Remember — autocrats are not invincible. But be careful.
Even entrenched leaders are susceptible to public backlash
Rule 6: Remember — autocrats are not invincible. But be careful: Autocrats are susceptible to negative public opinion (that’s why they try to suppress the media), and they crave validation. This includes, counterintuitively, the validation of electoral victories, which they use to bolster their credibility. Continue to call out their hypocrisy and the suffering they cause, especially when it’s hard to do so.
Autocrats often rely on some sort of “social contract” (e.g., “leave politics to the regime, and we’ll take care of you”) to hold onto power. Identify cracks in that agreement and show how the autocrat has failed to deliver on their end of the bargain. If the government can’t hold up its end of the deal, the autocrat might become vulnerable to shifting public opinion.
But when autocrats recognize this vulnerability, they work to preserve their image and protect their power above all else. In this context, any opposing forces can become a target. Beware of efforts to split, surveil, penalize, mimic, or shut down the opposition party or civil society. It’s a common authoritarian tactic to infiltrate opposition parties in order to gather information, sow discord, and eventually dismantle them from within. Use caution with sensitive information, and balance a welcoming posture with sensible vetting methods to keep pro-democracy voices on the field.
When Zimbabwe’s longtime dictator, Robert Mugabe, was pushed out of power in 2017, many hoped a new era of political openness was on the horizon. But his successor, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, hasn’t strayed from Mugabe’s playbook of state repression and disregard for the rule of law.
While the government continues to hold elections, they are far from free and fair, and the ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), has maintained its grip on power ever since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980.
But remarkably, pro-democracy Zimbabweans have continued to find ways to stay in the fight and call out their government’s authoritarian abuses.
Mugabe used intimidation and electoral manipulation to hold onto power
For nearly 40 years, Robert Mugabe served as Zimbabwe’s strongman leader. And his rule only became more authoritarian as the years (and decades) went by.
In typical authoritarian fashion, Mugabe often responded to political challenges or hints of public backlash with heightened intimidation and state violence. After an opposition party coordinated with civil society groups to mount a successful campaign against his attempted constitutional power grab in 2000, Mugabe led a renewed crackdown on his opponents ahead of that year’s elections. The opposition’s newfound strength was accompanied by increased state repression to further insulate the ruling ZANU-PF.
The ruling party also relied heavily on electoral manipulation to shore up its margins throughout the early 2000s. And the environment for political dissent became even more fraught as the ZANU-PF escalated its efforts to silence critics amid a severe economic downturn. But pro-democracy groups still worked to expose how Mugabe rigged the vote — laying the groundwork for those building the case against the authoritarian government.
With the 2008 elections, the opposition managed to pierce the ruling party’s veil of invincibility. Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai claimed a first-round victory over Mugabe in the presidential race (though he ultimately withdrew following threats of violence), and the ZANU-PF lost its majority in parliament’s lower house for the first time since 1980. Under the newly formed Government of National Unity, Tsvangirai became prime minister, while Mugabe retained much of his power as president.
The new power-sharing arrangement elicited cautious optimism from pro-democracy Zimbabweans, who were hopeful that the opposition would have a seat at the table. But, despite efforts to stabilize the government and draft a new constitution, that early optimism faded as Mugabe sidelined Tsvangirai and continued to consolidate power. And attacks on civil society, coupled with a renewed wave of political violence, helped deliver a landslide victory for the ZANU-PF in the 2013 elections — dashing hopes of a democratic opening.
Zimbabwe’s anti-authoritarian forces have persisted
By the 2010s, rampant hyperinflation — which had already reached an estimated 230,000,000 percent (!) — and volatile currency changes exacerbated the public’s economic disillusionment. And while Mugabe and his cronies continued to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens, an unlikely leader sparked a new movement that provided an opportunity for pro-democracy Zimbabweans to voice their growing discontent with the status quo.
In early 2016, Baptist pastor Evan Mawarire posted a viral video urging viewers “to get involved and cry out” against the ZANU-PF’s corruption and economic mismanagement. Voicing his frustrations while wearing the colors of Zimbabwe’s flag, Mawarire soon became the face of the nascent #ThisFlag movement.
Eventually, the movement evolved into a broader push to hold the government accountable, and more than eight million Zimbabweans participated in a nationwide strike to demonstrate their dissatisfaction — making #ThisFlag one of the most successful protest movements in the country’s history.
Unsurprisingly, Mawarire and other #ThisFlag organizers were persecuted by the ruling party for their bravery. Still, thousands demonstrated in support of the movement’s message of change.
Reflecting on the Mugabe era, Mawarire later recalled, “We stopped talking, we stopped standing up, we stopped being citizens that participate — so the space shrunk and the fear grew.” #ThisFlag broke through that fear, highlighting how every act of resistance has the potential to grow into something bigger.
The pillars of authoritarian stability often appear solid — until they suddenly collapse
In Zimbabwe, a power struggle between then-Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa and First Lady Grace Mugabe over who would succeed the longtime ruler put the prized pillar of elite cohesion to the test.
Tensions boiled over in November 2017 when the pro-Mnangagwa military seized control of Harare, ultimately leading to Mugabe’s resignation. Facing impeachment by his own party and mounting public demonstrations against his rule, Mugabe’s fall shows just how quickly things can change in seemingly impenetrable authoritarian systems.
But hopes for reform quickly faded under Mugabe’s successor, the military-backed Mnangagwa. Despite early promises of change, state violence and electoral manipulation have persisted under his watch — and some argue that he’s set Zimbabwe on a path toward deepened authoritarianism.
However, those dissatisfied with the government have continued to make their voices heard. In March 2023, a bombshell documentary, “Gold Mafia,” exposed an alleged network of illegal gold smuggling facilitated by regime insiders. Critics pointed out Mnangagwa’s hypocrisy, as he previously promised a “zero tolerance” policy for corruption in his government.
Though the ruling party denied any allegations of wrongdoing, continued public backlash forced the government to announce an investigation into the matter — a tacit acknowledgment of the scandal’s veracity. And the “Gold Mafia” ordeal contributed in part to the ZANU-PF’s weaker-than-expected performance in the August 2023 elections.
Zimbabwe is a reminder that even the most entrenched authoritarians are susceptible to public backlash when they don’t adequately respond to the needs of the people.
But when cornered, autocrats often double down to hold onto power. Over the past few years, Mnangagwa has stacked the courts in his favor and orchestrated increased state crackdowns on civil society. And with help from the state security forces, a ZANU-PF collaborator allegedly infiltrated the leading opposition party and recalled dozens of lawmakers without their knowledge. After the co-opted courts upheld these illegitimate removals, the ZANU-PF was able to regain its parliamentary supermajority — effectively crippling the political opposition from within.
Still, Zimbabwe is a reminder that even the most entrenched authoritarians are susceptible to public backlash when they don’t adequately respond to the needs of the people. While the current regime has grown more sophisticated in its repression, its grip might be more fragile than it seems.
To be sure, dissent in Zimbabwe is extremely risky. And in countries where elections are known to be rigged, pro-democracy forces often look for windows of opportunity outside of formal politics, all while remaining exceedingly careful in their approach.
In regimes like Zimbabwe’s, it’s easy to believe that the autocrat is unbeatable — often a myth promoted by state-controlled media and loyal lawmakers. But even strongmen are sensitive to public opinion. Most autocrats are actually quite insecure, which explains why they go to such extremes to silence those who dare question their popularity and expose their weakness. Their regimes appear strong — until they’re not.
Every autocracy that has fallen began with people believing change was impossible. Though autocrats may appear invincible, their rule is built on insecurity and fear — no match for the strength that comes with democratic hope.
 | A guest post by
|