On Wednesday of this week, soldiers from the Zimbabwe National Army seized control of the capital Harare in a coup like event. While the military insists that it did not conduct a coup, their actions bear all the indications of a military takeover. They broadcasted a message over state TV, purportedly placed President Robert Mugabe and his family under house arrest, and there are tanks on the streets of Harare. Mugabe is an autocrat and has repressed his people throughout his nearly 40-year reign; however, his (possible) ouster should not be seen as a triumph for freedom or democracy. Rather, it will only push Zimbabwe further down the hole of authoritarianism, corruption, and oppression.
However noble their intentions (and there are serious doubts about the intentions of this coup), coups rarely create a freer society. They simply create instability. Take Egypt’s 2013 coup in which popularly elected President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office by the military after a series of unpopular constitutional changes. The coup was supposed to give Egypt a fresh start and new elections. But, if anything, the country is less stable and more autocratic than it was before. The economy is in shambles, the government repressive, and it seems unlikely Egypt will be holding free and fair elections any time soon. This pattern holds true across the world. Since the Cold War, 60% of coups have resulted in regimes that more autocratic than the previous government or simply shuffled the previous leadership around. Even failed coups result in more dictatorship. Repression also tends to increase after coups as the new government tries to assert control or the original government’s attempts to reassert it. Coups, especially in countries with histories of dictatorships, rarely bring democracy. They instead bring increased authoritarianism, repression, and violence.
Zimbabwe’s coup is particularly unlikely to bring positive changes to the Zimbabwean government. The coup’s leaders, Generals SB Moyo and Constantine Chiwenga, have made their reasons for the coup relatively clear. On Monday Chiwenga held a press conference in which his offered veiled criticisms of Mugabe’s decision to dismiss former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa and said that the army would “not hesitate to step in … when it comes to matters of protecting our revolution,” indicating that the coup took place because of Mugabe’s decision to fire Mnangagwa. Mnangagwa, however, is no saint. He was the head of the spy forces during the 1980s when the government massacred thousands of an ethnic minority group that supported an opposition political party and was the brain behind the government’s crackdown on the opposition in 2008. If Mnangagwa were to gain power, not an unlikely proposition at this point, it is unlikely if not impossible that he would grant more freedoms to the people. Zimbabwe’s only possible paths, at least in the near future, are with autocratic leaders.
Coups are often seen as a sign of hope, but they rarely deliver on their promises, and yesterday’s in Zimbabwe will likely be no exception. Power will be shuffled or transferred to a different dictator, but little real change will actually occur. Even if Mugabe regains power, we will likely only centralize his own power in order to regain control of the country. Zimbabwe will remain in the hands of an autocratic government for the foreseeable future. However tempting idealism is, it is rarely pragmatic in the face of, well, pragmatism.
Liberal Talking Head 