OPPOSITION POLITICS, TARGETED SANCTIONS AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA IN ZIMBABWE

The recent trip to the US by the leadership of the coalition opposition political parties in Zimbabwe has drawn mixed feelings among the politicians, the academics, human rights movement as well as the general populace in the country and beyond. Celebrated lawyer and politician, Tendai Biti, a former Minister of Finance in the inclusive government from 2009 to 2013 and Advocate Nelson Chamisa, Deputy President of the MDC who is also a former Minister in the inclusive government, undertook a trip to the US in the aftermath of the “bloodless” military coup that saw the departure of former President Mugabe from power after nearly  four  decades in office and the subsequent installation of the former Vice President E. D. Mnangagwa as the new President of the country.  

Several public figures and experts took to social media and expressed their views regarding the visit by these two opposition leaders. Some viewed the visit with a lot of disdain citing that the opposition should have looked for inspiration inward and within the region rather than to go to countries that have imposed economic sanctions on the country. Some viewed the visit with a lot of skepticism especially when allegations that the duo called upon the US government to maintain the embargo until certain democratic reforms are met. Others more sympathetic to the opposition, saw nothing wrong with the visit on the understanding that it is part and parcel of international relations which opposition parties should pursue to garner the much needed support in pursuance of their democratisation agenda since it is an institution with an alternative governance agenda.

The discussions that dominated the social media regarding this visit raise several interesting points that require some discussion especially in the context of the socio economic and political environment currently obtaining on Zimbabwe. First is the issue of the impact of targeted sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the US government and its Western allies (the mainly the EU countries) on the general population, particularly around matters relating to socio-economic rights and the general well being of Zimbabwe. Closely related to this question is the role of human rights movements in the realisation of these rights. The second question is, what is role of an opposition political party in any democracy? And how should it behave in its pursuit of a national development agenda?  An evaluation of the impact of targeted sanctions and the work of the human rights movement in Zimbabwe during the past years will help us to comprehend some of the misgivings why many people were a bit skeptical about the alleged calls for the maintenance of the sanctions regime against Zimbabwe. In these turbulent times where the generality of the people are failing to make ends meet there is always a need for national political institutions and the human rights movements to adopt measures that are always people oriented.

It is always important to take insights from leading scholars on particular subjects. Professor Eric Posner, in his article titled "The Case Against Human Rights" poignantly pointed out that, "We live in an age in which most of the major human rights treaties .......have been ratified by the vast majority of countries. Yet it seems that the human rights agenda has fallen on hard times......The truth is that human rights law has failed to accomplish its objectives. There is little evidence that human rights treaties, on the   whole, have improved the well being of people." This powerful sentiment regarding the failure of the human rights system actually found its classical expression in Zimbabwe during the period from the year 2000 to 2008. Any student of history who followed the events in Zimbabwe will certainly agree that this was particularly one of the most difficult periods in the history of post independent Zimbabwe where egregious violations of human rights were committed in gigantic proportions.

The reason for the failure of the human rights agenda during the stated period is multifaceted. It has to be acknowledged that the proponents of the human rights agenda in Zimbabwe were mainly countries of the global North whose main agenda was perceived by many countries of the global South as trying to foster western hegemony which had nothing to do Zimbabweans albeit under the pretext of human rights and rule of law. As such the failure of the human rights system in inculcating the much venerated democratisation agenda in Zimbabwe was a result of the failure of the human rights movement to adapt to the local needs of the Zimbabweans and many a time the prescriptions and methods used were also problematic. In this article, I will highlight how the "Targeted Sanctions" regime of the global North with the attendant confrontational approach have failed in their quest to instill a new democratic dispensation that promotes, protects and respects human rights in Zimbabwe. Coupled with this misconception of targeted sanctions was also the lack of commonly shared interests within the human rights community itself. I will highlight how NGOs' competition for funding for human rights programming ultimately affected the human rights agenda and brought undesired outcomes. And if anything be told, it actually left the country in a more precarious position than before.  

To appreciate the context of the failure of the human rights movement in Zimbabwe during the stated period,  it is quite instructive to give a brief context and history of how the human rights situation in Zimbabwe deteriorated. Since 2000, state security forces in Zimbabwe have committed serious acts of violence against civilians, political opponents being the primary targets. Human rights violations included imprisonment, enforced disappearance, murder, torture, and rape. The government of former President, Robert Mugabe, faced with a waning support base which threatened its continued existence in power, embarked on massive land seizures across the country from the white minority farmers and redistributed the land to the black people under the land reform programme. The chaotic land reform programme attracted international condemnation as world leaders took turns to castigate the ruling party for violating human rights through these illegal land acquisitions. This eventually culminated in the imposition of targeted sanctions by the European Union against the senior officials of the Mugabe led government as well as the promulgation, by the United States of America government, of the Zimbabwe Democracy Recovery Act whose major thrust was to shut out Zimbabwe from accessing lines of credit from the international financial institutions as well as to suspend trade relations between Zimbabwe and Washington, including the imposition of a travel ban against these ruling elites. These measures were aimed at forcing the government to make an about turn regarding its stance on the agrarian land reform programme as well as to open the democratic space and observance of human rights and the rule of law.

Notwithstanding the imposition of the targeted sanctions, state repression actually exacerbated. The ZANU PF political party went on to "win" the disputed 2002 elections which were mired with serious political violence, abductions, torture and murders. In 2005 the government went on to demolish urban dwellings under what was termed operation "Clean UP" which left so many thousands of people displaced and with no accommodation. The most horrendous violations occurred in 2008 before and after the much disputed June 2008 harmonised elections where so many people were tortured, killed, some dismembered, and significant numbers of enforced disappearances were recorded. The situation was compounded with serious economic decline that deprived people of their livelihoods and brought social unrest in the country. During this difficult period, many governments across the world, especially the western countries as well as human rights movements from within and outside Zimbabwe made numerous calls to the government of Zimbabwe to observe the rule of law through protecting, promoting and respecting human rights. The Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group also condemned the Zimbabwe government for the human rights  abuse and amid a worsening humanitarian crisis. All these violations took place notwithstanding the fact that Zimbabwe has ratified and domesticated all major international and regional human rights instruments with guarantees for human rights respect, promotion and protection.

Sadly, all these condemnations and widespread coverage of the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe did not yield any positive result. This brings me to the conclusion that the use of "targeted sanctions" by the western countries as a way to hold the Zimbabwean government account for its rampant abuse of human rights was a total failure. Truth be told, the sanctions regime  had a no demonstrable positive effect. Instead, the sanctions become an effective political tool which the Mugabe led government used to push for its continued existence in power. The Mugabe government actually branded sanctions as an imperialist tool used by the North for its continued hegemony over developing and less powerful states and that Zimbabwe was the latest victim of these imperialist machinations. Further, the sanctions regime became a useful tool for government to stifle any local human rights movement which tried to hold the government to account for the human rights violations - the movement was quickly labelled as imperialist agents used by the West sponsored to effect regime. Sadly, the human rights movement failed to come up with intellectually coherent arguments to counter the assertions of the Mugabe government.

These targeted sanctions regime against Zimbabwe can be characterised as a confrontational approach to dealing with human rights issues. Given the experiences of Zimbabwe, it becomes unassailable that the confrontational approach of the human rights movements is seriously fraught with challenges in its quest promote the human rights agenda. The generality of the Zimbabwean population was actually left in a more precarious position than it was before as a result of the standoff between the ruling elites in government and the West. Instead of the government to acquiesce for the human rights violations, the government actually became defensive. The resultant effect was the prolonged suffering of the ordinary people as there was a serious shortage of the basic commodities a dysfunctional health system and a hyperinflationary climate that eroded the life savings and income of the people. The human rights movement's implied support of the targeted sanctions regime and its confrontational approach failed and actually undermined the efficacy of the human rights agenda as a bastion for democracy and rule of law.

Lack of ingenuity on the part of the human rights movement in confronting the Mugabe led government's human rights violations also caused a total failure of the human rights agenda. The human rights movement's tactic of naming and shaming of human rights violators did not yield any positive result. In fact, the naming and shaming strategy is no longer an effective weapon to hold violators especially dictatorial regimes. This was aptly demonstrated in the context of Zimbabwe where names of high ranking senior government officials were splashed in various print and digital media across the world thereby attracting serious condemnation, but this did not change the situation the ground. A bad human rights reputation cannot be changed simply by naming and shaming of the alleged violators. Instead of confrontational approaches, cooperation mechanisms  proved to be effective. The cooperation approach to the human rights agenda proved to work as evidenced by the signing of the power sharing agreement between the major political parties in the Zimbabwe thereby bringing some form of stability to the country in 2009.

This process further culminated in the promulgation of a new Constitution of Zimbabwe in 2013 which now has an expansive and justiciable bill of rights which espouses both civil and political rights and social economic and cultural rights. More so,  the new Constitution created several independent commissions which are key to the human rights agenda, chief among them being the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. All this could not have been possible had the human rights movement continued on its confrontational trajectory. It is a lesson which all human rights lawyers ought to be cognisant of, that confrontation does not always work. In certain situations human rights lawyers should be adept to design strategies that take into account the conditions in the different jurisdictions they find themselves operating in should they want to produce positive results.

Another key aspect which has confronted the human rights movement in Zimbabwe during the stated period was funding. Many human rights organisations were (and still are) externally funded. This has had serious negative impact on the way the human rights movement has operated (and still operates) especially their legitimacy and genuineness in the eyes of the government. It has to be acknowledged that external funding, especially from the Western countries,  always come with conditionalities. Many a time these conditions were viewed as inimical to the needs and interests of the local people. In the ultimate analysis, the human rights movement ended up being labelled as imperialist agents of the West with no  national interests. The lack of domestic funding for the human rights movement has, therefore, militated against the human rights agenda and its dependency on funding from countries that had isolated Zimbabwe through sanctions made it difficult for the movement to hold the government to account for the rights violations.

Lack of coordination  and collaboration among human rights movements also affected the its intended objectives. Due to stiff competition for funding from the Western countries, the human rights movement was rather focused on its own survival as opposed to promoting human rights of the generality of the Zimbabweans. Due to resource limitations, the human rights movement became so urbanised and operated in the cities with no presence or contact in the rural areas where the serious violations of human rights were occurring. This affected their legitimacy given the fact that the movement was out of touch with the social base in need of protection. In short, the human rights agenda did not reflect the material interests of the rural communities which were more focused on their livelihoods due to grinding poverty as opposed to what the movement was propagating.

Pursuant to the above, there is no doubt that sanctions no matter their characterisations such as targeted or what have no justification whatever. As history has shown, they never affect the politicians but the ordinary persons in the street, in the rural areas and those with no political power or muscle.

Now briefly to the role of opposition political parties. While it is acknowledged from an international relations point of view that there is indeed need for international cooperation among political movements, an opposition political party should have its allegiance to its citizens. As such a political party is at liberty to form alliance with like minded entities but for the greater good of their countries but there is always there is always wisdom in seeking the partnerships and advice from the like minded institutions which could be explained by the fact that so much was said in the social media that the opposition ought to have first consulted the regional bloc before going beyond the continental bodies. As an entity with an alternative strategy for governance and aspiring to offer better human rights conditions, it should be classified as a human rights political movement and as such should by all means work for the greater good of the country. The sacrificial use of the general population in the pursuit of political power should never find justification especially the engaging of foreign powers to impose economic embargoes on the ruling elites as this will only cause the suffering of the population and not those in power. Doing so will also result in the political movement losing its relevance on the national political landscape much to the detriment of the ideals of a multi party democracy system.

I have so much respect for the law eminent jurists and being someone with no firsthand account of the deliberations that took place in the US apart from the social media discussions, I hope it was in the spirit and greater good of the country. In all their dealings they should be cognisant of the fact that that a movement that does not attract the support of the section of society it seeks to promote will fail as the experiences stated above can show.