Author: Catherine L. H. MacKenzie
Publication Date: 8 March 2021
Abstract: This paper takes a case study approach to explore sources of restraint on state political violence. It explores a period when violence by the Zimbabwean state was widespread, but not absolute, and when various forces sought to restrain violence.
This paper identifies a series of dualities underlying issues of violence and restraint by the Zimbabwean state. It finds that the ruling party was concerned to retain legitimacy as well as power and that this conflicted dynamic provided the basis for both the targeted use of violence and a degree of restraint. It notes that violence was used both to suppress opposition and to mobilise support, and drew on patriotic narratives around the ruling party’s role in the liberation war. Restraint from violence reflected political and practical considerations, and varied according to the regime’s sense of security.
This paper finds that state institutions of law and order were largely co-opted by the regime, but that remaining elements of independence and professionalism may have provided a degree of restraint. It suggests that challenges to state violence by non- state actors elevated the regime perception of threat and did not prevent the use of violence, but did draw critical international attention.
This paper suggests that the gulf between regional and Western responses to state violence in Zimbabwe reflected their conflicting perspectives on issues around human rights and sovereignty, and the colonial legacy. It found no evidence that either regional ‘quiet diplomacy’ or Western condemnation and sanctions had direct impact in preventing state violence. Nonetheless, it notes that the Zimbabwean state was concerned to avoid united international condemnation and the risk of military intervention and that this may have been a factor in restraining the severity of state violence.
This paper suggests the need for further research into state decision making around the use of violence and restraint.