parochial sub-culture is evident when one considers the imposition of draconian laws and
regulations such as banning certain food imports needed by the masses and the imposition of
bond notes. There is an illusion of participation, people that insist on their right to participate
and to be heard are victimised hence the risk aversion. Proponents of this view thought that
the risk aversion graph would continue to rise beyond 2014.
6. Recommendations from respondents
Do a study on what makes people take on the government with its repressive
machinery. At what point will people say “enough is enough”?
Conduct a comparative study looking at data from the region for example
Zambia, Malawi and South Africa.
The methodology needs to be revisited. It is difficult to measure perceptions
and attitudes around risk and risk taking using the four questions used to
construct the index. Realities are more complex and multifaceted than what
can be captured by the four questions. There is a need to go beyond the “dash
in dash out approach”. Triangulation of data collection methods is imperative.
The Afrobarometer sample is not representative of the people in Zimbabwe
The risk aversion/risk taking data needs to be segregated by provinces so that
participants can debate from an informed view
Operation Murambatsvina needs to be put in context: contextual analysis has
to be more thorough because OM had different effects on people in urban and
rural areas.
The study is silent on issues of disabled. There is need for an analysis on that
too.
7. Conclusions on civil society dissemination
Participants largely concurred with the risk trends and the trajectory of the risk. Participants
were also in agreement that, going beyond 2014, the risk aversion graph would continue to
rise as the country moved towards elections. Electoral violence was the main trigger of inter
and intra-party violence, and this manifested in people’s aversion of expressing their
democratic rights through participation in protests, demonstrations and other forms of citizen
expression as enshrined in the country’s constitution.
The factor accepted as the key driver of citizens’ risk aversion was fear, induced by exposure
to and experience of violence with perpetrators enjoying impunity and support from the State.
Participants queried the completeness, integrity and appropriateness of the Afrobarometer
sample from which the findings were drawn. Some questioned the accuracy of drawing
conclusions based only on a quantitative index constructed using secondary data collected for
a purpose different to the risk aversion study. Some suggested that qualitative questions were
needed in the data collection to probe subjective views and get a clearer understanding of
regional differences and variations among participants sharing the same quantitative views.
Participants made wide-ranging recommendations on the methodology and on scaling up the
study to include several other factors shaping risk aversion which were not included in the
study including widening the scope of the analysis to compare regional trends.
22
Select target paragraph3
Add to table of contents