Many argue that the Zimbabwean crisis is embedded in ZANU PF´s decades of economic mismanagement and state capture. At the same time, Zimbabwe is besotted by a severe crisis of governance that has given birth to political, economic, social, ideological, and humanitarian problems in the country. The colonial legacy also bequeathed severe problems to all post-colonial African states, and Zimbabwe is not exceptional. In Zimbabwe, the merger between ZANU and ZAPU to form the ZANU PF cannot be ignored when discussing the democratic development of the state. Zimbabwe's dominant nationalist ideology that guided the liberation struggle has become bankrupt. It has only succeeded in entrenching reflective thinking about the government and some Zimbabweans, particularly the war veterans, who are devoid of plans and a way forward for the country. The economic salvation of Zimbabwe and other crucial facets of development have been reduced to the politicized, violent, and partisan land reform program. In this article, I look at whether the Zimbabwean crisis is a political problem, public administration crisis, or both.
The politics-administration relationship has been an essential question in public administration since its inception as an acknowledged discipline in the late 1880s. The question of how to position public administration about politics bears important implications for both the intellectual identity and institutional development of public administration. In this piece, l will adopt Woodrow Wilson´s politics-administration dichotomy in explaining if the Zimbabwean crisis is either a political problem or an administration. In his seminal article “The Study of Administration,” Woodrow Wilson (1887) noted that the politics-public administration dichotomy is premised on the idea that public administration is somehow distinct from politics, and there is a hierarchical (superior-subordinate) relationship between the two. As construed by the dichotomy, politics is about policy making, a set of activities that involve explicit value choices. On the other hand, public administration is an instrument for translating formulated policies into concrete results through applying specialized knowledge and skills, that is, bureaucratic expertise. In this distinction, it can be deduced that, although politics sets the task for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.
Public administration in Zimbabwe is guided by the interplay between the legislature, judiciary, and executive arms of government. The legislature provides law-making and policy approval roles; the court reviews the legality of all government activities, while the executive provides decision and policy implementing functions. The legislature’s actions have a direct bearing on national public administration. Legislative approval and authorization are needed before any government policy is implemented. Legislative approval is also required before government funds can be expended. However, to understand all the detriments of this debate, it is crucial to point out that politics essentially answers the “what and when” questions. At the same time, public administration responds to the “how and why” of governance. We can further start the distinction between governmental political and administration functions by looking into the applicability of law and policies in public institutions.
In the constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), Chapter 9 provides a starting point, and section 194 sets the principles and values governing public administration. Although the constitution established the guiding principles, it is critical to note that law is not policy, and policy is not law; policymakers are mandated by the law to do specific duties and responsibilities to ensure good governance. At the same time, the law imposes red lights, which must bind policymakers and implementers. The constitution, the supreme document of the state, is the highest source of signposting and benchmarking green and red lights on politics and administrative activities.
Nationalism has lost its emancipatory appeal to the people. The threat of state violence has failed to silence the masses’ analysis of the current inflation, human rights abuse, and bankruptcy of the current government. Essential commodities such as meals, sugar, salt, petrol, bread, and cooking oil have become too expensive in Zimbabwe. However, Zimbabwe´spost-nationalist framework was beaten back by a radical, vindictive, and authoritarian nationalism. In the meantime, the embers of such post-nationalist politics are still burning. The advocates of post-nationalist politics include the opposition movements and other non-state actors who agree that the widespread consensus created by the nationalist movement in the 1960s and 1970s has served its purpose and broken down under the weight of new demands in the twenty-first century. What is needed is a new consensus emanating from the civil society, an agreement that is pluralist, democratic, human rights-oriented, people-driven, and centered.
Zimbabwe is caught on severely contested terrain in which a beleaguered state, presiding over an economy in severe crisis, nevertheless retains a critical mass of rural support through a combination of a populist articulation of the land question and the use of force to break an alternative political presence in the rural areas. A scenario that is likely to happen in the forthcoming 2023 watershed elections. The fundamental dimension of the current Zimbabwe crisis relates to the ideological contest between ZANU-PF and CCC in the context of a multi-polar international dispensation. This multi-polar dispensation requires a flexible and pragmatic romantic orientation amenable to the imperatives of globalization and democratization.
In my view, most of the crises in Zimbabwe are political rather than administrative, as the administration itself is a means to an end. Politics is central in determining who gets what, when, and how within the state. The state is trapped in an ideologically chaotic situation, which continues to generate an economic crisis, social strife, political conflict, and, more importantly, fostering uncertainty about the future on the part of the Zimbabwean populace in general. ZANU-PF is ideologically bankrupt save for the remaining populist rhetoric that has failed to revive the failing economy. On the other hand, the CCC, as a promising alternative, is trapped in a neo-liberal web and matrix, where it is finding it difficult to reconcile the specific ‘justice-related issues,’ like the land question that powerfully influences politics in former settler colonies, with the demands of neoliberal capitalism and globalization. Worse still, the CCC has not succeeded in projecting a clear, attractive, and pragmatic post-nationalist paradigm capable of rendering ZANU-PF’s exhausted nationalism redundant and, simultaneously, taking the peasants, youth, women, intellectuals, and other social groups on board.
Maladministration has continued to be perpetuated by the ruling party, which has gone ahead with its practice of endless amendments to the remaining constitutional structures. This has reduced the current constitution into an instrument of political warfare and a tool to consolidate power by the government. The existing constitution has been a shield for ZANU-PF regime protection and a sword against the main opposition. The government also introduced new draconian legislation such as the MOPA and Freedom Bill, further limiting the rights of citizens and not enhancing human security.
The perpetuation of the Zimbabwean crisis needs several solutions to be implemented by the broader masses of Zimbabwe. First, there is a need to ensure political stability in the country. This is critical given the adverse effects of the political crisis on the country's economy since the turn of the new millennium. A stable and predictable political environment would enable external investors to make meaningful investments in the country, ensuring quick economic recovery and growth. Given the risks, investors are generally unwilling to invest in a politically unstable country. Second and closely connected to the above recommendation, there is a need to build trust between the state and economic actors if Zimbabwe's economy is to recover and grow realistically. In this regard, there is a need for some consensus between government and economic actors on how the economy has to be run, so they both feel obligated to ensure its success. Finally, Zimbabwe must foster good relations with the international community.