How are Rights claimed under an authoritarian rule?

This study explores the potentials and challenges of claiming rights under rights an authoritarian rule. The study is not abstract; It is based on a case study of Operation Murambatsvina (literally means clear the filth), which took place in Zimbabwe in 2005. Operation Murambatsvina (OM) was basically about demolition of homes and forced evictions of predominantly poor masses. It resulted in a human rights crisis of national magnitude. Informed by my research findings, I did a critical analysis of the limitations and potentials of mechanisms, both legal and non-legal and at local and international levels used mainly by human rights NGOs to claim rights during OM. From the research findings, it is clear that legal responses are less effective under authoritarian rule as compared to the non-legal responses. Then the embryonic question is- should legal mechanisms give way to non legal mechanisms? I do not subscribe to the thesis of legal mechanisms giving way to non-legal mechanism but I try to rethink an integrated approach to the politics of claiming rights. That accordingly calls for the unification of protective mechanisms..

Autorentext

Washington Katema is an activist-scholar from Zimbabwe. He obtained his firt degree, a BSc Honors in Administration from the University of Zimbabwe in 2005 before enrolling at the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University, Rotterdam in the Netherlands where he graduated with a Masters in Development Studies in 2008.