Choosing a world order in Zimbabwe

The July 30 election and its violent aftermath are a test case for two worldviews: the West’s democratic order or China’s autocratic, non-meddling model.

AP Photo
Arrested members of the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) sit in a riot police vehicle in front of their party's headquarters in Harare Aug. 2. MDC leader Nelson Chamisa says police have raided the headquarters and seized computers, while police say 18 people there were arrested. The developments come a few hours before the electoral commission is expected to start releasing the results of Monday's presidential election.

On Wednesday, when troops in Zimbabwe opened fire on thousands of people protesting a marred election two days before, it was a shot heard round the world. The violent crackdown was a clear signal that President Emmerson Mnangagwa had not delivered on a promise to Western countries of a credible, corruption-free election.

Instead, Zimbabwe, like many African countries, may be further poised to embrace China and its proposed world order, which is essentially this: Don’t worry about democratic credentials or human rights, let’s just keep doing business without meddling in each other’s internal affairs.

In many ways, Zimbabwe’s election, which came eight months after the military ouster of longtime ruler Robert Mugabe, was a contest between the current world order, designed by the West after World War II, and the emerging one of a rising China.

The West was offering loans and investments from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other international creditors if Zimbabwe held a fair election and started to tackle corruption.

China preferred the current regime, no matter what, which would allow it to further exploit the country’s abundant minerals and rich farmland while bringing Zimbabwe into its newly created international organizations. Both Mr. Mnangagwa and Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, leader of the armed forces, had visited China in the run-up to the election.

Zimbabwe’s postelection problems are still unfinished. Mnangagwa’s ruling party, Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front, was declared the winner in the parliamentary race by the distrusted electoral commission. The results of the presidential contest have been delayed, raising suspicions among supporters of his main opponent, Nelson Chamisa. In the meantime, foreign observers found plenty wrong with the election process.

Zimbabwe remains a test case of the two views of world order, not only because of this election but because its economy is in desperate straits. It does not have its own currency and must rely mostly on US dollars. Its people somehow endure with hyperinflation and high unemployment, a result of mismanagement and corruption under Mr. Mugabe.

For a decade, China has been the country’s biggest investor. Yet popular resentment against Chinese influence led the opposition candidate to take an anti-China position in the campaign. This week’s protests about the election were also a statement about China’s antidemocratic approach to the rest of the world.

As events play out in Zimbabwe, the ideals of democracy may still win out, reinforcing the success of the postwar order. At the least, the final result should not be decided with bullets but in a peaceful consensus that affirms basic freedoms.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Choosing a world order in Zimbabwe
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today