Political trust – Elites should have lower scores on political trust;
Political affiliation – Should be no difference between Elites and Non-elites.
We might predict that Elites would support MDC-T and that Non-elites would
support ZANU-PF, but it seemed parsimonious to predict a split as suggested.
Results
The findings were interesting. Apart from Voice, where there was no difference between
“elites” and “non-elites”; “non-elites” showed greater political agency on every index than
“elites”. The “non-elites” had greater community participation, political participation,
activism, support for democracy, and political trust. It did not appear that the “fear factor”,
raised by many critics was relevant. When asked the question about who was the survey
sponsor, “elites” accurately responded that they thought it was the Afrobarometer, whilst
40% of the “non-elites” responded that it was the government.
It was also necessary to test an important variable in Zimbabwean polls – rural or urban
residence. Unsurprisingly, “elitism” is strongly associated with being urban, and, perhaps
unsurprising, rural respondents showed greater political agency on every one of the variables.
Additionally, nearly 50% of the “non-elite” group were willing to express a political party
affiliation, with the greatest majority for ZANU-PF.
When the indices are disaggregated into their components, the following emerged for
“elites”:
They do not belong to a community organisation, do not attend community
meetings, or join others to raise an issue;
They are less likely to vote, less likely to go to a campaign rally, and to
work for a candidate;
They are less active, and contact duty bearers much less frequently;
They are stronger supporters of democracy, but not happy with the
democracy they have;
They have very little trust in political institutions and offices;
Finally, they seem less likely to support a political party.
What value can be ascribed to the opinions of the “elite”? Elites show all the aspects of what
we have previously termed “disconnected democrats” (RAU.2016), and hence not be bestplaced to understand the general Zimbabwean polity.
4