“State Sponsored Violence”
Reading a report by the Research and advocacy unit this morning I came across an interesting fact, the most commonly reported perpetrators of political violence are non state actors. It’s not the first time I’ve read or seen this. A mini-documentary about political violence during the 2008 harmonised elections last year featured eminent political scientists stating the same fact.
Considering the long and emotional debates I’ve had with the war vet I am vexed that it’s taken such a long time to hit home. If the most commonly reported perpetrators are non state actors, why do we equate political violence to state sponsored violence? Clearly these are not the same thing. Knowing this, it is not then possible to consider that the State itself has assumed this indictment and so refuses to prosecute rather than risk the appearance of tacit acknowledgement. The fact of who is perpetrating the violence has been conflated with the state’s complicity by not acting to prevent and deter it. In the public and international mind it is the state, or rather the Mugabe regime half of the state, that perpetrates violence, leaving the actual perpetrators, who exploit political tensions to mask their activities, blameless. How do we deal with violence if at the outset we place the entire burden of responsibility on the wrong party?