Too much power in the Presidency

Unchecked power of the executive branch of government has been a lingering problem in Zimbabwean politics ever since the country attained independence from an oppressive white minority government of Ian Smith in 1980.

It is disconcerting to witness the hard-fought war of independence’s culmination to what is essentially totalitarianism. We fought for freedoms and liberty not for the crowning of kings – heads of states who act with impunity.

Gukurahundi is a prime example of the danger of too much power in the executive. Robert Mugabe (Prime Minister) acted unilaterally to create a military division – the 5th Brigade – that deployed to murder unarmed civilians in Matabeleland for belonging in a different tribe.

Leaders are not interested in the good of citizens; they are interested solely in power for its own sake and will do whatever it takes to attain and retain it.

We argue that the insatiable appetite for power, the presenting leadership style characterised by the desire for control and the marginalisation of the average citizen by those in power have important historical precedent in the colonial state.

Colonialism, in Africa, set in motion a brutal and coercive militarised state led by a white minority that forced a non-consensual relationship with African natives, and ensured submission to its structures for the effective operations of its extractive economy for the benefit of the metropolitan. The state used natives as a source of cheap labour but marginalised them from political and economic power. As such, the leadership style in the contemporary Africa cannot be discussed without reference to the colonial state.

The contemporary states in Africa are by and large colonial products, structured to sustain colonial power relations long after the end of official colonialism.

Excepting specific operational adjustments, e.g., replacement of racism with tribalism, the government enterprise of Zimbabwe mirrors the colonial state; it lacks compassion and principle, and its obsession is power to control and disenfranchise the civilian population while imposing the political narrative of the elite, supported by the military.

The objective of studying history is partly to understand the origins of the present. We cannot be informed people in the fullest sense of the term if we cannot comprehend how the past led to the present, or how the present evolved out of the past.

In short, the real value of learning history is not to live in the past but to try to appreciate contradictions.

This is to say, when we view the political systems in Zimbabwe today, we must aim at understanding the present on its own terms, yet being historically cognisant about its origins, but not allowing history to take the agency away in some crude or simplistic way over how we view the events or the developments in our current political landscape.

It is no exaggeration to say because of inherent benefits to the executive, there is little political desire to completely break away from the unjust institutions laid down by the colonial state. The independence of Zimbabwe has been characterised by the executive branch of government appropriating power from other branches and growing the administrative state into an unchecked bureaucratic machine.

Repression and suppression of human rights is now commonplace. Perhaps it is time we accepted that limiting executive power is a cause we must all fight for — no matter what aisle we are on, after all we are different parts of the same body; when one suffers, the others are compromised too.

Partisanship and tribalism have eroded essential gatekeeping democratic institutions and in the same vein facilitated authoritarianism. In today’s Zimbabwe, elected officials do not aim at national appeal nor represent the electorate but narrow limits set out in their political parties manifestoes; their allegiance is to the president not the constitution of the country.

The officials are broken into three groups: 1) Active loyalists – blindly support the president and publicly defend even his most controversial moves, 2) Passive loyalists – retreat from public view when scandals erupt but still vote with the president, and 3) Critical loyalists – try to have it both ways; they may publicly distance themselves from the president’s excesses, but avoid taking any action that will weaken or bring down, the president.

We must take full responsibility for our political circumstances, i.e., stop making excuses, and start changing the political narrative. We accept the colonial influence in our state, but Zimbabwe must look within itself for solutions, and work from inside out. Partisanship and tribalism must be replaced by an objective, non-partisan approach to political engagement to protect the nation from the excesses of the executive branch of government. If leadership styles, principles, moral values, human rights norms and standards and justice models continue to be modelled around those of the tribal supremacist ZANU PF-controlled state, we have long to wait before real independence is achieved.