Strong Societies and Weak States: Zimbabwe

A recent article in the Economist ("Piling on the Agony," Dec 3, 2008) details the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. A cholera epidemic is the latest in a long line of typically human-induced tragedies (e.g. famine, hyperinflation, post-election violence) that have their roots in political mismanagement. Zimbabwe is the paragon of a weak state in the Third World, whose government is more concerned with maintaining its hold on power than it is with promoting the general welfare of its people and otherwise fulfilling the basic duties of a state. The obvious reference is to Migdal's Strong Societies and Weak States. Migdal's theory is able to explain some of the political actions that President Robert Mugabe (who has been in power continuously since the 1980s) has taken to maintain his hold on power. In particular, it highlights the government's close but tenuous relationship with the military and the intentional manipulation of political appointments.

It is too soon to tell if such unrest will resume and spread or if the authorities will contain the soldiers’ anger by giving them extra perks while crushing a mutinous few. But it is plain that soldiers, the ultimate guarantor of Robert Mugabe’s power, are no longer shielded from inflation, running at hundreds of millions percent. Thousands have been told to work on farms. Many are deserting. The senior ranks—colonels and upwards—still benefit from access to farms and minerals and other business privileges, and are probably still loyal to Mr Mugabe. But a question-mark may soon start to hang over junior officers.

There are a few things to note here. The first is that the military is the ultimate guarantor of Mugabe's power. When you have rigged elections and presided over political, economic, and social crises (for over twenty years) you are bound to be an unpopular man. It is not surprising then that Mugabe would have to resort to military power to protect himself, and that he would invest so much into it rewarding and sanctioning the senior ranks in order to keep them on his side. It would be interesting to know whether they are still going to be loyal to him if, in the midst of this economic crisis, he is unable to offer them the same level of rewards they were receiving in the past. The second thing to note is the role of the junior officers, who are probably much closer than the senior officers to the society as a whole, and thus may be key to implementing the state's will in society. Their allegiance matters too.

Almost three months after a power-sharing deal was signed, there is little hope that a new government will be in place soon. Violence against the opposition continues. After more talks in South Africa, the ruling ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change at least agreed on a constitutional amendment providing for a new post of prime minister, to be held by the MDC’s leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. It will take at least another month for the change to get Parliament’s nod and be enacted. Moreover, several big issues are outstanding, including how ministries and provincial governorships will be divided among the rival parties, who will be part of a new National Security Council, and what it will do. Negotiations are expected to resume later this month. Meanwhile, Mr Mugabe has unilaterally reappointed Gideon Gono, the central bank governor presiding over the world’s highest inflation rate, for another five years.

The main competing power center in Zimbabwe politics has been the opposition party (Movement for Democratic Change) led by Morgan Tsvangirai, who was recently promised partial control of government after the contested elections this year. If you hadn't taken CPS, you might wonder why so much wrangling occurs the prime ministership and other lesser posts in government. Why doesn't strongman Mugabe just concede those seats and go on with business as usual? The most amusing question to me is, why on earth Mugabe would appoint Gideon Gono, obviously so incompetent in his post, for another five years? It all begins to make sense when you think of government positions as constituting a competing center of power; Mugabe is afraid that if (relatively) competent people come into power, they may become more popular and legitimate than him and constitute a threat to his hold on power.

There are other theories that can be used to explain the situation in Zimbabwe that deserve brief mention. The fact that it is an illiberal democracy means that Robert Mugabe probably had little interest in maintaining popular support in the first place. It doesn't matter very much how popular you are if you are going to win the election. But I will leave that for you to discuss.