New from Freedom House.

In Zimbabwe, democracy must be driven from below

With a constitutional referendum and subsequent national elections drawing near, Zimbabwe is poised to enter an exciting and highly uncertain period. However, if left in the hands of the current political elites, the creation of a democratic Zimbabwe remains unlikely at best.

Once an inspiring example for the African continent, Zimbabwe under independence fighter Robert Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) has become the epitome of a dysfunctional, corrupt, despotic country. Stability during the first years of independence was followed by violent suppression of the Ndebele ethnic minority in the 1980s, increasing authoritarianism and economic decline in the 1990s, and outright dictatorship in the past decade—characterized by political violence, land grabbing, electoral fraud, and the abuse of state resources. The climax of this process came in 2008, when Mugabe’s regime, having lost parliamentary elections and facing the loss of the presidency as well, embarked on a campaign of violence against the opposition and its supporters. The crackdown killed scores of people and led opposition presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai to drop out of a runoff vote against Mugabe. Facing intense brutality and regional diplomatic pressure, Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was forced to accept a power-sharing government of national unity, with Mugabe remaining in place as president.

The MDC, ZANU-PF, and the country’s security apparatus have many more interdependent interests now than in 2008. What binds these three unlikely and reluctant partners together is a shared commitment to preserving their participation in a power-sharing agreement at the expense of any true political and social reforms. And the more uncertain the political situation becomes, the more they will need and rely on one other.

ZANU-PF is in many ways a perfect reflection of its longtime leader: old, rigid, authoritarian, and desperately clinging to the trappings of power as its founding ideology fades into history. It can no longer rely on its traditional bases of support, whether within Zimbabwe or among its liberation-era comrades in the region. The suspicious death last year of former army chief Solomon Mujuru, the husband of Vice President Joice Mujuru and a reputed “kingmaker” in the party, put the spotlight on bitter rivalries within the ZANU-PF leadership. Years of mutual distrust, personal avarice, and criminal interests are ripping the party apart. After the most recent Politburo meeting, ZANU-PF had to publicly threaten its own officials in the hopes of consolidating the party structure for one last run at national glory.

The MDC also seems to have lost its coherence and sense of direction. For all the initial optimism it inspired, the party is afflicted by the weaknesses of a typical junior coalition partner, ceding ground on an endless series of important issues. These have included an increase in the number of ZANU-PF ministers, the replacement of the attorney general and the reserve bank governor, and targeted sanctions against ZANU-PF leaders. The political and economic reforms championed by the MDC, including work on upholding freedoms of expression and association, have stalled. Even when nominal progress is made, it is followed by prolonged delays in implementation and compromise solutions, as with the process for drafting a new constitution, the centerpiece of the MDC political program. The MDC and its leadership are at times openly resentful of their support base, including human rights groups and civil society, wrongly interpreting constructive criticism and insistence on reforms as evidence of insufficient loyalty and support. The MDC is also terrified of the security forces’ potentially brutal response if it were to opt out of the present power configuration, meaning much of the party’s effort is devoted to preserving its participation in the unity government and its relationship with ZANU-PF.

Unlike the two main parties, the security apparatus appears to be organized and focused. Brimming with confidence as a result of ill-gotten diamond wealth, it is ready to kill with impunity, burn down homes, and torture opponents as needed. It is also motivated by fear, however, with the overriding objective of avoiding investigation by the International Criminal Court. The “securocrats” have undeniable influence over ZANU-PF and the MDC alike. Amid the near-collapse of Mugabe’s regime in 2008, the military wrested control of the state structure from ZANU-PF, infiltrated the party in alarming numbers, and assumed key positions of power, all while encouraging predictions of an outright military coup. Indeed, the only thing averting a coup is the fact that average Zimbabweans—including traditional ZANU-PF stalwarts and lower-ranking military and police personnel—truly despise the army and police commanders. Thus the securocrats remain dependent on ZANU-PF’s civilian facade and the MDC’s enduring veneer of credibility.

So what is next for Zimbabwe? The MDC could once again win a nationwide election, though recent rumors suggest that it would endorse another unity government to preserve “stability” and mitigate the risk of potential conflict with the securocrats. ZANU-PF could again attempt to hijack the elections through fraud and violence, but would likely back off if faced with hostility from regional leaders. For their part, the security chiefs could kill and torture scores of opponents and attempt an armed coup, but this would jeopardize their personal, long-term economic interests, making support for another government of national unity an attractive alternative.

Sadly, the current political stalemate and lack of reforms could go on indefinitely. If the dream of a democratic Zimbabwe is ever to come true, the country’s citizens, whether they sympathize with the MDC or ZANU-PF, will have to start pushing their representatives to actually represent them, to be accountable and socially responsive, and to build a legitimate political system founded on free and fair elections and the rule of law.

Vukasin Petrovic, Director of Africa Programs, Freedom House

UN Human Rights Council Resolution (A/HRC/20/L.13, July 5, 2012)  “affirms the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “

Most governments and private companies are increasingly violating this resolution by perpetrating human rights violations online, either through content censoring, intimidation, denying access to information and selling individual’s private data. The reason why the Internet grew so fast is based on the fact that the libertarian engineers who created it thought governments were not going to control it. Currently Africa has an Internet penetration rate of 57 percent and it is predicted that by the year 2020 every African will have a mobile phone.

The recent Arab spring really caught most governments off guard in terms of realizing the power of Internet. As technology moves fast authoritarian governments are now investing a lot in trying to control the Internet rather than making the service available to every citizen. Governments are now using all methods of censorship in trying to limit freedom of expression on the Internet. The recent story of an Ethiopian blogger who was sentenced to 18 years in prison is just one example of how governments are working to suppress independent voices. The rise in Internet censorship calls for urgent action to broaden the constituencies involved in the promotion of human rights including media, communication, and human rights actors.

Civil society has a role to play through engaging governments to ensure that the same rights that people have offline are also protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is being constantly violated. Liberalized telecommunications markets also play an important role through the provision of affordable Internet to people. Competition, independent ownership of infrastructure and liberalized telecommunications markets should be promoted to ensure an open, affordable and net neutrality.

Members of civil society, donor agencies and government representatives from various countries converged in Nairobi, Kenya to discuss ways to make the Internet free under the discussion topic “Who Controls the Internet.” Civil society representatives were mainly from African countries and the Kubatana Trust of Zimbabwe was part of the workshop. Global Partners and Associates organized the workshop with support from the Kenya Human Rights Commission, Ford Foundation and Association for Progressive Communication (APC).

Internet as a tool to democratize free speech has come under attack and surveillance especially from authoritarian governments. The race to control the Internet by governments under the disguise of protecting public interest and national security has made civil society realize the need to shape the Internet environment nationally, regionally and globally.

In order to shape the Internet environment delegates at the workshop shared ideas on how to engage governments in policy formulation, which addresses human rights online. The need to sensitize Parliaments was also seen as an effective in making policy makers aware of the changing and demanding environment of the Internet thereby helping them when crafting Internet friendly policies.

The launching of the Freedom Online Coalition in December last year was seen as positive step towards the direction of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms online. The Netherlands government representative at the workshop explained briefly about how the Freedom Online Coalition works by highlighting that the Coalition is made up of 17 countries across the world committed to promoting Internet freedom. At the launch last year the Coalition also pledged to provide greater support for cyber activists and bloggers under threat. As part of this effort, the United States and the Netherlands committed funds to a new Digital Defenders partnership. Currently the Netherlands government is working in Kenya on a program to make Internet free in that country.

Civil society representatives collaborated on a shared statement covering issues discussed in the three-day workshop covering effective strategies to use across the continent and what other stakeholders can do in the shaping of the Internet environment.

A young man pissed off with his joblessness packed his bags over the weekend to join the rest of his family in the now clichéd but still very painfully true great trek to Jo’burg. Another young graduate of the School of Mines found himself jobless after having tasted the sweet mining dollars for a few months somewhere in Gwanda. He is presently holed up with his old parents somewhere in rural Masvingo contemplating his next move. This young man already has a brother working in Mozambique, I suspect that’s where he is also headed. These two young men whose demographic is considered by some pundits as the largest voting bloc in the country is expected to vote in droves in the coming polls. As some parties cry out for the Diaspora vote, it is a rather harsh reality that these parties either choose to ignore or simply have no clue how to address the issue that some potential voters are actually leaving the country. Talk about life’s painful choices: stick around and fix this joblessness through the ballot and still have to contend with the present hunger pangs. Tough choices, hey, and the usual suspects will add, a tough call for patriotism.

Members of the Kubatana community continue to put up fix this.please stickers All Over The Place.

Wedza South District, Mashonaland East
Mhare Brdige: Was swept almost two years ago and is now a death trap to both motorists and school children.
Mt St Mary’s Hospital Mortuary: Not functioning for a long time due to erratic power supply.
Dendenyore-Matsvai Road: DDF and Wedza RDC have neglected this road for a long time to the extent that villagers are making frantic efforts with little resources to maintain it.

I think we are really regressing as a nation sometimes, what’s with men lobbying for women to be indoors by six o’clock? We cannot go back to the medieval era when women like children were meant to be seen only and not heard. Giving women a curfew is meant to alleviate prostitution they say. Bakers Inn will cease to bake bread the day the bread does not have consumers. The same way prostitution will end when men stop consuming the female product. If this is passed as a law it is going to be disastrous for women like me whose industry strives at night. I am a musician and performer who will be jobless. What other option of work will I have for a job? If the majority of women whom I know work long hours in offices have to be home by six and have no husbands or any other help to make ends meet, how will they survive? Can you imagine the bulk of women jobless wanting to put food on the table for their children and other persons under their care? Women often have more people to take care of than men do, imagine the pressure that this woman will have? If she is not going to be a commercial sex worker she is going to prostitute to her husband, boyfriend, lover or any other man in her life in the comfort of her house and not on the street corner. Prostitution by my definition is having sex in exchange for money or up keep. Putting a curfew on women will not stop prostitution. Instead it will make it rise. Prostitution is not going to be alleviated by this but is going to come to our homes as our mothers, sisters and all the female relations will sleep with men in their lives just to make him happy in hope he will leave a dollar for bread. Need I remind men out there that prostitution knows no time of the day? There are other ways prostitution can be alleviated. I don’t see how imposing a curfew on women will help.