THE STATE, DEMOCRACY AND THE FUTURE OF ZIMBABWE

(written in 2008)
The situation in Zimbabwe today represents to different opinions the complexities of class perception and more importantly the predictable trajectory of political power especially in the presence of a shifted center of mass. Whilst the behavior of the ruling class in Zimbabwe is typical of any in a troubled state, it is imperative that its actions towards the general populace be stripped in isolation then comparatively be juxtaposed to the presence of another political force acting in resistance to its existence and finally be compared to the general dictates of political order in a democracy. This way we can appreciate the political quagmire that the country is in, the possible solutions and lastly identify the possible players in the creation of a new dispensation for the country. In this regard we need to dissect the STATE, appreciate the concept of DEMOCRACY and finally relate the two in a bid to make a prognosis for the country.

In any country, the State is a powerful institution that has extracted itself from society and placed itself at a position higher than society so as to create a big brother’s hand to either restrain class struggles or in its plain sense suppress any discontent that may arise from the general populace against the ruling class. The State acts as the central reserve for the society whose main function is to collect the proceeds of production and then redistribute them according to, when the system is sympathetic; the needs of society or in extreme cases; the wishes of the State.

When the state extracts itself from society does it continue to bear a reflective color of the society or does it change? To answer this question we need to discuss the reasons that gave rise to its existence anyway. In this regard we need to appreciate three basic characteristics of human behavior:
1. There is natural human tendency to compete for resources
2. There is a general belief of possible extinction of resources
3. There is a widely acceptable phenomenon of natural kleptomaniac hoarding
which is usually referred to – rather politely- as saving for the future.

With this in mind we can state that when the resources to compete for are abundant as compared to the need, there exists a general respect for territorial integrity amongst the players. This abundance may also pacify the parties in the face of the ever-present probability of future deficit because the perception would be that the danger would probably be not within their lifetimes or probably that of their children too. In the same context the need to save for the future is not over-emphasized because of the assured availability through time. For example, no one in Zimbabwe right now is making a fuss about hoarding sand (used in building) simply because of its abundance vis-à-vis the number of people in need for it.

When the resources become scarce, there exists now a struggle for their control. There is definitely a need to save for the future. Unfortunately in this quest to gather the resources, there is usually a clear disregard for personal sovereignty as the powerful encroach into the territories of the less powerful. Along the way the less powerful are overridden and are forced to subscribe to the terms of the powerful. As the competition increases, the powerful make concessions amongst themselves to ensure a consolidation of power. Through common predicament and out of common comradeship the less powerful also seek to unite to resist the intrusion. So out of the need to control resources there arises a continual and persistent friction between the powerful and the less powerful. A good example is the Chiadzwa Diamond fields in Marange; the people of Marange used to live peacefully in that land before the discovery of diamonds, nevertheless upon their discovery, the place was secured and the original (the less powerful) people were moved out of their place by the powerful.

In all this confusion, the powerful seek to create order in the gained territories. This they do by formulating rules. In other words; they gain power (i.e. the conferring ability to distribute resources to one’s choice using one’s discretion). With the advancement of the process of resource-hoarding and the ever-present threat of loss of the gained resources, there arises the need to enforce the need to enforce the rules that govern the conduct of the less powerful within the prescribed territories of those who govern. It is this scenario and eventually the need to maintain alliances as powerful as ever coupled to the sophistication of human development and the ever multiplying force of resistance which compels the powerful to forge a universal force to administer the exploitation of the gained resources- which in this case is known as THE STATE!

In simple terms then, THE STATE is a grouping of powerful individuals who have through force or other means amassed resources beyond their capacity to utilize them and now through certain seemingly justifiable exploitative means seek to use the less powerful to add value to these resources solely for their benefit while purporting to be custodians of the society. These individuals call themselves kingmakers and they use all those objects they always refer to as belonging to the State like police, army and intelligence to consolidate power and also appoint who rules and who doesn’t.

So as we look at Zimbabwe (The State) and Zimbabwe (The Democracy) it becomes necessary that we define the relationship of the two and whether both can exist at the same time or whether there are limits that have to be put on the other for the other to flourish. In actual fact the question we need to answer is whether full democracy can be achieved when there is a State!

Many have been inebriated by the ever-so-popularized definition of democracy:

Democracy is the rule of the people by the people for the people. The fundamental features of democracies include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of political minorities, respect for basic human rights, equality before the law, due process, and political pluralism


These are Utopian conditions which apply only in a world which has no competition. Human beings respect each other as long as their ambitions don’t converge at a common object. Once they do then there is always that rush to be the first to reach the destination and definitely the satisfaction of having outpaced the other cannot be underestimated. So can there ever be a rule of the people by the people for the people where there is competition for resources?

Firstly, the initial motive behind “Democracy” is to create a state that has got a colour of society. A state that does not represent class conflict but a general convergence of human interests. May we propose then that democracy in its virgin sense is a system of governance where the society extracts certain individuals from “within” society and confer them the responsibility to maintain order in the distribution and exploitation of resources. Can this state ever be present?

Do people in a democracy have the choice to change the order created by the State? Plainly, can people peacefully change the state in a democracy? Can we propose again that, in all these democracies citizen-participation is allowed only as far as the changing of characters within the government is concerned but as many obstacles are put to discourage the change of characteristics of the governance systems? Can citizens just wake up and say they no longer want the current hierarchy instead they want another animal X or Y with totally different composition and functions? This is treasonous!

Can we again propose that in reality, democracy does not represent participation of the people in the creation of a ‘better’ people’s state but the continuous and regular change of characters in the public face (government) of the state so as not to unmask the perpetual faces that make up the State?

May we pose and ask; in a democracy who is more powerful, the people or the Rockefellers of America, United Fruit Company of Latin America or De Beers in Botswana?

Can someone just erupt from nowhere and decide to lead the people in a democracy? No! The State would not allow that. Actually there are well-laid requisites for one to qualify to lead a democracy. These are laid out by the State through its crew of kingmakers (Ford Foundation, Heritage Foundation etc in USA). They ensure that whoever comes in maintains the order and guarantee the protection of the State whilst pacifying the majority of the people. Some of the prerequisites are as follows:
- You should be from a rich and acceptable family
- You have war credentials (i.e. you have at one point in your life shown that
you can risk your life to protect the interests of the State)
- You have reached a certain level of guided education that makes you value infrastructure more than the freedoms of the common man.

But amidst all these hidden facets, why does democracy seem more acceptable to the people?

Democracy is attractive because on face value it involves a compromise between the governors and the governed. It presents a mutual understanding where the governed offer to respect and recognize the legitimacy of the State in return for freedoms and provision of basics from the proceeds of exploitation of the resources. So a democracy would always be viewed as true when the State through the government is able to provide basic goods to the people at the same time protect individual freedoms.

Now, Is Zimbabwe a democracy or not? If it is then what can be done to make it a better democracy? If it isn’t then what can be done to make it one? These are questions we need to deal with now that we have defined the State and Democracy.

Structurally, Zimbabwe remains one of the best possible democracies in the world. Functionally though it is one of the worst. So it remains upon an individual to choose an angle he or she wishes to view the Zimbabwean democracy.

In one of my conversations with John Trimble a lecturer and Pan Africanist America; he pointed out that ZANU PF is one of the most democratic parties in the world. His assertions were based upon the fact that ZANU PF has structures from ward committees up to the Central Committee, all of these serving to represent the people.

To this I disagree because; instead of these structures acting as tributaries for inflow of ideas they function as broadcasting outlets serving only to amplify the decisions of the Central Committee. The only time these structures are involved in the process of decision-making is when they sit in a tent at the annual congress and in a populist manner give credence to dubious and autocratic decisions by way of public proclamation. So in actual fact ZANU PF has got a very effective network of information dissemination not a representative democracy.

Structurally again Zimbabwe has all the facets of democracy- a parliament, cabinet, presidium and other organs of the state. It holds elections regularly and timeously and this is important in any democracy. Functionally though there is no independence of the judiciary, there is no impartiality in application of the law; citizen participation is restricted to pro-government activities. So Zimbabwe is an autocratic democracy!

What went wrong in Zimbabwe?

Zimbabwe was like any other real democracy up to 1997. The state and the government were clearly demarcated. The government enjoyed the support of the State (the white farmers and industrialists) at the same time the government consulted with the State before any major decision. They were in tandem.

The problems started when the government failed to appreciate that the Zimbabwean State was just an extension of other bigger States through the likes of ; British American Tobacco, The Oppeinheimer family, British Petroleum, Rio Tinto etc. These have many interests in many countries including the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire). So who was Mugabe to stop the influence of these institutions in such a rich country, after all he was supporting a known Marxist Laurent Kabila who in 1965 had accepted the help of Che Guevara in the fight against Mobutu. Pan-Africanism is only allowed on paper but not when it conflicts with the interests of the world superpowers. The CIA does not easily forget.

Secondly the government was supposed to distribute the few resources that the State made available to the people in a manner that did not compromise the State’s existence. How painful it could have felt for the State to see the government dishing out millions of United States dollars to non-productive people calling themselves war-veterans. After all these are the people who had disrupted the perpetuity of the Rhodesian hegemony. The loyalty of this government was becoming questionable.

In this regard the State sought to discard this unreliable government. Thus began the long struggle. The Zimbabwean dollar tumbled, the cost of basic commodities shot up, public despondency followed and a state-oriented party was formed. These events were a clear conspiracy of the Samora Machel Avenue barons, the Wall Street moguls and their typical running-dogs who later formed the opposition.

What followed next was something that is atypical of these splits. The government went away with the State machinery- army, police and Intelligence. This was very unusual, but quite obviously caused by the intellect and foresight of the government which had managed to integrate its Marxist guerillas in the State machinery.

So the split of the State and the government created an amusing scenario. A state in search of a government and a government in search of a State. The State has money and international backers whilst the government has a powerful army but no money nor international backers. The State is trying to starve the government so that it creates a ripe situation for civil uprising and at the same time the government is using State machinery to suppress any such activities.

The biggest problem that Zimbabwe faces today is a government that also functions as the State. It seeks to control all the resources and at the same time administer their distribution. Zimbabwe then is falling back into the feudal times. What is about to happen is a situation where for some time elections in Zimbabwe would be useless until the government has finished the process of transferring resources. Thus the characters in the government shall continue to lead until they are financially and politically capable of being kingmakers on their own right.

What are the options for Zimbabwe

The government on its own would take a very long time to create a State. Unlike the 1896 situation where white settlers grabbed land and immediately became rich and powerful it is virtually impossible for characters in the government to do that. Whatever they steal, they should do it in a clandestine manner in order not to invoke public outcry. Thus to amass enough wealth through this method they have to take a long time of good calculations and execution.

An option that exists for the State is to create its own force. This would eventually lead to civil war and hopefully because of the abundance of resources and support they would be able to sustain a longer struggle. Because of the infrastructure that is there war would be even more costly that is why they do not fancy it.

The other option is the return to pre-1999 situation where the State was the State and the government the government. The talks between ZANU PF and MDC as plain as they are, are just a clear attempt towards this. The reconciliation of the State and the Government is the only way that both parties may benefit; unfortunately because of the constant mistrust and hate that exist this remains a mammoth task. Secondly there are people who have made gains in this situation and therefore would want a continuation of the current situation.

The last option is that of Representative Administration. It involves the creation of a society whose state is decentralized and would eventually wither away. It is a scenario where Zimbabweans choose to agree that the purpose of a government is to administer the equitable distribution of the natural resources of the country. It enables each individual to have access to basic services and commodities but allowing for creativity and innovation in society. This option is least favored by both the Government and the State because it means a total loss on their part; but it also means a society of less aggression. In short this is a Zimbabwean form of a social revolution. We call this ZIMISM and we believe is the future for Zimbabwe.