Page 224 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

some political stability and permitted peacebuilding efforts, such as the formation of entities aiming at national healing and reconciliation. The GNU also sought to address con- cerns such as gender equality in governance procedures.
One of the negative aspects of governmentality is a politi- cisation of local governmentt. Despite constitutional pro- visions for devolution, the governing party, ZANU-PF, has frequently considered this process as a threat to its political power. As a result, local government mechanisms have be- come politicised, reducing their efficacy and eroding true democratic involvement. This politicisation has resulted in little genuine progress toward implementing the devolu- tion ideas. Mpani (2021) argues that the Zimbabwean gov- ernment has a history of utilising state authority to silence opposition and preserve control. Political opponents risk intimidation, harassment, and violence, sometimes from state security agents. Dube (2018) highlights that the laws that prohibit the freedoms of assembly, speech, and associ- ation are selectively enforced, creating a hostile climate for dissidents. This authoritarian approach significantly restricts political plurality and undermines democratic principles.
Abuse and usage of governmentality in the selected case studies
Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Egypt have unique kinds of gov- ernmentality, formed by each country’s complicated history, political economy, and cultural dynamics. Governmentality is a tool that can be employed for good or bad. Governments have employed governmentality in Egypt, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe to uphold social order and quell political dissent.
Ruhanya (2020) maintains that the ZANU-PF regime’s governance in Zimbabwe has been defined by authori- tarianism, repression, and crisis management. The state has used a variety of methods to manage and punish cit- izens, including coercion, patronage, and moral authority. Rwodzi (2024) states that the security apparatus has been deployed to monitor and suppress all forms of dissent or resistance, creating a culture of fear and obedience. The re- gime’s ideology has been propagated through education and media propaganda, resulting in a type of ‘biopower’ that regulates and controls people’s bodies and minds.
In Egypt, the El-Sisi regime’s governance has been characterised by authoritarianism, and neoliberalism (Russell 2021). The state uses a variety of methods to manage and punish citizens, including coercion, patronage, and moral authority.
In all three countries, security apparatus has been deployed to monitor and suppress all forms of dissent or resistance, creating a culture of fear and obedience. The government disseminates misleading information through social engineering in schools and the media. This
type of governmentality has led to a people are heavily reliant on the government for information, a people who cannot think for themselves.
In all three countries the ruling regime’s governance has been marked by a lack of openness, accountability, and engagement. The state has failed to protect citizens’ rights and liberties, instead using its position to maintain its hold on power. This has resulted in a culture of fear, obedience, and dependency, where residents are discouraged from participating in politics and instead urged to focus on their personal lives.
Conclusions
Three countries were chosen as case studies. Although the countries are democratic on paper they use some form of authoritarian governance, which applies stringent governmentality to control citizens. This is one of Foucault’s great concerns – how governments use various public institutions to inform and imprint themselves on their subjects (Hofmeyr 2021). Some critics argue that authoritarianism is better for African countries. Rwanda is cited by Kiros (2016) as a country in a better position to practice authoritarian governance as it is still a fragmented society that needs healing. Cheeseman (2022) adds that Chinese and Rwandan authoritarian leadership is better able to get things done. Although these countries are purportedly democratic they openly practice dictatorial governance. The opposition parties rarely win elections. For example, Rwanda’s last election saw Kagame’s ruling party winning 99% of the votes. In Egypt there was low turnout, giving El-Sisi all the votes, while in Zimbabwe the ruling party has always claimed higher votes. Evidence from the literature shows that governance in the three countries is similar. The regimes use governmentality to intimidate citizens during elections to garner votes. Zimbabwe is well known for rigging votes when the opposition has more support than ZANU-PF. Rwanda stage manages politics in the country so that it is not chaotic like in Zimbabwe.
The three countries are dominated by one-party states supported by the military. The security apparatus is used to intimidate dissent with impunity. Journalists are detained, tortured, and killed for trumped-up charges such as disseminating false information. The governments have a vendetta against media houses and their journalists as they shed light on the atrocities perpetrated by them. Press freedom is restricted as issues like corruption would be highlighted. Citizens have no freedom of mobilising and protesting when they want to air their grievances. The regimes employ repressive strategies and ban opposition parties.
Supplementary materials: There were no supplementary materials used.
Statement on data availability: Data for this paper is
222
| Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability