Details

Written by: Diaspora Friend and full article by Ignatius Banda

Category: Zimbabwe

Published: 15 February 2023

Last Updated: 15 February 2023

Hits: 1070

An IPS article appeared in Africa.Com on 13th February 2023 clearly raising international concerns over proven intimidation as Zimbabwe heads into another Election later this year. The ruling party {A military Junta} has a long history of ensuring that they "win" these apparent democratic elections - however for the last 43 years the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that rigging of the votes, violence and intimidation seems to be the main election strategy of Zanu PF and its so called president - Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa his {false and propaganderised} profile is uploaded to Wiki by the Zanu PF regime - Read it Here Not sure if any of it is true, down to his date of birth!

In addition in the United Kingdom, their Home Office has an 'agressive' attitude towards valid Asylum seekers, fleeing the Zanu PF regime and its 'tentacles' in the diaspora. The Home Office claims that CCC { the primary opposition} can "freely" campaign in Zimbabwe. The article below and many, many before it clearly demonstrate that is DISINFORMATION. Shame on the UK Government for such a lack of empathy, and deliberate ignorance of the true state of affairs in Zimbabwe.

The article has been reproduced below and many thanks to www.africa.com and the author.

By Ignatius Banda

With political violence escalating in Zimbabwe, national elections slated for later this year face questions about whether the polls will meet free and fair international benchmarks. Zimbabwe’s elections have routinely met scrutiny largely because of what critics say is state-sponsored violence and the intimidation of opposition political parties. Recent weeks have seen violent attacks on opposition political supporters by suspected members of the ruling.
Zimbabwe African People’s Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) despite regular calls by President Emmerson Mnangagwa for peaceful political engagement among rival party supporters. The main opposition, the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), says its supporters have been brutalized by ruling party activists, with analysts noting that political violence is compromising the country’s stated commitment to holding free and fair elections.
In the aftermath of political violence recorded on a widely shared video last month where opposition party supporters were attacked, the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference (ZCBC) issued a statement raising concerns about the implications of such attacks on the credibility of the polls.

“As the nation heads towards the harmonized elections, we urge all political players to desist from the use of violence. The people’s fundamental rights should be respected at all times. There is no citizen who should be intimidated or coerced, and worse still, be beaten to make a choice,” the Catholic bishops said in a statement last month.

Read more: Election Intimidation and Rigging

Details

Written by: Thanks to Dr Pedzisai Ruhanya

Category: Zimbabwe

Published: 20 February 2017

Last Updated: 20 February 2023

Hits: 1005

Identity, procedures and performance: how authoritarian regimes legitimize their rule

Christian von Soest and Julia Grauvogel: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, Germany 2017 Full PDF here to Read in New Window

ABSTRACT Constructing convincing legitimacy claims is important for securing the stability of authoritarian regimes. However, extant research has struggled to systematically analyse how authoritarians substantiate their right to rule. We analyse a novel data set on authoritarian regimes’ claims to legitimacy that is based on leading country experts’ assessments of 98 states for the period 1991–2010. This analysis provides key new insights into the inner workings and legitimation strategies of current non-democratic regimes. Closed authoritarian regimes predominately rely on identity-based legitimacy claims (foundational myth, ideology and personalism). In contrast, elections fundamentally change how authoritarian rulers relate to society. In their legitimacy claims, electoral authoritarian regimes focus on their ‘adequate’ procedures, thereby mimicking democracies. All regimes also stress their purported success in proving material welfare and security to their citizens

The current research on authoritarianism has provided fundamental insights into the inner workings of non-democratic polities (for recent overviews see Art, 2012; Köllner & Kailitz, 2013; Pepinsky, 2014). However, even the growing body of research that differentiates between authoritarian subtypes focuses disproportionally on institutional features but largely ignores these regimes’ different legitimation patterns (for an exception see Kailitz, 2013), despite the fact that ‘even very coercive regimes cannot survive without some support’ (Geddes, 1999b, p. 125). Only recently have studies examined authoritarian regimes’ different legitimation strategies (Burnell, 2006; Kailitz, 2013). Moreover, research on authoritarian regimes has tended to rely on general assumptions about autocrats’ different claims to legitimacy that are insufficiently backed by systematic analyses. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, scholars have asserted that current-day authoritarian regimes have faced a fundamental ‘crisis of ideology’ (Linz, 2000, pp. 36–37), which, however, does not uniformly apply to all authoritarian regimes (see for example Holbig, 2013).

Likewise, the claim that autocracies ‘lack the procedures which link political decisions to citizens’ preferences’ and are thus ‘structurally disadvantaged’ to claim procedure-based legitimacy (Croissant & Wurster, 2013, p. 7) could be oversimplified, particularly with respect to electoral authoritarian regimes (Schedler, 2006). In order to address these gaps and to systematically study authoritarian legitimation strategies, we focus on regimes’ claims to legitimacy as a domestic means – vis-à-vis the ruling elite, the general population and the opposition – of securing authoritarian rule.

Six claims to legitimacy: Types of claims

Identity-based:

3. 1. Foundational myth
   2. Ideology
   3. Personalism
4. Procedures
5. Performance
6. International engagement

Read more: How Authoritarian Regimes Legitimize their Rule