admin
Gibson Nyikadzino
Correspondent
Traditional conflicts and wars have been fought on land, at sea and using the air space. Though there is a continued military confrontation posing a threat to emerging democracies in nations of the south, today the changing nature of conflict has also altered the players in the conflicts taking place.
A drone view of Africa best explains these changes. The emergence of non-state actors as key proponents of wars going on in Africa raises concerns on the future of the continent’s democratic growth.
Where historically inter-state wars were a major area that needed address, today intra-state wars have increased. The Ethiopian government is today battling the Tigray rebellion. In Mozambique, insurgents in Cabo Delgado province continue destabilising the country.
In Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Somalia and in the Sahel region, terror groups continue to advocate for instability in Africa.
This has a negative bearing on the security, peace and democracy of these states.
These non-state actors are fighting these wars to acquire power and all the conflicts are happening within their country’s borders.
In these developments, a new domain of conflict has been adopted by some non-state actors or individuals who seek to violently destabilise the continent, all in the name of democracy. The cyberspace is that new domain that has been adopted for these conflicts, or alternatively, in the “new wars.”
It is so because wars today are now a covert operation that is being conducted using the cyberspace. Some of the strategies on the cyberspace used in this conflict include bullying, intolerance to divergent and alternative views, trolls and instigating political violence.
Political violence has today ceased to be a physical confrontation but has also taken cyberspace format. The cyberspace is now used for computational propaganda.
In Zimbabwe, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) through its late founder Morgan Tsvangirai once advocated for “violence” for the takeover of state institutions. This was upon the realisation they could not match ZANU-PF’s organisation.
Other scenarios to take over power by unconstitutional means included consensus within the opposition party to train its supporters in acts of banditry and weapons handling. More so, according to a leaked cable by WikiLeaks, Nelson Chamisa was eager to see a violent military attack against Zimbabwe’s democracy through the help of the British and American armies just for the MDC to illegally access political power.
The opposition has also tried to gain political and cyber power by exploiting and using the cyberspace to initiate a version of the “Arab Spring” and a Twitter Revolution in Zimbabwe.
The advent of computers, computer networks and digital media platforms has created a new domain of conflict through the cyberspace.
This space is today the biggest threat on Africa and Zimbabwe’s democracy as it has been used to radicalise citizens, non-state actors, to wage war against the national interest using subversive and violent means.
In the Kingdom of Eswatini, “pro-democracy protesters” have since been the beginning of the year agitating for violence to change the political system.
Violence was the option characteristic and catalyst to have that change effected using the cyberspace. This has been done to meet the goals of “political activism” yet some of the employed tactics border on cybercrime, violence against property and insurrection.
When the MDC mooted the idea of training its supporters for banditry and weapons handling, it used its Democratic Resistance Committees (DRC) to select the “fighters” and “defenders of democracy.” In a change of strategy, it presented its insurrectionist belief by creating the Youth Vanguard, an ensemble synonymous with Nazi Germany’s Brownshirts militia.
The quest for violence did not however, stop. The 2016 #ThisFlag and #Tajamuka became the new forms of war and violence by the opposition and other citizens using the cyberspace domain. Further protests were orchestrated leading to the destruction of businesses and property in January 2019.
A further initiative under the #ZimbabweLivesMatter unfolded in July of 2020 and had no claim of victory except angling to damage the reputation of the country. The opposition has been taking advantage of the 21st century information environment to obfuscate and confuse the truth while amplifying narratives that align with foreign interests, even when patently false.
While the opposition sees its violent actions as symbols of resistance, they have been merely congregations of people who have been determined to instigate violence and commit criminality in the name of democracy.
On the cyberspace, opposition activists have championed intolerance to alternative views. Civil exchanges have failed to be translated to meaningful engagements as the opposition has been keen on dominating the cyberspace. Even staff at foreign embassies have become cyber-combatants to aide their opposition pawns in “fighting a democratic war.”
Effects of the January 2019 demonstrations are today being felt as some businesses and properties destroyed have never been operational again.
Those that called for the violent disruption of the economy in the name of democracy were protesters on the cyberspace, and by contrast, they wanted to remain anonymous and untraceable but were later exposed. These furtive and at times nameless cyberspace combatants are cowardly hooligans, not heroes.
Democracy is never a violent phenomenon and previous MDC protests under the “democratic banner” are evidence they are an outfit that does not believe in non-violence. In the USA the January 6 protests at the US Capitol will remain a permanent feature that will remind all how the burden of the cyberspace if uncontrolled will harm both established and emerging democracies.
Events on that day led Twitter and Facebook to suspend and ban former USA President Donald Trump from the two platforms because his posts were “a glorification of violence and an encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts.” In a documentary titled How to Start a Revolution, Serbian “political activist” Srda Popovi who in 2019 was identified as a key figure the opposition was consulting confirmed his plans against Zimbabwe. Popovi said after leading violent protests against the late former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevi, he also exported the “revolution” to “Georgia, Ukraine, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.”
The cyberspace is a new conflict domain which the state ought to invest in as much as it has invested in traditional ways to defend the security of our borders. It is commendable that government deploys legislative instruments that protect the new war zone from both internal and external contamination.
The name of democracy should not be used to threaten national security by being on the cyberspace. Radical elements on the cyberspace ought to be encouraged to demobilise such efforts and shun violence in all forms.
Like other states, Zimbabwe is opening up democratic spaces by enhancing the licensing of new community radio stations and television channels to improve the multiplicity of voices in enriching our democracy.
Use of computers and the digital platforms for the benefit of a healthy democracy in Zimbabwe ought to be encouraged unlike the adoption of the same to slander the country and promote violence against those who share a different view. As much as intra-state wars and military confrontation increases in Africa, the same appears to be taking root on the cyberspace.
Ahead of the anticipated by-elections in the first quarter of 2022 and the harmonised elections a year later, the opposition as it has become custom, will malign national interests on the cyberspace.
They will recruit more cyber combatants and computerise violence in what is usually termed “electronic civil disobedience.”
Even on the cyberspace, the opposition has proven it is not a proponent of civil disobedience. Their advocacy for digital and cyberspace violence has to be understood as a threat, veiled or manifest, to speech, democracy, the economy and national security.
These are some of the evolving means by which opposition politicians and their followers can employ benign technologies to do harm.
Progressive citizens should be protected from these machinations and if the nation does not surrender, it will never lose. Zimbabweans, remember we are one!
Online Reporter