Summary
The initial investigation of this paper is to determine whether post-colonial statist theory offers an adequate and appropriate assessment of the process of de-legitimation using human rights as a yardstick to measure development. The paper rejects the statist approach as a perennially conservatist assessment, incommensurate with the desire by people to enjoy individual rights and freedoms in dictatorial or authoritarian regimes which fails at an appreciation of the progress that accrues with embracing human rights. It is the paper’s contention that post-colonial statist theory follows an undue consideration of human rights and democratic governance. The research employs an alternative interpretation of de-legitimation using the case of Zimbabwe to read outward from conventional post-colonial statist theory and radical universalism. Subsequently, the paper offers an alternative view that moderates the realms of realpolitik yet embracing the universalism of human rig
Paper Organization
The paper is structured in five chapters with the first premised on the definition of terms exploring the process of de-legitimation as well as constructing what constitutes de-legitimation in international politics.
The second chapter is an interrogation of the theoretical interpretations of de-legitimation using post-colonial statist theory and radical universalism. This chapter features a critical examination of the work by Ranger and Vaughan representing post-colonial statist theory pitted against radical universalism which argues that all humans are equal and universal and that historical and cultural differences cannot be determinants against universalizing human rights. The third chapter is devoted to empiricism featuring Zimbabwe as the main case study while global examples are referred to in general. The fourth chapter is devoted to research findings and prominent arguments that have been featured in debate. This chapter also states an alternative model of analyzing the process of de-legitimation process arguing that the two positions (post-colonial theory and radical universalist interpretation of de-legitimation) are not mutually exclusive but can be complementary development approaches and that the paradox of universalism and realpolitik may be apparent than real.. The last chapter is the conclusion which draws a balance sheet from the theoretical and empirical contestations in the paper reasserting the main research thesis that the process of delegitimizing authoritarian regimes cannot be adequately dismissed as a neoliberal enclave that seeks to perpetuate the economic and political dominance of the developed world over the developing nations and opening up a hive of other possible areas in international relations in relation to human rights and the de-legitimation process such the importance of the year 1948 in international relations and human rights.
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter seeks to define the key terms that shape the scope of the research and will concentrate itself to the definition of delegitimation in international politics. Given the absence of a clear definition and limited literature around the concept under study, a derivation from the widely written and discussed legitimation processes will be used to construct a meaning and attach as well as interpret the process of delegitimation.
The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came with the concept of legitimacy of the state as it related to its citizens. Increasingly states that fail to embrace, conform and accord their citizens human rights were seen as illegitimate dictatorship regimes especially with respect to those that ratified and were member states of the United Nations. Nations that are in a transition to democracy are often faced by the challenge of legitimation. Similarly post conflict nations undergo a restructuring of internal institutions and develop them to be in sync with internationally accepted standards (which standards are can be equated to a comprehensive Bill of Rights that is in sync with the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the observance of the rule of law). Papagianni (2008: p.49) offered a limited definition of legitimacy referring to it ‘as the normative belief of a political community that a rule or institution ought to be obeyed.’ However, Frank quoted in Papagianni (p.49) offers a convincing explanation to what state legitimacy entails and describes it as when rules are upheld and there is collectivization of decision making from both the governed and government. This definition of legitimacy can be said to be in tandem with democracy. Though convincing the definition also fails to capture international perception on particular regimes’ interaction with their citizens. Wilson (2001: p.17) notes that legitimation often entails the legitimacy of the justice delivery system and constitutionalism to ‘acceptable’ international norms. Wilson p. 18 notes that the challenge of legitimation cannot be confined to adherence with the rule of law especially in respect of nations that have authoritarian laws and constitutions. While there are numerous scholarly articles written on the process of legitimation there is limited literature on what de-legitimation entails in international politics.
Having explored the debate around legitimation as a practice in international politics, it is important to use the definitions and scope above to construct a definition of delegitimation in international politics. Delegitimation can be summarized as an act of revoking the legal status of a regime thus making it invalid, illegal and unacceptable in this particular research the yardstick of measure is adherence to human rights. It is the failure to adhere to a set of ‘universal’ norms such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that often leads to the international community applying a set of measures to restrain a regime from further committing human rights violations. Individual western countries and their regional blocs such as the European Union have been at the centre of embarking on delegitimation of authoritarian regimes though other non western states have also taken the same action such as the position of Kenya towards the Idi Amin administration in Uganda. The UK Government website explains that the EU arrives at delegitimation following a Common Position by member states on a particular case. On the same note Botswana has taken measures to delegitimize the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. Doxey 1996: p.1 notes that the United Nations though its Security Council has also carried out a number of delegitimation actions on regimes such as the Ian Smith regime in Southern Rhodesia from 1966 to 1979 (now Zimbabwe) and the apartheid regime in South Africa, Iraq, Libya, Angola and Liberia among others.
The process of delegitimation often entails but is not limited to the application of sanctions on authoritarian regime members and their commercial enterprises, travel restrictions, military support for opposition movements, military interventions, no fly zones as well as broad based sanctions targeted at the nation in question. The UK Government website explains one aspect of delegitimation in the form of sanctions thus; ‘Sanctions and embargoes are political trade restrictions put in place against target countries with the aim of maintaining or restoring international peace and security.’ The European Union website further explains its position regarding governments that violate human rights noting that to influence policies violating international law or human rights, or policies disrespectful of the rule of law or democratic principles, the EU has designed sanctions of a diplomatic or economic nature.
The legal route can also be taken in delegitimizing regimes that violate international norms and conventions, this may involve an indictment on a seating president as is the case with the President of Sudan Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir who is accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as reported on the International Criminal Court website Case ICC-02/05-01/09. Two pre-trial warrants of arrest have been issued and member states are expected to ‘arrest’ him whenever he visits a host country and hand him over to the International Criminal Court for trial. Other heads of states that have been indicted at the International Criminal Court include Libya’s former leader Muammar Gaddafi and Cote d Ivorie’s Laurent Gbagbo. For the purposes of this research this paper will not look at the effectiveness of the legal route.
As a process, and in theory, delegitimation isolates a regime with a view of restraining further violations though post colonial theory accuses the process of being driven by an ‘artificial’ regime change agenda. The debate shall be explored into greater depth in the following chapters.
Chapter 2
The preceding chapter has developed a definition of delegitimation and what it entails also giving examples of the different tools employed by the both individual states and international community. This chapter is devoted to the theoretical frameworks that have shaped debates in interpreting foreign intervention, also applicable with delegitimation, in cases of human rights abuses.
Theoretical Framework
The basis of refutation of the orthodox radical post-colonial statist interpretation of de-legitimation is its incompatibility with an ever changing citizenry that is demanding to enjoy the fruits of majority rule and human rights previously suppressed in colonial epoch. The research is located within post-colonial theory but chooses to take a liberal view by challenging radical notions in cultural relativism and realism and on the same page questioning radical universalism.
Broadly, this paper is a contestation rooted in two theoretical frameworks, that is, the place of human rights in international society and political realism and cultural relativism ‘which challenge the idea of international human rights policies.’ In particular a contestation of the cosmopolitan model is preferred in the succeeding arguments which Donnelly (1998: p.28) describes as focusing on the idea that the individual comes before the state. Implied is that individual rights are seen as sacrosanct and state power and sovereignty is lessened in respect to human rights.
The model represents the universality of human rights and can be said to be the basis for de-legitimation in the case of violations giving the international community both moral and jurisprudential obligation to intervene in states that are deemed to be denying their citizens human rights. This model is largely criticized within post-colonial theory as a means by which the West continues to exercise neo-liberal tendencies over the South. There is, therefore, a need to create a contestation with the traditional statist model which (Donelly 1998: p.28) sums up as the idea that the human rights cannot and should not be a universalized sphere and the international community has no obligation to act on behalf of human rights in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
P. Ahluwalia, (2001: p.86) wrote extensively analyzing the universality of human rights in Africa, noting that while human rights are a liberal doctrine their universality is now appreciated. He correctly notes that post colonial Africa is subjected to a lot of scrutiny by the international community using the Development Project organizations. Thomas quoted in Ahluwalia p.86 notes that ‘there is little doubt that the human rights record in sub Saharan Africa has been pathetic. This is particularly true looking at both the records of abuses as well as trials brought before the ICC. The nature of these cases, all include crimes against humanity and genocide.
Jack Donnelly (1990:35) quoted in Ahluwalia p.87 correctly sums up human rights as ‘irreducible moral value in each individual.’ Ahluwalia notes that human rights emphasize the individual rather than the community, and it is this emphasis that is a Western concept which is not in sync with the ‘African communitarian belief and values’ and that erodes state power. The distinction is then made between what can be considered as African human rights and the western or liberal notion of human rights. Ahluwalia notes that the difference is largely traceable on epistemology with human rights attributed to the 18th century philosophy in the west yet for Africa it is a concept that places the community at the epicenter. Implied in this distinction is that the African notion is closely knitted with the realist thought of the supremacy of the state over individual rights. Rhoda Howard quoted in Ahluwalia explicitly explains it as ‘the group is more important than the individual.’ The challenge of human rights is also seen as in contradiction with the demands of development as ‘development would require an interventionist state.’ Donnelly (2003: p.90) explores the radical positions between cultural relativism and radical universalism and attempts to differentiate them according to the extent to which they can be fundamentalist.
While this analysis is intriguing and offers sound benchmarks to a preliminary understanding of contestations in the discipline of human rights in international relations, the analysis omits an important aspect that this paper argues, that humans by nature have an intrinsic desire to enjoy freedoms regardless of geo-political locations and cultural historiographies. While it is true that different cultures and nations have a different notion on how the concept of human rights should be applied, the history of peoples (either in the West or post-colonial states) has been dominated by struggles to be free either as a collective or individuals, Douzinas (2000: p.70) traces the development of intellectual thought around the concept of human rights and notes that it was Hobbes treatise titled Leviathan that can be credited with introducing a disjuncture in political thought to a human rights approach. Douzinas p. 371 goes on to make a bold pronouncement, in a chapter titled The End of Human Rights, of the end of the discourse on human right which is replaced by humanism. Interesting to note is that this is a normative framework obviously envisaging a new political order in which human rights will be a non issue in international relations in a political order that has surpassed their development and are fully embraced. What is of importance though is the omission of the challenge from post-colonialism which still seems to grow in strength in their challenge of the discourse, a position that poses challenges to the realization of Douzinas’ normative thoughts.
Donnelly’s analysis also fails to grasp the recent trend in post-colonialism that advocates for economic emancipation at the expense of political freedoms exemplified by a common statement in the developing world that ‘we don’t eat human rights.’ Though this is a generalized view the eminence of it is that it challenges the West on whether they should be pressing for governments in developing nations to foster political freedoms or the West needs to tackle the burning question of loosening their grip and control of developing nations’ economies. This paper argues that the point of contestations or conflict between the West and the developing nations in general and Zimbabwe in particular has also been a case of the West calling for accountable governments that accord their citizens the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of democracy particularly in dictatorships while these calls are often dismissed as illegitimate given the historical colonial injustices and continued dominance of neo-liberalism in post colonial states. This, as shall be shown in the succeeding chapter, sums up the debate between the Mugabe regime and the West. Yet either economic freedom or political freedoms should not be used as a pretext to deny the other set of freedoms but when applied in wholesome human rights both political and socio-economic rights can be sufficient drivers for sustainable national and global development.
It is from these theoretical contestations that the next chapter will be devoted to test using an empirical study of Zimbabwe’s foreign relations with the West and analyze official government positions that cite neoliberalism at the core of severed relations as well as economic downturn.
Chapter 3
The preceding chapter has interrogated the theoretical foundations that shape an understanding of delegitimation represented by two seemingly diametrically opposed positions in post colonial theory and radical universalism. In this chapter using the Case Study of Zimbabwe, the paper employs empiricism to put to test the two positions to contest each other while laying the basis or foundation for new conclusions and approaches in interpreting the process of delegitimation inter alia the discourse on human rights in international relations. This chapter, therefore, directly looks at the Zimbabwe case with an indebt analysis meant at unearthing the reason behind the delegitimation of the Mugabe regime by the West using inter alia post colonial theory as proposed by T.O. Ranger et al. The chapter confines its research to the period between 2001 and 2013 though references are made to preceding years drawing a disjuncture in foreign policy engagements and relations. Relevant global examples also feature prominently in the discussion.
3.1 Post-Colonialism vs. Neo-liberalism: The Case of Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe is a former British colony which gained independence on 18 April 1980 following years of both diplomatic engagements and a protracted liberation war. In the initial years of independence the country experienced genocide also known as the Gukurahundi, that according to the Genocide Watch website (07/07/2012) claimed over 20 000 lives in the Midlands and Matabeleland provinces. Zimbabwe’s economy has experienced a rapid downturn from the late 1990s to present day. Two opposing explanations have been given for the economic misfortunes with the official government position being the result of ‘illegal western sanctions targeted at effecting regime change’ while the other position argues that the economic failure emanates from bad governance, human rights abuses as well as corruption.
The country has been isolated from the international community following a record of human rights violations cited from the year 2000 when the government engaged in forced seizures of white owned commercial land which also coincided with the formation in 1999 of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) which was to be the dominant opposition political party in Zimbabwe. The Mugabe regime has been accused of instigating violence against political opponents, its citizens and social movements calling for political reforms. Numerous cases of violations are cited in this chapter. In post 2005 elections the government embarked on an operation targeted at ‘cleaning the cities’ titled Operation Murambatsvina which saw the violent displacements of over half a million people. The opposition accused the government of targeted persecution of the urbanites given that they had voted overwhelmingly for the opposition. The Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe to assess the Scope and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina by the UN Special Envoy on Human Settlements Issues in Zimbabwe led by Mrs. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka 2005 p.32-33 shows that an estimated 650 000 to 700 000 people where directly affected by the Mugabe regime’s purge on urbanites who are considered as supporters of the opposition party MDC while over 2.1 million citizens were indirectly affected. This case is just but one of the numerous cases cited in this paper that represents gross human rights violations through violence, internal displacements, torture, and forced exiles. In this case the Mugabe regime is accused of having flouted Article 25 (1) which guarantees the right to shelter or housing.
European nations and their regional bodies imposed sanctions (travel restrictions on the government officials to western countries except on UN business, economic sanctions on commercial enterprises linked to the regime’s members, withdrawal of diplomatic missions, suspension from the Commonwealth, US Senate crafted ZIDERA among other conditions) as an attempt to restrain the government from further engaging in gross human rights abuses and foster democratic governance and observance of human rights. The government of Zimbabwe alleges that the actions by the West are tantamount to interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. They interpret the West as exercising its neo-liberal tendencies meant to reverse the ‘gains of the liberation struggle’ by supporting a status quo where the means of production is owned by minority whites.
The Insider quoted Zimbabwe’s Information Minister Jonathan Moyo as having dismissed the de-legitimation efforts on the Zimbabwean Government by the United States Senate through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act passed in 2001 as a racist piece of legislation. He is thus quoted as having said ‘America is not the policeman of the world and should leave Zimbabwe to determine its destiny.’ Inherent in this statement is that it rendered questionable the legitimacy of the de-legitimation efforts by the USA as well as a reminder of the realist perception of the international system and that Zimbabwe is a sovereign state and therefore the state and its constitution supersedes any international entity or organization. This statement gives insights to the thinking within post-colonial theory which reaffirms its commitment to non-interference by external forces in the internal affairs of states especially with regards to the way the West treats the developing nations. The argument is rooted in the history of the relations between the North and the South dating back to the eras of mercantilism, slave trade and colonialism which were exploitative to the African and tilted in favor of the West. In the same article Moyo is quoted thus;
The people don’t understand how a government that allows a genocide in Rwanda now wants to poke its nose into the affairs of Zimbabwe. The people don’t understand how a government that is playing ping pong while Palestinians are being gunned down by the brutality of Israel wants to get involved in Zimbabwean matters. More importantly, the people don’t understand how a country that does not want to apologize for slavery in Africa, a country that does not want to compensate Africa for colonialism, yet assisting Israel to get compensation, can poke its nose on the affairs of Zimbabwe.
In a similar argument President Mugabe also dismissed the sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain and European Union as illegitimate. The Age quotes President Mugabe at the United Nations Food Summit in 2008 alleging that United States President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared to have taken on the mantle of “Almighty God,” deciding who should rule and where. He further explained that they (USA and Britain) had created “a world of giants and international terrorists who use now their state muscle in order to intimidate us, (in which) we become the midgets.” While these remarks certainly confirm post-colonial theory fears on the neo-liberal tendencies by the West, it is equally important to look at the Zimbabwean case bearing in mind the human rights violations that characterize the political landscape in order to have an in depth understanding of the de-legitimation of the Mugabe regime. In a report compiled by the Human Rights Watch (2002: p.18) at least 829 cases of violence associated with the fast track land reform programme had been reported to the Commercial Farmers Union. This violence was directly associated with the Fast Track Land Reform exercise carried out by the Zimbabwe Government at the beginning of 2000. The idea behind the fast track land reform was to correct colonial land ownership imbalances to which, according to Chitsike 2003: p.7 about 15.5million hectares of the land was owned by 4000 commercial white farmers constituting 49 percent of the land in a population of 12.5million. However this paper is cognizant of the political motivation behind the fast track land reform programme in the face of dwindling support for the Mugabe administration which had also coincided with the formation of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change in September 1999 as well as economic downturn which had seen agitated masses (mainly labour) engaging in food riots at the end of 1998.
Writing for the Open Society Initiative, O. Tungwarara 2009: p.110 briefly analyses the impetus behind the EU sanctions on Zimbabwe by aptly noting that the EU’s 2002 decision to suspend budgetary support to the Zimbabwean government was made under article 96 of the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU signed in Cotonou in 2000. Article 9 of the Agreement provides for good – transparent and accountable – governance as a fundamental element of cooperation. If problems develop, article 96 provides for consultation between the parties in order to agree on measures to improve the governance conditions in the ACP country concerned. But if the consultations are unsuccessful, article 96 does allow for sanctions.
Indeed, article 96 sanctions have been imposed on a host of other ACP countries. Therefore, it is not correct to say that this aspect of the EU sanctions was motivated by an imperialist and regime change agenda that specifically targeted Zimbabwe. That the Zimbabwe Government violated the provisions of a multilateral treaty that it was party to through human rights violations cannot justifiably exonerate itself by applying statist postcolonial theory alleging the EU violated international law by intervention in the internal affairs of another state. In the same vein a shred of analysis is necessary on Zimbabwe’s suspension from the Commonwealth in 2002 and its subsequent decision to withdraw from the grouping in 2003. The Commonwealth has a set of political values and its overall mission is to foster democratic development in member states. The Commonwealth website explains that the political values were developed by member states heads of governments at their ‘biennial meetings (known as CHOGMS) in 1971 in Singapore and reaffirmed in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1991. That Zimbabwe’s political leadership voluntarily joined the Commonwealth and consciously violated the same code of conduct it took part in creating, ratified and hosted in 1991 is worth exploring. The Harare Declaration of 1991 had changed the focus of the Commonwealth from a non-interventionist approach to a ‘globalized’ agenda of fostering democratic development, human rights, good governance and the rule of law. What is ironic is that at its withdrawal from the grouping in 2003 Zimbabwe’s Minister of Foreign Affairs S. Mumbengegwi had cited that the actions of the grouping were tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs of other states.
Similarly, the Islands of Fiji were suspended from the same body in 2003. It is against this background that dismissing efforts at fostering democratic processes by simplifying them as driven by a host of neo-liberal agendas becomes unconvincing. The argument by ZANU PF that the de-legitimation drive by the West is underpinned by a regime change policy in which the United States and its allies (Britain, Commonwealth, EU and the United Nations) seek to impose a stooge or puppet government that will save their neo-liberal interests in controlling the means of production and ownership of land in Zimbabwe, degenerates in the first instance.
It is important to note that the response by the West to de-legitimize the Zimbabwe Government through US targeted sanctions in 2001, the United Nations Arms Embargo on Zimbabwe, the European Union Sanctions of February 2002 and the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth had equally been triggered by the violence that took place against both commercial white farmers and their Black African employees. The British Government website summarizes the reasons for the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe as emanating from the suppression of human rights, freedom of expression and absence of good governance. The official position is that the sanctions imposed on the Government of Zimbabwe will not be lifted until there is ‘progress’ on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The rationale therefore of the sanctions was that they would alter the unacceptable behavior of the government and those that presided over abuses.
3.2 Zimbabwe Elections and De-legitimation
One of the issues that have been thorny in the legitimacy question of Zimbabwe has always been around electoral fraud. It is important to first locate electoral processes within the human rights discourse in order to establish and link their relevance to the discussion. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
It is this article that has been used to delegitimize the Mugabe regime as an illegitimate and dictatorship regime on allegations of continuously flouting the people’s aspirations by rigging elections, use of coercive force as well as rampant violence on opposition parties. The West has maintained this position on the Mugabe regime since the year 2000.
The Genocide Watch provides a narrative of legislative developments that took place in Zimbabwe prior to the elections of 2002, these were largely measures put in place by the Mugabe regime to curtail freedoms targeted at political activity. In preparation for the 2002 presidential election, draconian laws were enacted by ZANU-PF, which made it virtually impossible for the opposition (MDC) to compete or campaign. An example was the “Public Order Security Act” (POSA), which gave the police power to arrest or use ‘minimum force’ on any public gatherings not sanctioned by the police themselves. Given the fact that Zimbabwe’s police force has been accused of its allegiance to the ruling party as a result of the absence of the principle of separation of powers, this stopped free opposition political activity. Another law enacted in 2002 was the “Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act” (AIPPA) which dictated the limits within which all forms of media could operate. This meant all material that did not sympathize with the ZANU-PF agenda was banned, effectively preventing the MDC from campaigning in state owned newspapers, television station or radio. These laws were enforced with a single purpose in mind, to consolidate the power of ZANU-PF and eliminate any possible threats to its dominance. In the same vein the Mugabe regime recruited and trained youth militias who have been accused of terrorising the electorate together with former liberation war ex-combatants. The two sets of laws are in contravention of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and have been cited as the legislative bench marks for violations of Human Rights.
The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition Report titled The Military Factor in Zimbabwe’s Political and Electoral Affairs 2012: p.9 presented an analysis of pre-electoral violence instigated by the state on citizens towards the run up to the June 27th 2008 elections noting that a total of 3180 cases had been recorded with the perpetrators being the military, police force, Central Intelligence Organisation, ZANU PF militias and War Veteran. All these institutions have a record of saving to preserve the Mugabe Regime by waging acts of violence and intimidation on the electorate.. It is these cases of violations of freedoms of political expression that have been cited by the West as representing violations of international law by the Mugabe regime. In all its deliberations on Zimbabwe the West cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the yardstick to gauge good governance.
Despite obvious differences on how illegitimate regimes should be treated between the West and the Africa Union and other Africa regional blocs there seems to be a level of consensus as the Zimbabwe elections of 27 June 2008 saw the delegitimation no longer confined to the West only but other African member states to the African Union charged that the Mugabe regime had not been elected by the people. At the Africa Union Summit in Addis Ababa Botswana urged the suspension of Zimbabwe from African forums because its participation would “give unqualified legitimacy to a process which cannot be considered legitimate.” The AU reached a consensus that the election as well as the government resonating from the result of the election was illegitimate hence efforts at facilitating a transitional agreement with the opposition parties. The position from the AU was a rather moderate stance compared to the Western stance which was quick to point out the tightening of sanctions while further severing diplomatic relations on the basis that their foreign policies guided by the need for respect of human rights they could not engage with nations or governments that violate the dignity of its subjects or citizens. This reaction by the two different entities is largely shaped by their orientations and can be abstracted to political theory of universalism and relativism which in their outlook exhibit the political nature of human rights.
In a similar development in the aftermath of the 2013 elections in Zimbabwe the West namely USA, Britain and Australia noted that they would not lift sanctions on the government of Zimbabwe as the just ended elections were not a true reflection of the people’s choice. On 3 August 2013 the US government through its Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement of disapproval to the elections of July 31st 2013 noting thus: ‘though the United States was restricted from monitoring these elections, the balance of evidence indicates that today’s announcement was the culmination of a deeply flawed process.’ Similarly other western powers such as Britain and Australia have maintained the same position that the Mugabe regime is illegitimate as its election failed international norms of good governance democracy and acceptable electoral practices. This move maintains the West’s delegitimation stance while the Africa Union endorsed the outcome of the elections. In the face of the international community the Mugabe regime still faces a legitimacy crisis.
In 2003 the United Nations sent its envoy to investigate the increasing reports on gross human rights violations in Zimbabwe and raised important question targeting how the government was treating opposition members, violent farm invasions as well as the dismissal of white judges from the High Court bench. In a typical post-colonialist response that Ranger embodies in his interpretation of state legitimation the government indicated that the Zimbabwe question was not technical but rather a ‘creation of the West’ meant at undermining the sovereignty of the state by the West which intended to continue its economic domination on weaker states. What requires investigation in this case is the extent to which a government can violate individual or collective rights of it citizens and at the same time blame it on neo-liberalism.
3.3 Rationale of Human Rights in the West: A Policy Issue or Selective Application?
It is erstwhile to unpack whether human rights are a policy issue in the West especially dealing with the European Union and Commonwealth while the same requires analysis when dealing with western individual states (Britain, United States of America and Australia among other) foreign policies. There is enormous debate on whether it is a policy of the West to cut diplomatic ties and impose sanctions on autocratic regimes that violate the rights of their citizens. Clapham 1999: p.627 examines the apparently invisible EU Foreign Policy noting that in 1996 it developed the Common Foreign and Security Policy whose Article J. 1 TEU states the provisions on either engaging or disengaging with international partners based on their human rights records. The provision also gives the same consideration to activities of Multi-National Corporations. Clapham argues that this foreign policy is not clear as it is not in the public domain to access information on whether human rights principles are a major pillar of EU and its institutions’ operation further pointing to the absence of transparency in this discharge of this policy, a position echoed by post colonialist who argue to the double standards of not only the EU but individual Western nations foreign policies.
Having noted the numerous actions taken to delegitimize the Mugabe regime, it is equally important to note that the same regime embarked on a military expedition between 1983 and 1987 that cost over 20000 lives. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in a report of May 1986 showed that there were a series of human rights violations that took place in the initial years of independence waged by either dissidents’ movement or ZANU PF supporters. The New Zimbabwe Forum notes that despite these violations the international community particularly the West remained numb in employing restrictive measures to the government. It is this scenario that also poses doubts on whether it is a policy issue for the European Union to discredit regimes that fail to uphold human rights. If anything Mugabe was to be later knighted by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II in 1994 as Sir Robert Mugabe, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath.
In similar cases the West has been numb and often accused of double standards when dealing with regimes that have had close ties with them, the Syrian case is an example where the West has taken a radical stance on the regime while the same cannot be said of its position on Israel which is accused of using atomic arsenal. as shown in a previous quotation by Zimbabwe’s Minister of information Jonathan Moyo that ‘The people don’t understand how a government that allows a genocide in Rwanda now wants to poke its nose into the affairs of Zimbabwe’ the West often falls short in its application of delegitimation initiatives. In Egypt the United States was accused of complicity in dealing with the Mubarak regime which was an ally (strategic reasons) yet they were quick in condemning the Kaddafi regime. Similarly the West is accused in its trends of dealing with the previous members of the Communist bloc with accusations of victimizing people from a different ideology; however the accusation does not hold much substance as the Zimbabwe regime was never part of the Communist bloc but maintained cordial relations with its former colonial masters soon after independence in 1980 until its fallout in 2001.
Chapter 4
The preceding chapter has clearly shown the tainted human rights records of the Zimbabwe government. It has also given the narratives of official foreign policy positions from both the West and the Mugabe regime presenting two different interpretations on the universality of human rights and western intervention in Zimbabwe. An attempt has been made to draw examples from across the globe, this chapter will lay out the research findings and develop policy recommendations on how the question of delegitimation can be integrated into mainstream post colonial theory as well international politics. Equally the chapter also proposes a human rights centered development approach that however continues to observe and safeguard state sovereignty.
4.1 Research Findings:
Having explored the Zimbabwe Case as a means to establish the motivation of delegitimation by the West particularly contesting the dogmas of post colonial theory and universal radicalism, the following are some of that can be discerned:
- Post colonial theory fails at an appreciation of people’s desires to be free and enjoy fundamental human rights. Internal political processes in which a government denies its citizens fundamental freedoms and rights often manifesting themselves in gross human rights abuses or violations cannot be blamed on external influence. Post colonialism has been found on the idea of cultural relativism with authoritarian regimes arguing that the human rights approach is western and lacks credence when applied to a different setting say in Zimbabwe as argued by the Mugabe regime. Brown 1999: p.103 interjects this argument by offering a more profound and acceptable analysis arguing that though human rights are a liberal notion they only make sense in ‘an ethical community’ and that perhaps it is time that the international system does not concentrate on the notion of universal but emphasis be given to the idea of doing ‘good.’ Authoritarian regimes therefore need to come to terms with an appreciation that intrinsic in humans is an urge and desire to be free and enjoy both political and socio-economic rights, and rather than hiding behind the pretext of external influences and so-called interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states this urge has been at the centre of historical revolutions against authoritarian regimes.
- Post colonialism tends to have more emphasis on historical pasts and conveniently ignores present short-comings of authoritarian regimes. The work by T.O. Ranger et al tends to concentrate on cultural relativism and the past short comings of the West particularly the exploitative nature of the North-South Relations tracing it to the era of the slave trade and colonialism. There is an overemphasis on neoliberalism in establishing a locus standi or moral obligation of the West in delegitimizing dictatorships in the South, which emphasis tends to erode the value of embracing human rights. The argument by Brown p.117 would be convincing; that the idea of cultural relativism is a tired debated as it tends to give immunity from criticizing longstanding cultures and traditions that violate basic rights. Brown further observes that the centre of discontent with post colonial theory is on the use of the term ‘universal norms’ but instead proposes that if the use of that term is problematic authoritarian regimes’ evaluations can be best understood using the term ‘good.’ Thus the west may need to revisit their approach in delegitimation actions or approaches p.120 as terms such as wrong and irrational are in appropriate while the term deprived would be more acceptable. While this is a worthwhile approach in dealing with regimes as it eradicates some level of animosity the question still remains whether the world should be economic with the use of words or semantics in delegitimation of regimes that deny their citizens fundamental rights. The value of the delegitimation in this case will be in doubt in as far as the motive is to foster democratic governance.
- An orientation towards socio-economic emancipation is not sufficient enough to undermine political rights and equal participation. Political rights and socio-economic rights should be seen as mutually inexplicable coefficients in which one can not sufficient exist in the absence of the other. Human rights consist of three generations however the categorization into three groups does not warrant their separation sufficient in development oriented states. Their division is more apparent than real but each should be seen to complement the other. By undermining the value of political rights post colonial theory slides into the initial western development model in which states emphasized development that saw the exploitation of the masses with a view that at a later stage economic development would usher political freedoms. In this way post colonial theory tends to replicate the foundations of western society that it sought to challenge. That the west underwent a historical period of exploitation of its citizens is not enough to rid it of propagating a normative discourse of human rights oriented development.
- In its attempts to foster an international system with a culture of human rights and democratic governance the West tends to exhibit double standards. This is normally the case when dealing with regimes that have close ties and are viewed as strategic partners such as Egypt yet when dealing with regimes that are considered radical and anti-West there is a trend in which harsh delegitimation actions are taken in the forms of sanction and at times military intervention. Clapham (1999: p.627) notes that in as far as the European Union treatment of cases of violations of rights is concerned there is a general outcry pertaining to transparency noting that the problem of transparency is further compounded by the absence of information in the public domain to make an application of human rights principles as a pillar of the European Union. It is these double standards that post colonialist would cite bringing into doubt whether it is standard procedure for the West to use human rights as a yardstick to gauge governance systems and their regimes in post colonial states.
- The West tends to battle with the legitimacy question in dealing with its former colonies. Regimes in the South often find post colonial theory appealing as it questions the legitimacy of their former colonizers who through colonial conquest were themselves involved in gross human rights abuses even after the signing and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in determining how regimes should treat their own citizens in the South.
- While post colonial theory falls far short of addressing the democratization and human rights quest in post-colonial states it does raise important questions on uniformity in the application of delegitimation. These questions do have a bearing on the legitimacy of the actions of the West, foreign policy positions as they put into doubt the existence of a universal justice order as other states generally are treated with a ‘soft spot’ despite the existence of evidence showing their government’s gross human rights abuse records.
- g. Increasingly, the west has come under criticism from post colonialism over its ‘war on terror’ operations in Iraqi and the Middle East at large after the United Nations failed to validate the existence of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons. This has raised an important question in international relations on ‘who will police the police’ the question arises out of what Doxey 1996: p.1 explains as the crisis of the veto power in the UN Security Council comprised of China, USA, Britain, France, and Soviet Union now Russia. She contends that from the onset this setting rendered immunity of the five member states, their allies and clients from UN sanctions. Needless to say that post colonial theory has been apt and vocal in questioning the criteria of arriving at the composition of the UN Security Council.
4.2 Policy Recommendations
Having laid out the findings emanating from this research, it would be incomplete to conclude the work without giving policy alternatives or recommendations. These may be erstwhile ideas in crafting a mutually acceptable international order. The following are some of the recommendations:
- The West on Double Standards, the west needs to work on its legitimation as well as developing a uniform framework that does not exempt its allies who have gross human rights abuses records. This entails a uniform application of delegitimation based on policy as well as reconsidering the constitution of membership to the United nations Security Council such that it embraces diversity in decision making and in composition has diverse membership. Needless to say the implied ‘exemption or immunity’ of the top five states and their allies from UN sanctions needs discarding.
- Human Rights as a foundation stone for development, post colonial theory should transform itself by accepting the fact that humans have an intrinsic desire to be free and authoritarian tendencies cannot be sufficiently justified and hidden under the banner of the threat on continued domination by neo-liberalism. This entails the appreciation of the value of freedoms, equality, justice and universal suffrage on indigenous peoples potential to be productive. The Zimbabwean case shows that the absence of the rule of law and gross violations have a negative ripple effect on economic performance and equally the same can be said of isolation from the international community.
- Cultural Relativism, culture often plays a critical role in how people are governed as well as defining their aspirations. The use of culture as a pretext to avoid universal suffrage is inadequate noting the ever dynamic nature of culture. Cultural relativity should be understood within the context of an ever evolving g society with new exposures and hence new demands. The culture of pre-colonial Zimbabwe certainly has been amended owing to external relations and can certainly not be the pillar of denying citizens universal rights. In a similar way culture has changed and so has the governance structure and systems changed. Cultural Relativism needs to be responsive to the new demands for freedoms and democratic governance. This response does not in itself entail surrendering national sovereignty. Attempts at creating a close knit between sovereignty and democratization by dismissing freedoms as a neo-liberal concept that undermine the state’s capacity to independent government in a hostile international system will only result in an argument that does little justice to the people’s quest to enjoy human rights. Douzinas p.70 makes an apt argument by noting that the abolition of the slave trade was a as a result of the re-interpretation of the notion of free and slaves which transcended the race aspect, in a similar way the notion of human rights should be viewed as transcending race, geo-political location and culture.
- Delegitimation means, international relations needs to pay particular attention to the question of what delegitimation methods are acceptable. This question is pertinent as it addresses the questions around uniformity as well as the effects of measures imposed on non complying governments. The paper is cognizant of the increasing argument of the ineffectiveness of military intervention and sanctions which tend to have crippling effects on the population than the intended offenders of human rights.
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The preceding chapters have explored the concept of delegitimation by interpreting it using the Zimbabwe case study as well as coming up with policy recommendations that may shape reforms in the international system. This chapter draws a balance sheet from the theoretical and empirical contestations in the paper reasserting the main research thesis and opening up a hive of other possible areas in international relations in relation to human rights and the de-legitimation process.
5.1 Summary
The research began by looking at what constitutes the process of legitimation and developed the opposite of what de-legitimation entails reaching a conclusion that it can be summarized as an act of revoking the legal status of a regime thus making it invalid, illegal and unacceptable in this particular research the yardstick of measure is adherence to human rights. The paper has highlighted the different measures that can be taken by both individual states and the international community in invalidating a regime that undermines fundamental human rights in regards to its citizens. These measures may include though not limited to sanctions, humanitarian intervention, military intervention, no fly zones, travel restrictions among others. The empirical evidence on Zimbabwe, with other cases being cited, has been used to establish the impetus for the West’s delegitimation processes on authoritarian regimes. In the process the paper has read outward from the conventional explanations rooted in post colonial theory. A conclusive position that agrees with Douzinas’ p. 70 statement that the universality of human rights can no longer be doubted has been arrived at thus promulgating a new paradigm on how post colonial theory should analyze the discourse on human rights.
5.2 Evaluation
The paper has developed an alternative interpretation of delegitimation arguing that it is not sufficient to dismiss the process as simply an embodiment of neoliberal encroachment given people’s desires to be free and enjoy fundamental rights. In so doing the paper has offered a human rights centered development approach that does not however undermine the sovereign state system which post colonial theory tends to prefer in a hostile international sphere. The paper has argued that granting citizens fundamental rights does not endanger the sovereignty of the state but strengthen its international relations as well as develops the capacity of its citizens to develop the national economy. The notion of fixation by cultural relativists has been questioned in line with the ever dynamic nature of culture. An intrinsic desire by humans to enjoy fundamental rights has been affirmed. In its findings the research has prescribed a set of policy shifts both in international politics and state foreign affairs departments.
The paper took a critical approach to de-legitimation processes analyzing the universality of the actions, possible implications and interpretations by different scholars and practitioners in infant democracies. While supporting the discourse on human rights the paper also raised questions around neo-liberal tendencies in the application by the West to the process. The research therefore has prompted questions on whether the use of human rights in either legitimizing or de-legitimizing a state seeks to stabilize a nation and has avoided reaching dismissive conclusions
The work by Ranger et al has been of particular interest in this research as their assertions were largely shaped within the African nationalist school of history in which they emphasized that de-legitimation of African states was largely the result of ‘neo-colonialism.’ It has been the preoccupation of this research to rethink these assertions within a context of human rights violations and people’s quest for freedoms and democratic governance. Interesting arguments have been cemented by the paper’s global outlook to de-legitimation than simply using the Zimbabwean case study alone. The paper also raised questions around cultural relativism and political realism in relation to internationalization of human rights and whether nations should act in the best interest of power at the expense of individual freedoms and liberties. It is against this interrogation that a balance sheet has be drawn on whether de-legitimation of authoritarian regimes is oriented towards achieving stability or is a de-stabilizing strategy seeking to achieve perpetual existence of neo-liberalism and an action tantamount to the interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
A clarion call has been equally made to post colonial theory towards a new paradigm shift as people’s clamors for equality and a state justice order that conforms though not necessarily surrendering sovereign authority to international norms. The work by Ranger et al on delegitimation, largely shaped by nationalist struggles for independence from colonial bondage, has remained static and risks being outlived by new discourses shaped by the ever dynamism of culture and new demands for political freedoms. The paper has argued that the two positions (radical universalism and post colonial theory) are not mutually exclusive but can be complementary development approaches and that the paradox of universalism and realpolitik is more apparent than real. Using empirical evidence the research has shown that the Zimbabwe Case (delegitimation of the Mugabe regime by the West) cannot be adequately understood from a post colonialist perspective given the gross human rights violations that the regime has inflicted on its people as well as drawing conclusions on the economic downturn. Though not specifically paying attention on the effects of sanctions as a delegitimation tool for authoritarian regimes the case study has shown that human rights abuses can be a catalyst to national economic and social de-development which can also be compounded by external sanctions.
The research has managed to critic radical universalism as a discourse that has been dismissed by post colonialism as a means of retaining and maintains neoliberal domination of the weaker states by proposing a definitive shift on the human rights policy in the West. The West needs to work on a blanket framework in dealing with delegitimation as a foreign policy issue that disregards alliances with authoritarian regimes such that uniformity is applied in the course of actions taken to strip legitimacy of regimes that violate international law. Cases in Egypt, Israel and Syria have been cited in this regard as representing contrasting policy positions.
5.3 Future Work
International relations will need to pay particular attention to the question of ‘what delegitimation methods are acceptable in international diplomacy.’ This question is pertinent as it addresses the questions around uniformity as well as the effects of measures imposed on non complying governments. The paper is cognizant of the increasing argument of the ineffectiveness of military intervention and sanctions which tend to have crippling effects on the population than the intended offenders of human rights abuses. Prospects around an independent United Nations Security Council’s decision making body are equally important to address given the outcry that it is overtly controlled and composed of Western Allies with the exception of China and Russia who are perceived as bringing a divergent view in the council’s deliberations. Given the histories of struggles for freedoms that shape the history of mankind such as the French Revolution of 1789, the widespread revolutions of 1848 in Europe, the first Chimerenga (war of liberation) in Zimbabwe of 1896, the Maji Maji Rebellion of Tanganyika among others, IR theorists may need to establish whether the discourse on human rights is a new concept that comes to life with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, that is whether the year signals a disjuncture in international relations or it is the fallacy hidden under the banner of internationalization. In the course of the research as highlighted above Brown offered a new way of engaging in international relations namely the revisiting of key terms that define delegitimation. The debate on semantics as pitted against practices may need further exploring in regards to its value in creating a mutually acceptable international system.
Bibliography
Ahluwalia, P. (2001) Politics and Post-Colonial Theory: African Inflections, Routledge, London
Bayart, J.F., Ellis, B. and Hibou, B.(1999) The Criminalisation of the State in Africa, The International African Institute in association with James Currey and Indiana University Press, London
Burton, D. (2008) Research Training for Social Scientists: A Handbook for Postgraduate Researchers, Sage Publications, London
Call, C.T. and Wyeth, V. (2008) Building States to Build Peace, Lynne Rienner Publishers, London
Chabal, P. and Daloz, J.D. (1999) Africa Works: Disorder as Political Instrument, The International Africa Institute in Association with James Currey and Indiana University Press, London
Chitsike, F. (2003) A Critical Analysis of the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe, [Online], Available: http://www.fig.net/pub/morocco/proceedings/TS4/TS4_4_chitsike.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2013]
Clark, I. (1997) Globalisation and Fragmentation; International relations in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, (2012) The Military Factor in Zimbabwe’s Political and Electoral Affairs,[Online],Available: http://www.crisiszimbabwe.org/attachments/article/307/The%20Military%20Factor%20in%20Zimbabwe%20-%20Part%203.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013]
Donnelly, J.D. (1998) International Human Rights: Dilemmas in World Politics, Westview Press, Oxford
Donelly, J. (2003) Universal Human Rights In Theory and Practice, Second Edition, Cornell University Press, London
Douzinas, C. (2000) The End of Human Rights: Critical Legal Thought at the Turn of the Century, Hart Publishing, Oxford
Embasy of the United State, Harare Zimbabwe, US Sanctions: Facts and Myths (2010) [Online], Available http://harare.usembassy.gov/sanctions_facts_myths.html: [Accessed16 May 2013]
Evan, T. (2005) The Politics of Human Rights: A Global Perspective, Pluto Press, London
Fishman, B.S. (2012) Delegitimation of Israel and Israel Attachment Among Jewish Young Adults: The College Campus and Other Contributing Factors [Online], Available http://jppi.org.il/uploads/Factors_in_delegitimation_of_Israel_and_younger_Jews.pdf: [Accessed: 22 May 2013]
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights and Democracy, The 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report: Zimbabwe (2012) [Online], Available http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/human-rights-in-countries-of-concern/zimbabwe/: [Accessed: 3May 2013]
Genocide Watch, Country Profile: Zimbabwe, [Online], Available: http://genocidewatch.net/2012/12/07/country-profile-zimbabwe/ [Accessed 19 May 2013]
Klotz, A. and Prakash, D. (2009) Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, (1986) Zimbabwe: Wages of War, A Report on Human Rights, New York,
Ranger, T.O and Vaughan, O. (1993) Legitimacy and the state in Twentieth-Century Africa, The Macmillan Press Ltd, London
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage Publications, London
The Age, Mugabe Attacks Bush and Blair At The UN Food Summit, [Online] Available: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mugabe-attacks-bush-blair-in-un-speech/2005/10/18/1129401224209.html [Accessed 25 July 2013]
The Insider, Jonathan Moyo Dismisses ZIDERA As Racist, [Online], Available: http://www.insiderzim.com/stories/2736-jonathan-moyo-said-zidera-is-a-racist-piece-of-legislation.html Accessed July 25, 2013
The UK Government Website, Sanctions, [Online] Available: https://www.gov.uk/sanctions-embargoes-and-restrictions [Accessed 12 July 2013]
The New Zimbabwe Forum, Why was Mugabe Knighted by the British, [Online], Available: (http://forum.newzimbabwe.com/index.php?/topic/53323-why-was-robert-mugabe-knighted-by-the-british/ ) Accessed 19 July 2013
The New York Times, Africa Union Calls for Settlement in Zimbabwe, [Online] Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html?_r=0 [Accessed 19 July 2013]
Tibaijuka, A.K, (2005) Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe to assess the Scope and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina by the UN Special Envoy on Human Settlements Issues in Zimbabwe [Online] Available: http://ww2.unhabitat.org/documents/ZimbabweReport.pdf [Accessed 21 August 2013]
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zimbabwe. (2012) [Online], Available http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AfricaRegion/Pages/ZWIndex.aspx: [Accessed: 15 April 2013]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [Accessed 16 July 2012]
Wilson, R.A. (2001) The Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Legitimizing the Post-Apartheid State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
61St Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Findings on the Human Rights Situation in Zimbabwe by United Nations and Regional Human Rights Bodies (2000- b2005) [Online], Available: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/ICJ%20on%20Zimbabwe.pdf [Accessed 19 August 2013]
africarethought 