FEARS OF ZIMBABWE MOVING FROM KLEPTOCRACY TO MILITOCRACY

Robert Mugabe’s simmering succession crisis, which is full of twists and turns, just won’t go away. It looks like the burning question will linger on the political landscape for as long as Mugabe himself still hangs around. The issue is now one of the most controversial political debates in Zimbabwe. What Mugabe is doing and what’s happening around him is not surprising at all. This was to be expected in an authoritarian system like ours. It is difficult for such systems and their leaders to adapt to change. This is the current situation with Mugabe and Zanu PF. Generally authoritarian in content and character and not dynamic enough, they are either unable or unwilling to adjust to change. Since its formation Zanu PF has never had a smooth transfer of power. The way Mugabe took over in the mid-1970s after the ousting of Ndabaningi Sithole dramatically demonstrates the point. As Harold Wilson said ´´He who rejects change is the architect of decay´´. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”

Since Mugabe has firmly consolidated himself as the undisputed leader of Zanu PF in 1977, Mugabe has continued to hang onto power through a mixture of repression, terror and offers of positions of power and rent-seeking opportunities. As a result, succession in Zanu PF remains muted. Studies have shown clearly that in authoritarian systems (although this is fast changing with the times), one thing is certain: somehow there is always a succession crisis. The dreaded day, as Professor Myron Rush found out, casts a long shadow over the party or nation and influences the period of dictatorial rule by anticipation and anxiety.

There is inherent in dictatorship a succession cycle: first a period of relatively stable dictatorial rule; then a succession crisis and finally a resolution of the crisis which is sometimes accompanied by a dissolution or disintegration of the system. The general character of the succession cycle is affected by the personality of the leader and political dynamics within that system. Mugabe’s explosive succession problem now poses the single biggest threat to the security of the state and welfare of the people. Given the explosive factionalism and divisions within Zanu PF, which has volatile regional and ethnic contradictions, it is almost certain Mugabe’s departure would cause serious problems unless carefully managed.

Several scenarios can be drawn from the unfolding succession crisis assuming that Mugabe and Zanu PF are not in the intervening time defeated by the MDC-T or a coalition of parties in anticipated democratic elections. The first one is Mugabe goes either by retirement or death and one of his two deputies in the hierarchy, either Joice Mujuru (most likely) takes over. Depending on the situation, the successor stabilizes the situation, manages the change and consolidates herself to steer the party and country through a stable transition.

However, it may not be that simple. If Mujuru and her group take over, the faction led by Emmerson Mnangagwa is likely to challenge them. In that case divisions will widen and a split becomes a reality. Zanu PF would then disintegrate as Mugabe fears. The second scenario is Mugabe goes, whichever way and there is an open contest and Mnangagwa wins. Again if this happens, Mujuru and her camp will fight this outcome and a split may occur. Or there can be outright chaos after Mugabe’s departure as rival factions battle it out in a fierce power struggle that may be short or protracted. At the end of the internal strife, one of the groups emerges the winner and takes over after crushing opponents.

Linked to these scenarios which mostly suggest a chaotic transition is the possibility of the army intervening if there is mayhem. Mugabe’s succession crisis is exacerbated by the now increasingly clear and undisputed involvement of the military in Zanu PF and national politics. If Zanu PF descends into turmoil and fails to extricate itself, the army may intervene. Reasons for military interventions in Africa are as varied as they are complex. The military usually gets involved in politics because the civilian political order would have failed. Through coups or other backdoor channels, the military finds this as the easiest and fastest way of gaining access to state power and self-aggrandizement.

An interview with Brigadier-General Douglas Nyikayaramba showed some state security elements are entertaining this dangerous possibility. Mugabe’s succession may consequently lead Zimbabwe from the current kleptocracy to a militocracy. There is a clear and present danger of this prospect. Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments, particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other forms of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal.

Kleptocratic rulers typically treat their country's treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to flee the country.

Kleptocracy is most common in third-world countries where the economy (often as a legacy of colonialism) is dominated by resource extraction. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats).An early phase of this is driven by tenderpreneur elites who seek to capture resources for personal benefit.

The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life.

In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy. The quasi-oligarchy that results from kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).

Stanley Mauro Jensen