Unprecedented and dramatic political events have occurred in our neighbouring state of Zimbabwe.
There is controversy as to whether the action taken by the Zimbabwean military authorities constitutes a conventional coup d’état, or merely military influence sui generis (unique), falling short of such a state of affairs.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica explains that a coup d’état, a French term meaning a “blow against the state”, or for short a coup, is a sudden, violent overthrow of an
existing government by a small group.
The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police and the military elements.
It explains further that unlike a revolution, which is usually achieved by large numbers of people working for basic social, economic and political change, a coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel.
A coup rarely alters a nation’s fundamental social and economic policies instantaneously, nor does it significantly redistribute power among competing political groups.
Among the earliest modern coups were those in which Napoleon overthrew the Directory on November 9, 1799 and the one in which Louis Napoleon dissolved the Assembly of France’s Second Republic in 1851.
Coups were regular occurrences in various Latin American nations in the 19th and 20th centuries and in Africa after the former European colonies gained their independence.
The sensational events in Zimbabwe last week appear to fall short of a conventional coup as explained above.
On the evening of November 14, elements of the Zimbabwe Defence Force (ZDF) gathered around Harare and seized control of the Zimbabwean Broadcasting Corporation and other strategic places in the city and placed Mugabe and his wife Grace under house arrest.
The next day the ZDF issued a statement stating that what was done was not a coup d’ état and that Mugabe was safe. It declared that it was taking action against certain “criminal elements” in the government.
The intervention of the military, whether it constituted a coup or not, was precipitated by political tensions between rival factions in the ruling Zanu-PF, resulting in the dismissal of the vice-president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, the leader of one faction, backed by the army.
Another one, led by the notorious First Lady, Grace Mugabe, representing younger politicians is designated as the G40 faction.
A week after Mnangagwa was dismissed he was forced to flee the country for fear of his life.
On November 18, there were well-attended and boisterous but peaceful demonstrations in Harare and other major towns, supporting the actions of the army and demanding the resignation of Mugabe.
The next day Mugabe was dismissed from office by his own party, Zanu-PF. Despite this, he ignored the party’s actions and declared he would preside over the upcoming party conference in December.
As a result Zanu-PF issued Mugabe a deadline of noon November 20, to resign or face impeachment through a parliamentary process.
Mugabe metaphorically dug his heels in, and refused to resign.
Then Zanu-PF decided to proceed with the constitutional removal or impeachment of him, after consulting members of opposition parties in order to ensure their support in obtaining a two-thirds majority required for such impeachment, mandated by the constitution of Zimbabwe.
On November 21, shortly after the parliament of Zimbabwe had convened for a special joint session for the purpose of impeaching him, he resigned with immediate effect in a letter to the Speaker of Parliament, Jacob Mudenda. He did so in terms of section 96 of the constitution.
However, the letter did not indicate who he was leaving in charge. The Speaker added that he was working on the legal issues to make sure that a new leader was in place by the end of yesterday.
The people of Harare took to the streets and celebrated with great exuberance at the news that the oppressive era of Mugabe was finally over.
In a tragic manner, during his rule, despite his great credentials as the freedom fighter and political leader that gained independence for his country from white minority and colonial rule, he took the once prosperous country of Zimbabwe to the brink of economic ruin.
He kept an iron hold on power through oppression of his opponents and the suppression of the human rights of citizens.
This historic episode in the constitutional and political history of Zimbabwe was relatively peaceful and brought to an end the oppressive and disastrous Mugabe era, which had lasted 37 years.
What is interesting is that the military in Zimbabwe effected or influenced a fundamentally important political change.
Although it appeared not a coup e’tat in the conventional sense, viewed holistically it had the same consequence, the removal of a corrupt and dictatorial leader, using, inter alia, the threat of impeachment and thereby upholding the constitution.
If this is not indeed unique, it appears to be tantamount to such. It is most certainly very unusual and historically unprecedented.
In this regard the expression ex Africa semper aliquid novi, meaning from Africa there is always something new, is certainly apposite. The expression is attributed to the great Roman writer, Pliny the Elder, who lived in the first century AD.
* George Devenish is an emeritus professor at UKZN and one of the scholars who assisted in drafting the Interim Constitution in 1993.