Born powerful? Authoritarian politics in postliberation Eritrea and Zimbabwe

Abstract

Eritrea and Zimbabwe are African states liberated from colonial rule after years of guerrilla warfare. Both generated great hope and enthusiasm in their early years of independence yet they have now become bywords for authoritarianism, fear, and violence. There are many similarities in their experiences of war and of peace. However, they also raise questions about the impact of guerrilla warfare and of transitional arrangements on the prospect of democratic governance after conflict. Political scientists expect liberation wars to result in governments “born powerful”-with the capacity to mobilize their populations and reform institutions and transform state-society relations in dramatic ways. Nevertheless, in his 1995 account of African politics, Chris Allen concluded that despite winning independence through “prolonged warfare” African postliberation states were “following similar paths to … the peacefully decolonised majority."1 As Allen noted, the dominant party states formed after the end of the cold war organized state-society relations in much the same way as the earlier generation of states.2 However increasing authoritarianism and destabilization has now overtaken many of these states and “liberation” has become a rallying cry of aging politicians seeking to justify their continued rule.