ADVERTISEMENTS:
This article provides information about the contemporary political scenario in Zimbabwe:
Zimbabwe is a de jure multiparty democracy with a 150-seat House of Assembly, of whom 120 members are elected in the constituency election every five years. The remaining 30 seats are allocated by the President to non-constituency MPs and District Governors.
Image Courtesy : blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeatworld/files/2013/04/zimbabwe.jpeg
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The President is elected by a separate presidential vote, which has to take place every six years. As expected, Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) won an overwhelming majority in the March 1995 general election; and the incumbent President, Robert Mugabe, faced only minor opposition at the presidential polls.
Although Zimbabwe is a de jure multiparty democracy, there are only four members of the ruling party in Parliament. At the time of its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe was characterised by a highly inequitable distribution of access to and ownership of resources. The skewed distribution of income and ownership of economic assets including land, housing, business and other wealth instruments was compounded by acutely uneven access to social services including education and health. The most apparent aspect of inequity was its racial character.
Thus, the legitimacy and power base of the government was built not only on a nationalist and anti-racist platform, but also on an explicit commitment to a change from capitalism to socialism. This commitment established an agenda that sought to redress social, economic and racial disparities, and to further extend the state’s policies by reducing the power and influence of the private sector. Despite the socialist rhetoric, the extent of change including change in ownership was in fact quite limited. Government focused its attention on wage and price controls, and social services, mainly in the spheres of health and education.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The productive sectors were not compulsorily taken over, rather state takeover of enterprises through voluntary disinvestments, or state participation in new ventures, defined the operating policy of the early post-independence era. As the 1980s progressed the gap between the socialist ideals of the government and its policies increased steadily. Since 1991 the government has been implementing an IMF and World Bank supported economic structural adjustment programme (ESAP). It is now clear that Mr. Mugabe himself and nearly all of his government are fully committed to the new path of structural adjustment.
These changes have led to a visible and functional pluralism in Zimbabwe, supported by a vigorous alternative to the government-controlled media. There have been no serious moves to suppress the alternative press, or any legitimate pressure group for that matter, and in recent years a number of key private sector lobby groups have become increasingly successful in influencing government policy.
Constitutionally, Zimbabwe is already a multiparty democracy so no changes can be expected there. However, ZANU-PF continues to completely dominate national politics and there is no apparent prospect of a political challenge to the ruling ZANU-PF party. As for Mr. Mugabe himself, he has managed to consolidate his position as both party leader and national President and there is no one within or outside the party who appears close to challenging his position.
The 1990s evidenced a warming in relations with the West in part because of the supportive role played by Zimbabwe as chairman of the U.N. Security Council during the Gulf war. In a departure from its past condemnation of Western intervention in developing countries, Zimbabwe supported the condemnation of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and voted in favour of military intervention.
Zimbabwe also received international approbation by offering troops to support the UN peacekeeping effort in Somalia and by helping to prevent a potential standoff between the developing world and the West in the Security Council. Although the country can hardly be said to be free of corruption, it has in general managed to avoid the large-scale and systematic forms of corruption found elsewhere on the continent. Most published country risk ratings assign low risk factors to Zimbabwe for political risk.