Abstract
This essay argues that key to the longevity and protractedness of the Zimbabwe crisis was the internationalization of a problem characterized by multiple definitions and multiple actors with multiple interests and strategies. To this extent and from the beginning of the crisis, two schools of thought have contested each other for explanatory supremacy and each had its own disciples and adherents at local, regional and international levels. The essay pays particular attention to the pivotal actors at both the domestic and international levels before ending with a brief account and analysis of where Zimbabwe is today.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
