Terror in Our Homes; Violence Against Women in Zimbabwe

By Tawanda Mudzonga

Zimbabwe has always been ruled by fear and violence. Our political history reveals government again and again forcing its will on the people. This has had an unlikely trickle down effect into each and every household where women fight a losing battle for their humanity.

Ian Smith was the first pioneer of terror in Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia. Under his government, Smith patented a brutal style of violence that provoked a guerrilla war of liberation against white colonial rule. Decades later, Robert Mugabe found Smith’s laws and tactics useful as liberator turned oppressor on his own people.

From its origins as Rhodesia up to this very moment, Zimbabweans have known nothing but violence and fear. The violence of increasingly bad leadership by President Mugabe and his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). The violence of electoral politics, as people flee Zimbabwe’s borders. The violence of a crippled economy where 231 million percent inflation turns money into paper. The violence of a dilapidated health system with no medicines, no doctors. Death is the most booming business in town. Violence confuses and becomes a warped expression of paternal love.

It is somehow not surprising then, that Zimbabwean society has collaborated in the belief that it is a man’s right to beat his wife. An astonishing 60% of all murders are attributed to violence in the home.

On October 4, 2006 Timothy Mubhawu — a Member of Parliament for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) — was in attendance in Parliament. Under discussion was the controversial Domestic Violence bill. This controversial piece of legislation advocated that physical, sexual and emotional abuse of a spouse be considered a crime punishable by law. It required the police to assist victims and the courts to discipline perpetrators. Female parliamentarians started lobbying for the bill in 1996. In fact, it is the most debated bill in parliament’s history. For years, a male-dominated parliament paid it scant attention, dismissing it and the discussion of violence against women as a waste of time in a forum where real issues took precedence.

In October 2006, the bill had finally gathered enough momentum to be seriously considered as legislation. As the debate raged back and forth, Mubhawu sat and listened and feared the worst. Unable to contain himself any longer, Mubhawu stood up and spoke from the heart: I stand here representing God Almighty. Women are not equal to men. It is a dangerous Bill and let it be known in Zimbabwe that the right, privilege and status of men is gone. I stand here alone and say this Bill should not be passed in this House. It is a diabolic Bill. Our powers are being usurped in daylight in this House.”

There was a collective uproar as local independent newspapers, blogs in Zimbabwe’s far-flung diaspora and civil society organizations denounced the remarks as feudal and patriarchal. Morgan Tsvangirayi responded defensively saying, Mubhawu had spoken in his personal capacity. Tsvangirayi is the leader of the opposition MDC which has styled itself in stark contrast to the violent and bullying tactics of Mugabe’s ruling ZANU-PF. His remarks, along with Mubhawu’s, gave voice to a deep-seated cultural belief that a man has the right to ‘discipline his wife. In a country whose history has been shaped by the abuse of power, and where no one, let alone women, has any rights, this is not surprising.

What is surprising is that our current self-styled liberators (MDC), following in the footsteps of our previous liberators (ZANU-PF), are admitting that violence is necessary to maintain the status quo. The irony was not lost on the MDC. Under pressure from civil society groups, the MDC suspended Mubhawu. They issued a statement restating their belief in the values of solidarity, justice, equality, liberation, freedom, transparency, humility, obedience and accountability.

Changes in attitude however, remain to be seen. Today, as Zimbabwe faces the prospect of a failed MDC-ZANU PF unity agreement, the question is: how much more violence can we take As a nation and as women, we are tired of feeling terror in our homes and in our hearts.

The Domestic Violence Act became law in October 2007.

October 14, 2008


The Café

Merle Hoffman's Choices: A Post-Roe Abortion Rights Manifesto

Secure Your Copy, Pre-Order Now!

“Merle Hoffman has always known that in a democracy, we each have decision-making power over the fate of our own bodies. She is a national hero for us all.” —Gloria Steinem

In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe V. Wade and a country divided, Merle Hoffman, a pioneer in the pro-choice movement and women’s healthcare, offers an unapologetic and authoritative take on abortion calling it “the front line and the bottom line of women’s freedom and liberty.” 

Merle Hoffman has been at the forefront of the reproductive freedom movement since the 1970s. Three years before the Supreme Court legalized abortion through Roe v. Wade, she helped to establish one of the United States’ first abortion centers in Flushing, Queens, and later went on to found Choices, one of the nation’s largest and most comprehensive women’s medical facilities. For the last five decades, Hoffman has been a steadfast warrior and fierce advocate for every woman’s right to choose when and whether or not to be a mother.