Opinion: When survival requires silence

By Dr Shame Mugova

Silence is often interpreted too confidently.

When citizens do not publicly challenge a decision, those in authority may assume it is popular. When business leaders do not complain, government may conclude that the private sector is satisfied. When professionals, churches, universities and civic organisations avoid difficult questions, their restraint can be presented as national unity.

But silence is not always agreement. Sometimes it is an economic survival strategy.

A citizen may have the constitutional freedom to speak while knowing that speaking could endanger a job, contract, licence, operating space or future opportunity. No official needs to issue a direct threat. People may simply conclude that remaining in good standing with those who exercise political or administrative power is safer than being publicly independent.

That calculation changes the meaning of public silence.

A right is incomplete when exercising it can cost someone a livelihood.

Zimbabwe’s Constitution protects freedom of expression, access to information and political participation. It also requires administrative conduct to be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

These protections recognise that citizenship involves more than voting. Citizens must be able to question public decisions, report wrongdoing and participate in national debate.

But there can be a wide distance between possessing a right in law and feeling secure enough to exercise it.

A small company dependent on public contracts may notice irregularities in a tender but hesitate to speak because the same institutions will determine whether it receives future work. A professional may privately question a policy but remain silent because state-controlled institutions are important employers or clients. An informal trader may depend on an operating space allocated by a local authority.

None of this proves that retaliation will occur. The problem arises when decisions are insufficiently transparent and people cannot be confident that criticism will be separated from the administration of economic opportunity.

Freedom cannot therefore be measured only by asking whether criticism is technically lawful. We must also ask whether citizens can criticise power without fearing exclusion from ordinary economic life.

When opportunity depends on discretion, obedience acquires economic value.

Every state makes decisions affecting livelihoods. Governments employ people, purchase goods, issue licences, regulate businesses and distribute public assistance. These functions are necessary.

The danger arises when access to those opportunities is believed to depend on political relationships rather than transparent rules.

Political loyalty can then become more than an expression of belief. It can become a form of economic insurance. Public praise may demonstrate reliability. Silence during controversy may protect a commercial relationship. Visible independence may appear to carry unnecessary risk.

This does not mean that everyone expressing support is pretending. Governments have genuine supporters, and citizens are entitled to support political leaders openly. Nor does every contract or regulatory decision conceal political favouritism.

The problem is that when political approval and economic opportunity become entangled, it becomes difficult to distinguish sincere support from strategic compliance.

A system may therefore appear more popular than it is—not because every citizen has been ordered to applaud, but because applause may appear safer than independence.

Businesses may devote more energy to cultivating connections than improving productivity. Professionals may soften their advice. Associations may hesitate to represent their members forcefully.

The state then stops hearing the country as it is. It begins hearing the country as economically vulnerable citizens believe it is safe to describe.

Fear does not need to punish everyone. It only needs to be believable.

A system of silence does not require constant repression. It requires uncertainty.

When rules are consistent, citizens can predict the consequences of their actions. A business knows that meeting published requirements will protect its licence. A supplier knows that tenders will be evaluated against disclosed criteria. A citizen knows that taxes, permits and inspections will be administered according to law.

When decisions appear discretionary, people must calculate political risk as well as legal compliance.

Afrobarometer’s 2024 Zimbabwe survey provides important evidence about this environment. In a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adults, 81.6 per cent said ordinary people risked retaliation or other negative consequences if they reported corruption. Only 18.3 per cent believed corruption could be reported without fear.

The survey also found that 31.3 per cent had feared political intimidation or violence “somewhat” or “a lot” during the 2023 election campaign. Including those who feared it “a little bit”, almost half reported some degree of fear.

These findings do not establish that every quiet citizen has been threatened or that every form of silence conceals opposition. They establish that fear of consequences is sufficiently widespread to affect how citizens assess the risks of speaking and participating.

Once that belief becomes established, punishment does not have to be universal. The possibility of retaliation begins doing the work.

Economic insecurity raises the price of independence.

Citizens with several sources of income can absorb the consequences of disagreement more easily than those whose survival depends on one employer, contract or operating space.

Zimbabwe’s economic structure makes this especially important. ZIMSTAT reported unemployment among people aged 15 and above at 20.7 per cent in the second quarter of 2025. Its 2023 Economic Census found that 76.9 per cent of business establishments operated informally.

Informality does not automatically mean political dependence. Informal businesses can be innovative and independent. But informal operation frequently brings uncertain tenure, limited contractual protection and greater exposure to administrative decisions.

A trader without secure rights to an operating space is more vulnerable than a business with established premises. A company dependent on one major client is more cautious than one serving a diverse market.

In such an economy, losing one opportunity can threaten an entire household. The threat does not have to be announced. People calculate what exclusion would mean and adjust their behaviour accordingly.

This is why creating formal employment, protecting property and contractual rights, widening access to finance and encouraging independent private enterprise are also democratic reforms.

Economic independence does not guarantee political courage. But it makes courage less expensive.

A country surrounded by silence eventually loses contact with reality.

Public silence may initially appear to benefit those in authority. Criticism becomes quieter, meetings more orderly and official programmes attract praise.

But this apparent stability conceals an information failure.

When citizens fear reporting corruption, corruption becomes harder to detect. When businesses conceal difficulties created by policy, government receives distorted information. When professionals suppress unwelcome findings, poor decisions survive longer. When communities praise projects publicly but complain privately, authorities cannot determine whether those projects are working.

Leaders may genuinely believe that programmes are succeeding because the people closest to failure have the strongest incentives to remain quiet.

Silence can therefore protect authority in the short term while weakening government in the long term.

A state that punishes bad news eventually receives no reliable news.

Constructive criticism is not an obstacle to development. Governments need truthful feedback just as economies need accurate prices. Without it, resources are misallocated, mistakes are repeated and public frustration remains hidden until it becomes a crisis.

Freedom should not require exceptional courage.

The Whistle Blowers and Witness Protection Bill introduced in 2026 acknowledges an important gap. The proposed legislation seeks to establish a framework through which people can disclose conduct harmful to the public interest and receive protection.

Its introduction is welcome, but a Bill is not yet an operational system of protection. Its value will depend on whether the eventual law provides independent reporting channels, credible confidentiality and enforceable remedies against occupational and economic retaliation.

Protection must arrive before a whistle-blower loses employment, income or personal security—not merely offer redress after the damage has occurred.

The same principle should govern procurement, licensing, taxation, regulation and the allocation of public opportunities. Decisions should follow published criteria. Reasons should be recorded. Appeals should be accessible. Political identity should neither qualify nor disqualify a citizen from economic opportunity.

The objective is not to create a country in which everyone criticises government. It is to create one in which support and criticism are both freely chosen.

Citizens who agree should be able to express their support sincerely. Those who disagree should be able to speak without calculating whether their families will suffer for it. Businesses should succeed through competence rather than demonstrations of loyalty. Churches, universities and professional bodies should be able to tell the truth without first assessing its political cost.

A confident state does not require quiet citizens. It requires citizens who are free enough to tell it the truth.

Dr Shame Mugova is a Lecturer in Finance at Birmingham City University. He writes on finance, economic policy, governance and development, with a particular interest in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.