Summary of Findings
The Zimbabwe Pro-Democracy movement is an ongoing nonviolent campaign that uses an array of methods to combat corruption and injustice within the country. The nonviolent struggle for legitimate democracy has persisted since the 1990s. The hope is that the movement can finally force President Robert Mugabe out of power. Mugabe is a corrupt ruler who has been in the same political position since 1987. The movement involves many internal actors in a wide array of diverse opposition groups. Unlike other famous nonviolent campaigns, this one does not have one dominant group leading it, such as Otpor. Zimbabwe's movement is instead made up of many different groups, such as the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) and many others. The political arm of the movement being the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
Collectively the pro-democracy movement practices many different forms of nonviolent resistance. The most notable in Zimbabwe being massive stay-aways that have seen high rates of participation. The first nonviolent action ever taken in the movement was a stay-away staged by the ZCTU in 1998. Mass stay-aways have been the most visible of all the nonviolent resistance methods and shut down the cities of Harare and Bulawayo in 2003. Mass stay-aways have again made a resurgence this year, sparked by internet hashtags that mobilized a large number of citizens. Other opposition groups have organized civil resistance as well. From placing anti-corruption messages in soap to distributing politicians' numbers, civil society presents citizens with low-risk opportunities to get involved. The opposition movement even has a legitimate political party to pressure the Mugabe regime. The MDC is a competitive party in all elections. At first glance it seems rather odd this movement has not achieved its primary goals. The movement has been active for years and employs tactics that have seen success elsewhere. The movement has fostered mass mobilization in stay- aways, has a diverse following and even has a political arm. It initially seems puzzling that this movement has not been successful, but closer analysis reveals flaws. Grassroots initiatives have sprung up across the country under names like WOZA, the ZCTU and many others. While each opposition group provides diversity to the movement and unique tactics, there has been a failure to consolidate. The groups also have varying self-interests. With the exception of mass stay-aways, the movement has lacked nation-wide unity. Civil society has not united under one group but instead has been divided into several different grassroots campaigns. |
The MDC is partially to blame for the lack of coordination and unity that has hurt the movement. Janet Cherry best emphasizes this in a chapter of the book, People Power: Unarmed Resistance and Global Solidarity by Howard Clark . Cherry criticizes the party for failing to provide broader political leadership and failing to unite with civil society in a common strategy. When analyzing successful nonviolent resistance it is apparent unity is key. People power is able to exert the most leverage when organization, coordination and unity are present. The striking difference between Zimbabwe and many other nonviolent campaigns is its inability to unite its diverse opposition groups to collectively call for change.
The disunity of the movement is exemplified by the fragmentation of the MDC, which currently is split into separate factions. The MDC has been extremely competitive in past elections and based on vote tracking from 2008, they probably won the Presidency. Unfortunately, by breaking into factions they hurt their own cause. This fragmentation benefits the ZANU-PF since the opposition vote will be divided. Looking beyond just the movements disunity, the movement is limited in some of its actions due to circumstance. For example, with such a minority of citizens formally employed trade unions have trouble making a significant impact with strikes. Mass stay-aways have been effective but the cost of participation is increasing. In recent years looting and riots have occurred as a result of stay-aways. Additionally, the repressive Mugabe regime is known for its harsh repression of protestors. Many have not overcome the fear barrier and the movement must use caution when protesting publicly. Also, while it is true nonviolent resistance can work anywhere, conditions in Zimbabwe have been less than helpful. The country has one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world and a crumbling economy. The president of the Albert Einstein Institution in Boston, Robert Helvey, said it best, "When people are starving, it's awfully hard to promote democracy." Simple but powerful, people trying to survive will focus their time on finding food and not democracy. On top of this, the UN Security Council failed to pass any sanctions against Zimbabwe following their most recent fraudulent election. |
Reflecting upon the Movement
Zimbabwe is a very unique case of nonviolent resistance. The movement has used nonviolence for many years, in a country with rampant corruption and electoral fraud. Many people are discontent and it is surprising that change has not occurred. The movement's lack of success does provide many valuable lessons though. Zimbabwe suggests nonviolent movements need to be "complete" in order to succeed. Complete: meaning the resistance is well rounded and has all the necessary components. These include organization, coordination, unity, leadership, diversity and a high rate of participation. Zimbabwe has some of these characteristics, but not all. Zimbabwe employs effective nonviolent tactics, but disunity and other factors have prevented it from being successful. It is apparent that just a few factors can sideline a seemingly promising movement. It is important for future movements to recognize success depends on an array of factors; each one being just as important as the other.
While Zimbabwe has not seen significant change, it shows promise. With improvements in the organization and unity of the movement, change is very possible. The country is also starting to see new forms of resistance utilizing technology. Social media has provided a platform for protest and mass participation. In such a repressive country, hopefully new technology will allow citizens to organize in ways they previously have not. Overall, the most important aspect of the Zimbabwe Pro-Democracy movement is that it is still ongoing. The movement is not failed, but continually fighting.
While Zimbabwe has not seen significant change, it shows promise. With improvements in the organization and unity of the movement, change is very possible. The country is also starting to see new forms of resistance utilizing technology. Social media has provided a platform for protest and mass participation. In such a repressive country, hopefully new technology will allow citizens to organize in ways they previously have not. Overall, the most important aspect of the Zimbabwe Pro-Democracy movement is that it is still ongoing. The movement is not failed, but continually fighting.
Resources
|
For more Information Visit: |