zimbabwe. The credible democratic alternative should articulate a new kind of politics and culture devoid of patronage and corruption. It is a politics based on the values of Transparency, Justice and Equity.

The importance of the growth of the democratic opposition needs no emphasis and the more they are, the merrier it is! Stepan reinforces this argument; “The larger and stronger these various non- or anti-authoritarian subsystems grow, the more effectively they can perform the other tasks of democratic opposition: contesting the legitimacy of the authoritarian regime, raising the costs of maintaining it, and generally grinding it down while building support for a democratic alternative”. It is only when Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition realises the above five key tasks that it will be able to crumble ZANU PF’s nationalist authoritarianism. The core business of the democratic opposition is to nature a grassroots campaign that gives rise to non- or anti-regime subsystems-and not direct assaults on the coercive elite. For Stepan and similarly for Zimbabwe, the active opposition's main order of business is to grow and multiply anti-regime subsystems in order to incrementally erode authoritarianism. There is need to keep the authoritarian regime on its tors until it tires and crumble.