for these differences because merely holding a job did not equate to satisfaction and decreased risk taking. 5.6.1 Middle class- Urban and Educated Discussants pointed out that in abstract terms it was easy to identify who constituted the middle class but in practice, this was very difficult and posed problems for anyone trying to explain risk taking among the middle class. Some discussants found it problematic for any analyses to attempt to isolate a group of “middle class, educated and urban” arguing that the main criteria for such an attempt-education, income, lifestyle and education-were vague and even though some people could fit some of the criteria, merely ticking these boxes was not sufficient in actually identifying who qualified and who did not qualify to be called middle class. The participants were mainly urban-based, employed people working for NGOs, in academia and other non-State entities but they expressed uncertainty over whether they belonged to the middle class. Nonetheless, discussants were of the view if this category could be identified by the common denominator of urban residence, employment or income above the “poor” yet not enough to be “rich”. If such a group could be identified, the members of this group would not take the same risks taken by the “poor” because they faced were different challenges. This educated and urban-based middle class had higher chances of being preoccupied with their business or careers. Such a class would be averse to engaging in demonstrations, protests but would be more open to cyber and social media-based activism activities such as signing petitions and commenting on twitter and facebook. 4 The middle class’ risk aversion stems from analyses of trends and patterns of violence, State response to demonstrations and protests as well as repressive legislation such as POSA. The middle class is averse to tear-gassing of protestors by the police and averse to violent clashes between protestors and police, hence their risk aversion. 5.6.2 Civil servants Some of the people that would fit into the category of urban educated middle class are civil servants. As government workers, they have considerations that other population groups do not have such as the risk of being dismissed from work if found participating in antigovernment demonstrations. Consequently, a range of spaces and avenues utilised by other groups are literally out-of-bounds for them. Inevitably, analyses of risk taking trends that do not account for this will produce inaccurate findings. The daily forms of resistance that can be carried out by masses do not start and end with speaking out, demonstrating and participating in protests. According to participants, the “Middle class- Urban and Educated” groups use varied forms of resistance which need a separate study beyond the main questions used in the paper to construct the index of risk taking. Risk taking behaviours are varied and need to be looked at in more detail. The broad and amorphous “Middle class- Urban and Educated” category may only be relevant in theory but totally inaccurate in actual practice hence attempts to understand their risk taking behaviour must be informed by an analysis of class, income, status and residence considerations which are factors considered by the middle class themselves in deciding whether or not to exhibit certain behaviours. 4 Here see, for example, RAU (2016), Zimbabwean politics: Very Constrained and Confined. The lack of middle-class young women’s voices in political discourse. September 2016. Harare: Research & Advocacy Unit; RAU (2016), Are middle-class women “disconnected democrats”? A preliminary investigation into political participation of Zimbabwean women. November 2016. Harare: Research & Advocacy Unit. 18