A Crisis of Legitimacy

Since the year 2000 Zimbabwe has been been caught in a vicious cycle of disputed elections and all the flack that comes with it. The opposition has challenged all the results in every election especially presidential elections. The cries and challenges to the election results have not been without merit as independent election observers from all over the world have produced reports with glaring shortcomings and irregularities. Top on the list of irregularities has been issues with the voters roll, capture of the Electoral Commission, meddling from security forces and the captured judiciary. The pattern has led to political thinkers labelling Zimbabwe to be a competitive authoritarian regime that only uses elections for purposes of establishing Legitimacy but is in essence a dictatorship. Legitimacy has been an issue since the early 2000s with election after election being challenged and the Legitimacy of the government being questioned. Legitimacy is essential for a government to exercise authority over the citizens of a state. Without Legitimacy a government will be absent authority from the people and this poses a plethora of challenges for the functioning the state. The current government is well aware of this and has been both skillful and brutal in maintaining and giving the appearance of legitimacy. Legitimacy is the magic elixir that gives a government it's authority to govern and exploring this important issue will help us understand the current dynamic in Zimbabwe.

What is Legitimacy ?

Legitimacy is a popular acceptance of a government, political regime or system of governance. Without Legitimacy a government will find it extremely difficult to govern or will collapse as it will be without the support and or consent of the people. All regimes set out to justify their governance of a state. Monarchs for example justified their authority/legitimacy based on their devine origin. This undercuts the need for popular acceptance or as per the beliefs of the time left people with no other option but to support/accept the monarch. The Tsarist Russian monarch as other monarchs in Europe and around the world claimed to derive their power and legitimacy from God. This "divine backing" caused the people to accept them as their rulers. Meanwhile democracies depend on not only popular support but legal consideration for a government to be deemed legitimate. The United States would be the prime example of this where the grounds for government legitimacy are provided for in the Constitution and the support/acceptance of the people is key to this legitimacy.

As far as Zimbabwe is concerned the country was founded on democratic principles and legal framework (on paper at least). The Constitution that was put in place after Lancaster was one which provided for democratic elections, separation of powers and the rule of law. This was reaffirmed in the 2013 Constitution at the end of the Government of National Unity that received wide support from the citizens of Zimbabwe and the international community. This therefore means for a government to be legitimate in Zimbabwe it has to be elected by the majority of its citizens via a legal process determined by the Constitution. Ordinarily it should follow that a government that does not gain power/authority through the Constitutional process should be deemed illegitimate and thus illegal or vis versa.

The current government in Zimbabwe has however kept the veil of legitimacy over it's undemocratic and illegal practices. Regardless of the provisions in the Constitution and its constant disregard of Constitutional process during elections zanupf has maintained its authority over the state and the status of a legitimate government recognised internally and internationally. It has done this by capturing essential institutions of the state that are necessary in maintaining democracy. The Courts, Electoral Commission and for "insurance" the security forces have all been captured and have been bent to the will of zanupf. With these institutions under their control they are able to manipulate them to give the illusion of democracy each time there is an election and beyond.

The Constitution And Legitimacy

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of our nation. It sets out our rights and duties as individuals, juristic persons and the government. Its provisions are guidelines and benchmarks of what constitutes lawful conduct, and how a government attains legitimate status in Zimbabwe. The preamble speaks of the foundational principles that our nation is built on. These principles can be said to constitute the spirit of our nation. Some of these principles include the recognition of the need to entrench democracy, good, transparent and accountable governance and the rule of law. Going against these fundamental principles is akin to being contra the spirit of the nation. The Constitution further has provisions in section 1, 2 and 3 setting out the structure and principles of our country which entrench democracy, human rights and good governance. Chapter 3 of the Constitution provides duties on the state which it is obliged to carry out. Key to these provisions as set out in the Constitution is Chapter 7 which provides for electoral systems and processes. Compliance with these key provisions in the Constitution is the set way of attaining legitimacy in our Country. A government that attains state power without adhering to the Constitution can be considered to be illegitimate. Attaining state power via flawed elections gives ground for illegitimacy and or not adhering to the provisions of the Constitution in general can render a government that may have fairly won an election illegitimate. Legitimacy is tied to Constitutionalism, it is the most sure way of measuring and determining legitimacy.

However one would then ask how zanupf has stayed in as the government and governed the country regardless of their flagrant violations of the Constitution. From the Gukurandi massacre in the 1980s to the flawed elections since the early 2000s, notwithstanding the many human rights violations which are well documented the zanupf led Government has acted against the people of Zimbabwe and the Constitution. Inlight of all this the Zanupf government continues to represent our state Internationally and continues to run our state and make laws in our Parliament. Zanupf has continued to legitimately govern our country; WHY?. Firstly the fault lies with the traditional opposition which has continued to participate in flawed elections, Parliament and in Councils. This has allowed Zanupf to remain in power as participation is a form of endorsement/acceptance. Though the opposition maintains that the government is illegitimate its own participation gives Zanupf legitimacy as the controlling power. The opposition further through its participation gives implied consent of the people; if opposition Councilors and Parliamentarians are elected in an election deemed to be flawed and accept their public offices it legitimises the election of Zanupf in the same institutions and government as well. Though the people together with their leaders in principle refuse to recognise Zanupf as the legitimate government the action of participation erodes the basis of their rejection and indirectly endorses the very same corrupt system that has brought zanupf to power thereby at the very least tacitly recognising zanupf legitimacy which is more than Zanupf need to remain in government and claim to be legitimate.

Lifting the vail of Legitimacy

The zanupf government has maintained legitimacy through a blend of brute force, flagrant violation of the Constitution and subverting state institutions. While the security forces are used to thwart any forms of resistance, key state institutions are captured and subverted to give legal standing to their veil of Legitimacy. The aim of the zanupf government in this regard is to give the appearance of popular acceptance by the people. Key to this deception are the courts and the Electoral Commission. The capture of these institutions allows zanu pf to rig elections and legitimise the outcome via legal endorsement.

It then becomes a challenge to disregard zanupf legitimacy as election results get a legal stamp albeit being rigged. Further participation in these elections by the people and opposition without freeing these key institutions and securing a level playing field only serves to legitimise the current system and government by cementing zanupf in government and endorsing the system that keeps them in power.

Disengagement from this system and process would be the best way to begin addressing this quagmire. Without majority participation in this flawed system zanupf would be starved of actual and manufactured support or acceptance by the people which is essential to attaining legitimacy. This would be a first step which though is effective would require further actions to succeed in stripping zanupf of its legitimate status. The following steps would require pressure to be applied, which will force zanupf to allow for a level playing field, reform the system, and allow key institutions to operate independently. The Constitution provides tools that allow freedom to associate, demonstrate, and petition. These can be rallied behind to apply pressure. The security forces will obviously be unleashed to quell any form of protests. This will require a blend of courage, leadership, and determination to see things through to a favourable outcome. These "tools" are not merely rights in any case, they are duties, and responsibilities of every citizen especially in times of crisis and threats.

In Egypt, during the Arab spring in 2011, President Hosni Mubarak's government was faced with mass demonstrations and protests, especially in the capital Cairo. The people of Egypt had grown frustrated by the dictatorship, oppression, dwindling economy, and high levels of unemployment. Once the protests began President Mubarak's government faced not only mass protests against its regime but its legitimacy was put to the test. It was clear the majority of Egyptians did not want Mubarak in power anymore and no longer recognized him as their President. The President's woes were compounded when the army and police disobeyed his orders to disburse the protesters. Without the popular support of the people and compliance from the army, Mubarak's authority was stripped, and his status as legitimate President expunged. This was a classic case of how popular support is fundamental to legitimately and how once withdrawn a government will collapse especially if the security services do not intervene in favour of the government. Robert Mugabe lost his power when the people came out and protested against his authority. Though "legally" the president, he had lost control and most importantly the support of the people. This withdrawal of support had to be expressed though. Mugabe had maintained his authority through rigging of elections and suppression of opposition voices through the use of the army and police. Without this express show of discontent, he might have continued to justify his authority and legitimacy as the President.

We are the masters of our own fate. zanupf will always be the constant. Constantly oppressing, rigging elections and capturing the state. They will do what dictatorships do to maintain power and this means tightening the screws and pushing the envelope further and further. However the people can either decide to comply and continue to be used in this intricate Web of deception or make a stand that sees the government being challenged and removed. Shall we continue to comply or is it time to make a brave stand?