By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter
Concerns have been rising in Zimbabwe about the predominance of the military in running the affairs of the country. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with former military officers taking the stage in politics or commerce, if they have the substance to do so, but there is clearly a move to saturate both the civil service and strategic, government-owned corporations with these strongmen. One would be forgiven for asking, ‘for what purpose?’ They would seem rather naive if they did. What we are seeing in Zimbabwe is the smart coup d’état, a gradual non-violent, but extremely intimidating infiltration of the military into power.
Coup d’état are not uniquely African, nor are they new. The earliest know coup d’état was in 509 BC when members of the Tarquin dynasty led by Lucius Brutus overthrew the King of Rome to establish the Roman Republic. It has been going on ever since. Africa has a recorded 114 coup d’état, the first being in Ethiopia in 1910 when Empress Taytu, regent of the incapacitated Emperor Menelik II was overthrown. Egypt will be remembered for one of the earlier coup d’état in Africa where, in 1952, Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Nasser overthrew King Farouk, later resulting in the Suez Crisis.
The predominance of coup d’état in Africa have mostly followed the colonial withdrawal with the winds of change that swept through most of Africa in the 1960s. Prolific in suffering putsches are Ethiopia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, each of which suffered six military or violent takeovers. This is nothing like Haiti, with its 26 coup d’état, which, reflecting on the current state and health of Haiti, should surely be a signal to those attempting to impose military power elsewhere. There are disturbing correlations between military rule and oppression, freedom denial, human rights abuse and poverty.
Some might suggest that Zimbabwe’s situation is a little more unique in accepting some form of military rule. Zimbabwe’s birth was through the barrel of a gun, following a vigorous liberation struggle. Guerrillas who served the revolution during the liberation era, over thirty years ago, were de facto party faithful, political soldiers or militia, and so it seems the current crop of generals remain. Did anyone expect a different outcome after a Maoist styled insurgency? The concept of the apolitical soldier, and in Zimbabwe’s case apolitical policeman, thus has just never been muted, so long as their loyal support was in favour of the single incumbent liberation party or regime.
Zimbabwe has moved on and things have changed, conceivably for the better, as its people strive for greater democracy and freedom, away from the autocracy and pseudo-democracy offered by the liberation party. A couple of opposition parties have evolved in the last thirty years, providing the prospect for democratic, party political choice by the people. The hegemony of power, theoretically, should not be retained by a narrow mind set hanging onto its liberation bona fides. This brooks no choice.
The liberation party, and supposed architect of Zimbabwean freedom, is the benefactor of the generals’ unwavering loyalty and support, albeit given the patronage which has swayed that process in the last ten years. These same generals will deny Zimbabweans any legitimate choice, by suggesting, openly as they have, that only a party with liberation credentials can rule Zimbabwe. They have intimated, shamelessly, that if they do not get their political way, they will take over, pfuti dzinorira (we will go to war). With whom?
This is crass political folly. The problem with this thinking is that there is only one surviving party with liberation credentials, the other party with such qualification having been crushed and forced into a unity arrangement during the mid 1980s. Eventually those who took part in the liberation war will die out, besides such liberators do not have a God given right to rule eternally. So where does this leave the people’s democratic rights and choice and is this not, potentially, a malicious denial of their freedom and a perversion of the liberation struggle? Zimbabweans should take heed and forthrightly reject these sinister overtones, before allowing their nation to descend into a reign of deep subjugation.
Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!
South of the African Equator 
I agree with your article. Thanks.
Well written, Andrew. I look forward to your next piece.
We all tend make excuses for the Mugabe elite, when less than 1% of the population now benefit from their grand schemes, it really is so disgusting. What makes it worse is the fact that China wholeheartedly supports it all!
Sad and depressing days ahead of us!
Good post Andrew, particularly identifying the correlation between change of government by coup d’etat , oppression and poverty.
What disturbs me is the use of “guerillas” to describe Mugabe’s terrorists and “liberation” struggle to describe what can only be described as a terrorist war which killed more black people than white.
I understand that you still live in Zimbabwe and because of the denial of human rights you have to be careful what you publish. Therefore I can accept that the word “terrorist” would be a red flag likely to get you unwanted attention.
However to use the word “guerillas” is a huge insult to all those brave people, members of my family included, of all races who were killed, wounded or tortured by Mugabe’s thugs. And an added insult to those of us who have been deprived of all our assets, homes and incomes by the Mugabe government’s actions.
Further, looking at the disastrous state of Zimbabwe now and the difficulties of millions of fellow countrymen who, like me have been forced to leave our country, the word “liberation” rings a bit hollow.
The hypocrisy of the West in allowing this situation to continue while wringing their hands in despair over events in North Africa and the Middle East is beyond comprehension.
Andrew Comments: In my humble opinion the word guerilla is in context in this blog. The word is not used to soften the blow and thus protect my back in the face of a particularly nasty element within the regime. Guerillas do commit acts of terrorism to achieve their objectives, a fact which seemed to allude western nations when they were trying to crush then Rhodesia and before the advent of terrorism on British mainland and America soil.