Talk:Politics of Zimbabwe

NPOV

Quote: "supposedly a multiparty parliamentary democracy, Zimbabwe is in reality a dictatorial single-party system" Not really NPOV, is it? Perhaps "officially a multiparty parliamentary democracy, Zimbabwe is suspected by many to be a de facto dictatorship". There may be others, I haven't looked. -FunnyMan 23:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the section on the crisis of democracy and the rule of law. While it is a rough first attempt, I believe it increases the accuracy of the page, without which it would create an impression of a currently democratic country. While there are a few within the Zimbabwean government who may challenge the truth, I believe it is uncontroversial enough to say that there is a crisis in Zimbabwean politics and the norms of democratic governance no longer apply.

I'd support someone cleaning up the text, but would strongly oppose a page that does dicusses the politics in Zimbabwe without identifying the current crisis and break down in democracy.

I would use psuedo democracy rather than dictatorial single-party system. While the government government has implemented a policy of singe party rule, they have done so by subverting the democratic process, rather than replacing it. Opposition members of parliament are elected, albiet in flawed elections, and while not able to work safely without fear of attack, arrest or harrassment, they can attend parliament and vote.

What you have just said is unbeleivably biased. Single party rule? The government is not implementing a "single party rule". This idea that the opposition is "not able to work safely" because of election violence is implying that the voilence is directly implemented by the state. the "current crisis and break down in democracy" is unbeleivable POV based. In reality, there is evidence to suggest this, but there is evidence on both sides of a violence problem. This issue is very complex, and there is a lack of evidence, but we cannot just state MDC fueled claims, which are supported by little evidence.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dave 25 June, 2005

Crisis of democracy

Introduction of the Crisis of democracy section has greatly improved the article - scope and content. Have done some further work, trying to remove POV and replace with descriptions that meet widely-accepted political definitions/references Humansdorpie 11:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is good enough to remove the npov tag, at least. It still needs some additions discussing the resurrection of the Senate (election date set for Nov 26) http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_1813501,00.html - Great work on all the Zim articles, BTW! Wizzy…☎ 15:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The new section is probably the work of a comparative politics student in the United States. Though it is outside my discipline, in the past I filled in for comparativists. Anyway, if the section were the abstract to an undergraduate or even graduate research paper, I'd say that the writer was on to a good start in that he or she is engaging in original research (testing or discovering new information or reaching a new understanding)-- the principal goal of an academic paper. Applying the framework of Jackson and Rosberg, two influential Africa specialists, in their influential 1984 work on personalism, the writer argues that Zimbabwe today best understood as a case of an autocratic regime based on personal rule. Applying the 1988 work of Larry Diamond (an influential senior fellow at the Hoover Institution focusing on democratization), the writer argues that Zimbabwe has seen a "slow regression away from many of the norms of democratic governance." I'd be hard pressed to argue against the author's theses. Nevertheless, what is insightful in scholarly research papers is insidious in encyclopedias, which are supposed to strive for a neutral perspective-- reporting research without making an original contribution to it. The section should be removed on the grounds of Wikipedia:No original research until it can cite recent research that just happens to come to the same conclusion as the author did on his or her own. It should be easy to find this research at Jstor by searching for key words and names such as Zimbabwe Mugabe "personal rule" "Jackson and Rosberg". Unfortunately, I can't do so myself at the moment, as I'm running shrot of time. 172 | Talk 11:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Author?

Was this article written by Ian Smith?

I was wondering that myself. I'm adding a controversy tag at the top, though this entire article may as well be deleted. I'm no fan of Mugabe myself, but this is . There is not a single sentence in this arcticle that is worth reading, in my opinion. EDIT - Well, maybe that's an exageration, but a lot needs to be cleaned up. There are very clear attacks on Mugabe here, and really, the facts should be enough to attack him, not childish name calling (politbureau) and mudslinging. - Kyle543 20:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Over-intellectualization and ignorance?

The last comment suggested 'politbureau' was namecalling. Does the writer not know that the Politbureau is an official component of the Zimbabwe Government? The comment prior to this suggests that "slow regression away from many of the norms of democratic governance" constitutes 'insightful scholarly research' i.e. advancing a novel theory and not constituting encyclopedic neutrality and therefore should not be present in the article. This is not theory. There is plenty of hard evidence that: 20,000 plus were killed by the Fifth Brigade in 80's (see Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace reports), systematic rape and torture of supporters of MDC has occurred (independent national and international press), and citizens, both black and white have been removed from land they have title deeds to. It is this indisputable evidence which resulted in condemnations of the Zimbabwe Government made by the UN envoy Jan Egeland in December 2005 after his visit to Harare and discussions with Mugabe. What is difficult to understand is that so-called liberal Westerners and their governments are hoodwinked by the military regime's smokescreen of democracy which together with misplaced pangs of guilt for a colonial past have the result of flaccid and ambivalent action against an oppressive regime which inflicts starvation and persecution on its own people. Does the CIA not realise that labelling Zimbabwe a 'parliamentary democracy' on its website both makes a mockery of its own information sources but more importantly reflects an inertia on the part of the USA, UK and Europe which costs lives?

          The politbureau is not actually an organ of the state, instead it is part of the ZANU (PF) governance structure, more a central committee for the party than anything else.

You have just stated that thousands of "MDC supporters" were killed in the 80's. The MDC wasn't even around then. It was Zanu supporters that were attacked. This issue has in fact been brought up many times in parliament. The government, rightly or wrongly, considered the supporters as a threat to national security, although no such massacre has ever happened to MDC supporters. There has been serious election violence recently, but the MDC claim that it is "clearly state-sponsored" actually carries little weight. There are spots of evidence either way, but due to the current situation of reporting in Zimbabwe, it can be difficult to determine who is the main cause of the violence, whether it is Zanu-PF, their supporters, MDC or their supporters.

This is besides the point, but I think this article should be less biased. A title of "Alledged breaches in democracy" would be fine, although we have to make sure people know that this is disputed, and give Zanu-PF opinions of the current system.

PS- I do not support Mugabe.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Skewed information

In my view it is quite clear that the article is highly skewed and could under no circumstances be regarded as neutral. This becomes evident if you expose part of it to a discourse analysis. According to such prominent researchers in the field as Fairclough and van Dijk, the modality in the text, the vocabulary used, and which information that are left out are useful tools in order to analyze the text. The latter left to the reader to fill in by his or her own choice ( a choice that is contingent, i.e. not totally free but based in the pre-understanding and cultural environment surrounding the reader) what is missing in the text. The modality could be about, for example, the claims of truthfulness made by the author. It is obviously different to write that, “Since the defeat of the constitutional referendum in 2000, politics in Zimbabwe have been marked by slow regression away from many of the norms of democratic governance”, and “According to the opposition and many Western governments, since the defeat........./. Let us analyse just a piece of the sentence, that begins “Independent newspapers have been bombed and closed down..”. Firstly, newspapers? Which newspapers? I suppose the article is referring to the bankrupt Daily News. Is this the case the right word should be newspaper in singular. Independent? Independent of whom? I suggest a more proper and neutral word to use is “private” newspaper. “Independent newspapers have been bombed”? Bombed by whom? The Government? Hooligans? The Muslims? The British? If we read the entire article it comes from the context that the scribe is alluding at the government as agent in this sentence, though it was never established who was behind the bombing of the printing works of Daily News in 2001. Which other newspapers in Zimbabwe have been “bombed”? The only thing I know is that after the bombing 2001 some Scandinavian institutions allegedly diverted funds from Sapes Trust, in some circles regarded as belonging to the Mugabe-camp, and redirect that resources to Daily News. “Independent newspaper have been./../.closed down”. Once again, closed down by whom? Regarding the closing down of Daily News, another Zimbabwean newspaper wrote “Political repression by the government also turned the paper into the voice of the "voiceless", but having gone through the burner, the Daily News went overboard. It turned more into an activist paper, pandering more to the whims of the international community than to its local readers. The paper started carrying more stories about itself and its staff. It ushered a new era of "persecuted journalists", and the more awards the editor-in-chief won, because he too was being "persecuted", the more journalists joined the fray” (The Insider, January 2003). A slightly different story, I would say. The direct reason behind the closure was that the newspaper refused to apply for a licence, required under Zimbabwean law, a law that may be called “repressive” but remember, even in Sweden it is compulsory to be licensed to start a newspaper. Long before the closure of the Daily News the editor-in-chief Geoff Nyarota was sacked mainly due to his economical mismanagement of the paper. Nevertheless, it does not stop him from traveling the world (on Scandinavian funds, I suppose) telling his version of the story. Last time he appeared in Sweden, the organisers implored the Zimbabwean ambassador to Sweden to take part in the meeting. The ambassador accepted out of both interest and politeness the invitation. The article that appeared afterwards in the organizer’s magazine was headlined “Mugabe’s spies are monitoring him everywhere”. The article then stated that in the first row of the meeting hall, there were some “mysterious” person sitting, sent out from the embassy to monitoring the meeting. The persons referred to as “mysterious” were the ambassador and her assistant. In the text Nyarota was quoted saying “I know they are reporting everything I am saying to Harare” I doubt, but should it be true it most be boring for Mugabe or his lieutenants to hear the same story over and over again… The BBC is relentlessly attacked by the government in Harare for disseminating lies about Zimbabwe. However, the background to Zimbabwe given on BBC’s website is far more neutral than the Wikipedia piece. My I suggest you swift that piece for a link to BBC pending someone writing a more encyclopaedic article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1064589.stm Your Sincerely Hans, Freelance Journalist, Sweden Feb 7, 2006

The crisis of neutrality is not a major problem, yes the article is biased, but in light of recent events there are few other options. In Zimbabwe, there are only two types of newspaper, the independent and state-owned. To say independent is honest. While it is possible that the bombing of the Daily News was not a state-sanctioned activity, it is very unlikely as the paper has applied for relicensing for the past four years and been turned down each time.--Economic.mip 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As Hans noted, you need to state in respect to what it's "independent". This keeps away vague notions that are without context and implies they may be otherwise dependent on other parties. Not all "independent" media are the same and the largest are generally tied to international financial centers in the West. What they publish tries to work in favor of the markets and "free market" policy, and the governments, organizations and institutions that further it, because they are owned by big or international investors. Granted the comment I'm responding to is from a few years back when a few things may have been a bit less clear (and we were still arguably under a media campaign linked to the Iraq war), but now the conflict between State opinion and private opinion is ongoing in practically any "developing" country and it's creeping into the "developed" one through the cracks of its crippled economy. All the politics related articles on Zimbabwe that's I've read felt really barebones and one of the issues here is the statistical reliance on private and Western media or online media that responds to that or is otherwise derivative. I mean, it's hard to gauge much of the actual political work and proposals of the parties past schizophrenic acts of the ZANU-PF or victimizations of the opposition. That's because for the most part, the media highlights the human rights issues in view of getting rid of or conditioning Mugabe for a more "democratic" alternative (that is, perhaps and with any luck a more democratic one, but certainly a more bursocratic one) and is not by and large interested in talking about what may be against its economic interests (when it does, it tries to put make implications look secondary or biased), such as the relative economic sovereignty of Zimbabwe from global market practices practically monopolized by the US and Europe. This article, for example, just cites The Economist, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (a Western media charity formerly chaired by the chairman of The Financial Times) and United States Institute of Peace, an institute tied to the US government. Who is like God? (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1980 Constitution?

Does anyone know where I could get a pre-1980 Rhodesian Constitution? I understand there was a new constitution in 1961, or thereabouts, and then again about 1972, and I suppose there must have been yet again in 1979. I would very much like to have a copy of any of these. If someone could post here, or tell me where I could get one, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. (unsigned comment added by User:218.189.76.4)

How to get rid of Mugabe

This is a very good article from The Telegraph [[1]] about how he can be ousted. The author concludes that internal pressure will not work as the clique of generals are benefitting too much from him. It is concerted external pressure from the international community that is the only solution. Ivankinsman (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite and expansion needed

Ugh. This article is not only rather biased but very poor on information content. The main Zimbabwe article actually tells the reader more. Need to do something about that... Babakathy (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Disputes about NPOV aside, there seems to be nothing here about the recent changes whereby the opposition leader was appointed prime minister. Surely this has rather changed things, and deserves some discussion. john k (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of Zimbabwe" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehelpfulbot (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Politics of Zimbabwe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605020414/http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/ar/ar_ze_018_1_eng.txt to http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/ar/ar_ze_018_1_eng.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Politics of Zimbabwe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060322140727/http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr92.html to http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr92.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)