Political Freedom Is Economic Freedom: Rethinking the Good Life in Zimbabwe

I wrote before, on whether it really matters how long leaders stay in power if they deliver the economic progress the majority desires. What does it matter if Paul Biya rules Cameroon for 43 years, apparently winning every single election, provided he delivers what people desire economically (which he does not)? Or when Museveni of Uganda, who has been in power since 1986, asks Ugandans to vote for him again in 2026, because he has a few more projects to finish? (This was a manipulated video which made rounds on social media, but hypothetically the question remains valid.) 

The name can be replaced with a revolutionary party like Chama Chamapinduzi of Tanzania, Frelimo of Mozambique and ZANU PF of Zimbabwe, the question still remains. Provided that these parties and persons want to cling to power for extended periods of time, while distributing economic prosperity fairly to their subjects  (which they do not), would there be any problem? It is obviously telling how despite extended periods of stay in power, in some of these countries, millions still rot in abject poverty!

The question is; do people really care about democracy or what they perceive to be the consequences of living in a democracy (and are these not the same thing?) Also what do people think it means to live under a democracy? Economic inclusion; jobs with dignified salaries, access to resources to generate income and pass it down to family and children, infrastructural development, good schools and universities, functioning medical facilities? Or is it  tangible political freedom, free political participation which entails freedom of the press, free speech, free and fair elections, freedom of expression and the ability to hold leaders to account and punish them by removing them from power (not voting for them.) And should one demand and choose only one when they can have both?

While the answer to this question differs from context to context, in this blog I will discuss how political and economic freedoms are not as divorced as they are made to seem, and that in cases where they are thought to be, it would be better, for the average citizen, if they were harmonized. The good life must necessarily consist of both economic and political freedoms.

In this blog I will show you how while no system of government is perfect, people want or rather should want to (despite using different terms and interpretations) to live under a democracy than a closed system (authoritarian/ dictatorial) where success, in the form of upward socio-economic mobility,  is tied to a political identity, where only a few get to decide the fates of millions (but isn’t that just how the world works?). This position considers a good functioning democracy, democracy as an ideal, a virtue, that is being worked towards, to be lived and practiced once attained. 

You probably have heard this statement before, “Zimbabweans are not fighting against the system but to be included in it.” Two things to get from this statement:

(a) Prospects of success increase as a person aligns themselves with the ruling elite.

(b) There are a few alternatives available for people to succeed besides political connection, either in the private sector or by being fortunate enough to start a business or move to neighbouring countries or abroad or form informal start-ups.

I think (a) is important because contrary to popular imagination, joining a ruling party is not equal to automatic success, else every ZANU PF supporter in Zimbabwe, the 5 million, would be successful - painfully they are not. Upward economic mobility in closed authoritarian systems is not guaranteed by joining the party, in fact, it is not always clear why those who succeed do succeed. A few reasons could be; family ties to the party, personal success and wealth, commanding a huge following as a socialite or pastor/ prophet. Hence, I say, prospects of success arise, doors closed to the general masses are opened once you have something the political establishment covets and choose to align yourself with it. It is not only economic success that matters, but there are several perks that follow this alignment - like being above the law, the ability to oppress those beneath you and get away with it, a privileged access to state apparatus and funds etc.

Naturally, not all supporters or those who join the party automatically enjoy those perks, the organization would die.

Alternatively if you do possess something the regime wants (could be physical economic assets or intellectual or political ones), but are opposed to the regime, and thus a threat, you get oppressed and persecuted, like Besigye and Bobi Wine in Uganda, and Job Sikhala in Zimbabwe and other business people who refuse to play politics. Options that exist for such people is to move their intellectual properties and economic resources to different environments where they can flourish - think; Zimbabwean academics flourishing abroad, doctors, nurses, engineers etc. While popular thought wants to hijack this as Zimbabweans being hardworking everywhere, these people flee the toxic, intolerant and exploitative politics of the country. 

For a regular citizen with neither money nor influence, while the political establishment does desire their support (vote) and loyalty, the citizen is not valued in isolation, but as a very small part of millions. That is why you have voters bused from rural areas to urban areas to create an impression of a strong urban support, you have regular voters being awarded T-shirts, Food and other meagre prices for their loyalty. Secondly, that is why solidarity among millions is not permissible unless it is mediated by the party. If neighbors could stand up for each other against injustice, and governmental inefficiencies, they would topple the government. Hence the following strategy subdues them:

(i) They become installed as point of contacts for various projects of the political party aimed at enhancing support (and surveillance.) This entails positions in constituencies as secretaries, chairmans etc. Moreover, they are staffed into organizations which give the impression that their lives are being improved when they actually aren’t.

(ii) They remain where they are (poor and vulnerable), and by some lottery system (a very targeted political strategy), specific sections and people get the attention of the ruling elite. This can be seen in Zimbabwe with gifts of cars, wheelchairs, houses, pieces of land and thousands of dollars by state agents or appendages like Wicknell Chivhayo.

I suggest that (ii) is by far the most fascinating and intriguing strategy in the history of political clientelism. I spoke on December 2nd 2025,  on an X (formerly Twitter) space by CITE, about how this converts citizens from being rights-bearing and entitled people, into beggars or children anticipating the clemency of those in power. That by some chance they could make the president laugh and win a car, make their bum jiggle and get some money, or bump into Wicknell Chivhayo and be lucky enough to be handed some US Dollars. Moreover, this is a very psychological game which keeps the masses disciplined because it shapes how average citizens, and the most vulnerable perceive the role of the state. The state (and its appendages like the "Mbingas") become demi-gods whose mercy and gaze is equal to problem solving, not mandated responsible office bearers! And that is problematic.

This approach is problematic because it dwarfs and reshapes the reason why those in power act. Is it because they are obliged to (because they assume public office) or because they just feel like it, or it is necessary for political gain that they do so. It's best if they act because they are obliged to by virtue of being in office, if they do not want to devise policies to deliver economic improvement (education, health, shelter and other necessities included) then they should either resign or be punished by being voted out. Public office bearers cannot target social benefits towards people because they feel like it, because one, it's not their money being used, two, feelings cannot be regulated and having life saving/transforming funds being used on the basis of feelings is bad and unreliable.

Lastly, formulating policies that bring change because you want to stay in power (for political gain) is not entirely a bad thing, but can turn out to be very bad. If the most vulnerable are helped, or rather social protection is pursued only for political gain, what does this mean for constituencies and people whose political participation is inconsequential? This is to say, some regions have more voters, less voter apathy, and need to be won over by performative benefit schemes, while others, with vulnerable people, but less politically useful, are forgotten. For example, a number of the disabled people were recently given cars and wheelchairs by the President of Zimbabwe. Is that the best way to distribute social welfare for persons with disabilities? What about those .forgotten in Rural Areas, and the terribly low budgetary allocation towards social protection.

The same reasons can be explained for Mbingas, who are closely affiliated with the political establishment. They appear as both the state and not the state, through gigantic projects and donations, and this reshapes perceptions about the line between government and party - who the people should expect to help them. And if we conflate the two, the actions of the Mbingas are just as lacking in accountability and reinforcement of the principle of being rights-bearing and entitled citizenry. Hence you see teachers, police and soldiers in uniform kneeling, singing and begging Wicknell Chivhayo for cars or money and him meddling even in the administration of football teams he sponsors.

I have simply been trying to prove that political and economic freedoms are co-constitive; they mutually and dynamically shape and define one another, making them impossible to analyze as separate entities. For the most poor, and vulnerable, their deprivation is double stranded. It is political because their value is negligible, as they can only get the attention of leaders if they act in a group with others. It is also economic because they are poor, but also chances of economic upward mobility is low because states and politicians have not worked hard enough to uplift them from poverty (and yes, you guessed it right, their low political value in the eyes of the politicians is the reason!)

It is better off for a person to desire a democracy, or rather the consequences of living under a democracy, where leaders can be held to account, and channels of protest and dissent are available. Democracies obviously have their own problems, but the likelihood of political and economic freedoms being recognized and implemented simultaneoulsy, is better off than authoritarians (especially African ones) who deliver neither. The politics has to be right and properly managed for the economics to function, for lives to be changed and become better.