International Affairs

Here’s a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on its key arguments and structure:

Core argument:

The central argument of this text is that Western states‘ responses to the 2017 military coup in Zimbabwe, by not labeling it in this very way and focusing on the 2018 election, inadvertently enabled the coup-makers and ZANU PF to maintain and strengthen their authoritarian system. The authors contend that this Western approach prioritized a superficial democratic process (elections) over the crucial need for military reform,which is the bedrock of Zimbabwe’s authoritarianism.Key Points and Supporting Evidence:

Initial Hope for Stability (2009-2016):
Formation of a Government of national Unity (GNU) with Robert Mugabe (President) and Morgan Tsvangirai (Prime Minister) after a period of conflict.
Signs of progress towards political stability: new constitution (2013),no coups,increased economic stability,reduced political persecution.

The 2017 Military Coup and its Reversal:
Mugabe ousted after 37 years in power.
The authors argue this reversed progress in accountability (vertical, horizontal, diagonal) and set Zimbabwe back towards authoritarianism.
Crucial factor: The political role of the military, aligned with ZANU PF, sustains the authoritarian system.

International Response and its Consequences:
Initial “acceptance” or “tolerance” of the coup by international actors.
Emphasis on a “reasonably credible” post-coup election in 2018 as a condition for legitimacy and aid. Critique: This emphasis on elections downplayed the urgent need for reform of the politically entrenched military.
Result: More authoritarian continuity than democratic change since the coup and 2018 election. Factors Strengthening ZANU PF’s Hold:
Mass emigration: Caused by weakening accountability and political persecution, which the government worsened by exacerbating a socioeconomic crisis.
Weak opposition: contributes to ZANU PF’s ability to retain power.
repression of civil society: Further enables ZANU PF’s authoritarianism. Critique of Existing Scholarship:
Studies on zimbabwean politics often fail to seriously engage with the role of Western actors in sustaining ZANU PF’s authoritarianism.

Paper’s Objective:
To analyse how Western states reacted to the 2017 coup.
To argue that Western states chose not to call it a coup for complex reasons.
To demonstrate how these responses allowed the coup-makers and ZANU PF to evade condemnation and gain a “veneer of legitimacy” through a problematic election.

Structure of the Paper (as outlined):

1. Ancient Overview: Provides background on Zimbabwean politics since independence, highlighting the deep roots of ZANU PF’s authoritarianism.
2. Domestic Factors: Examines how internal issues like declining civil society and emigration contribute to ZANU PF’s longevity and authoritarianism.
3. Western Actors’ Responses: Focuses on how Western states reacted to the 2017 coup.
4. Final Section (Incomplete): The text cuts off before detailing the fourth section, but it’s likely to synthesize the arguments and offer conclusions or policy recommendations.

In essence, the text argues that a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided international focus on electoral processes in Zimbabwe, following the 2017 coup, allowed the underlying authoritarian structures, particularly the military’s influence, to remain intact and even strengthen.