Paper short abstract:

This paper examines the repeated clashes between the Law Society of Zimbabwe and the Zanu PF government between 2000 and 2012 over questions of the rule of law, judicial independence, and human rights.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines the repeated clashes between the Law Society of Zimbabwe and the Zanu PF government between 2000 and 2012 over questions of the rule of law, judicial independence, and human rights. On the face of it, these clashes would seem to confirm a particular scholarly contention that lawyers have an inherent commitment to political liberalism, and that they are influential actors in the process of state making. However, I contend that the actions of the Law Society during this period are best characterized as a form of 'reluctant radicalism'. During this period the society was trying to balance challenging the government's blatant violations of the rule of law, without alienating a significant proportion of its members who were sympathetic to Zanu (PF), while at the same time working within the limits of the regulatory framework that was rooted in a 1980s corporatist bargain with the state. By digging deeper into the considerations that shaped the actions of the law society, I challenge the theorisations of 'political lawyering' that are not sufficiently moored within a specific historical context. In addition, I examine the role of legal professionals in politics and the extent to which they can re-shape the nature of politics and the state in post-colonial Zimbabwe.