Abstract
The dynamic and controversial nature of Zimbabwean politics has manifested itself through several undemocratic practices, including restrictive legislation which sought to diminish participatory spaces and/or curtail civil liberties. Corruption, gross human rights violations and arbitrary decision-making processes have created a rift between citizens and the state. This has further created space for the establishment of pro-democracy civil society movements which have sought to mobilise citizens towards the restoration of democracy. The desire to cling to power by the ruling elites has seen the enactment of restrictive legislation that seeks to curtail and impinge on civil liberties and restrict the political landscape in favour of the ruling elites. Key legislative framework presented in this paper is within the areas of media and access to information, individual rights and freedoms, as well as legislation pertaining to the conduct of elections. In some cases, colonial legislation that politicians claimed to have repealed was reincarnated, as the post-colonial dispensation asserted its authority over its defenceless people.
Highlights
J Mapuva and L MuyengwaThe paper seeks to show the extent to which key legislative provisions have curtailed civil liberties, contrary to the constitutional provisions which seek in theory to promote civil liberties, human rights and citizens' participation in governance.[1]
In addressing these aims the paper responds to the question: To what extent have legal provisions provided for the protection and sustenance of human rights, civil liberties and citizens' participation in governance processes in Zimbabwe over the last two decades?
Poor economic and political policy implementation increased ZANU PF's unpopularity among the electorate, as evidenced by the party's deteriorating performance in various elections, especially from the mid-1990s, when it became increasingly evident that democracy was under threat.[4]
Summary
The paper seeks to show the extent to which key legislative provisions have curtailed civil liberties, contrary to the constitutional provisions which seek in theory to promote civil liberties, human rights and citizens' participation in governance.[1]. These pieces of legislation were implemented in the context of a country with a restless citizenry that demanded the restoration of the civil liberties that had gradually been eroded as the regime clung to power through whatever means possible.[10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
