The objective of this study has been twofold. First, to determine what mechanisms can explain South Africa‘s and Botswana‘s degree of compliance with SADC‘s peace and security norms in their foreign policy towards the crisis in Zimbabwe. Second, it has been to map out the scope conditions under which these socializing mechanisms are enabled. To this end, Checkel‘s theoretical framework of international socialization was applied to each of the two cases through the method of structured, focused comparison. Checkel‘s framework was originally developed to study socialization in Europe. Building upon scholarly works on African international institutions in general, and SADC in particular, the framework has been adapted to Southern Africa, identifying scope conditions specific for this region.
By keeping the investigation process explicit and systematic, the validity and the reliability of the study has been strengthened. This contributes to lay the ground for fruitful critique, as well as for further theoretical developments.
Although SADC members do have several identity traits in common, they cannot be said to have a shared, coherent identity. Moreover, the norms governing issues of peace and security are ambiguous. Johnston (2005:1020) argues that without a coherent identity with a clearly linked set of normative characteristics, ―the socialization effects of the institution will be diluted or indeed nonexistent‖. SADC can thus be considered a ―least likely‖ case of norm socialization. Indeed, it is highly unlikely to see any all-out preference or identity change a result of normative suasion in the SADC region. Nevertheless, the findings challenge Johnston‘s claim by showing that norm socialization can occur under such adverse conditions (see table 4).
TABLE 3. The general framework
Case Trigger Mechanisms Effect Scope conditions Generic International TABLE 4. The cases as presented in this study
South
Starting with South Africa, the analysis shows that the mechanism of social influence not only led to norm compliant behaviour, but even the internalization of the norms of non-interference. However, the socializing actor was not SADC as an institution,
but, first and foremost, the in-group of liberation movement states. This was enabled by several scope conditions inherent both to the regional organization, SADC, and the target state, South Africa (see table 4). In terms of the former, SADC‘s group dynamics made the in-group of former liberation movements the possibility to impose social sanctions on what it considered to be deviant behaviour. Moreover, in this group, Zimbabwe was the authoritative member, further complicating South African criticism. In terms of the latter, the prior beliefs of the ANC, as well as the identity of South Africa facilitated the adoption of the norms of non-interference.
Additionally, a novel and uncertain environment made South Africa unprepared for the regional response and more responsive to regional cues, while the high degree of power centralization made the government less responsive to domestic pressures. The analysis also shows that the norms of non-interference have been internalized and form part of South African policy formation, mainly through the secondary mechanism of cognitive dissonance. However, this has not made South Africa leave its adherence to the promotion of human rights and democracy. These values continue to form part of South Africa‘s identity and interests, making the issue of dealing with human rights violations in other countries an extremely complicated endeavor.
In the case of Botswana, the analysis shows that compliance with the norms of non-indifference in the country‘s foreign policy towards Zimbabwe was largely a result of cost-benefit calculations independent of any socialization attempts. In other words, norm socialization cannot by itself explain the outcome. However, normative suasion did influence Botswana‘s foreign policy towards Zimbabwe. The creation and adoption of the SADC treaty (and especially the SADC election principles) ―taught‖
Botswana how to act in accordance with its ―Southern African‖ identity, while at the same time following conduct appropriate for its ―liberal democratic‖ identity. This was enabled by several scope conditions inherent both to SADC and Botswana (see table 4). In terms of the former, the group dynamics of SADC gave Botswana, with its lack of ties to the powerful in-group, more leeway to dictate its own policies in the region. The existence of legal templates with explicit guidelines for appropriate conduct, in particular the SADC election guidelines, contributed to make
condemnation of Zimbabwe‘s flawed elections compatible with both Botswana‘s
―Southern African‖ and ―liberal democratic‖ identity. In terms of the latter, the prior beliefs of the ruling party, as well as the identity of the state, contributed to facilitate the adoption of the SADC election principles. This was the result of both normative concerns, in the form of a dedication to democracy, as well as more strategic concerns, in Botswana‘s efforts to attract aid, trade and investments.
In sum, SADC‘s feature of group dynamics made issues of identity and identification key to the outcome of socialization attempts. This will be further elaborated below.
6.1 Theoretical implications
This investigation has two sets of theoretical implications. First, it shows that the adaption of Checkel‘s theoretical framework proves fruitful for the study of norm socialization within a Southern African context. The findings show its utility both in identifying regional norm socialization (the case of South Africa), as well as in questioning the effects of the phenomenon (the case of Botswana). The strength of the framework is that it, on the one hand, provides rigour to the investigation by offering four clearly defined causal mechanisms leading to socialization (bargaining, social influence, role-playing and normative suasion). On the other hand, the focus on identifying or clarifying scope conditions makes the framework flexible and adaptable to new contexts.
Second, it provides further indications of the utility of ―engaging questions that cut across the rationalist/constructivist boundary‖ (Wendt and Fearon, 2002:52). The analysis shows that strategic calculations to a large extent can explain the behaviour of the actors. This is mainly due to the ambiguity of the SADC peace and security norms and the lack of common values within the organization which make trust and cooperation difficult. Simultaneously, however, issues of identity and identification play a pivotal role in determining the preferences and interests upon which these strategic calculations are based. These issues of identity and identification are continuously mediated, constructed, and reconstructed socially. These processes are
informed by a variety of factors including geopolitics, prior beliefs, historical affinities, and cost-benefit calculations. Thus, while a purely rationalist account would have overemphasized the ―rationality‖ of the actors, a ―post-positivist‖
approach would have left out important issues of material capabilities and strategy.
This study seeks to work the middle ground by capturing a nuanced picture more in synch with actual events. This is done by grounding potentially fleeting concepts, like identity, norms, social influence, role-playing and learning, in concrete and identifiable features of SADC and the member states. The findings are therefore not to be interpreted as support for either of the two paradigms, constructivism and rationalism. Rather, the study builds on the view that the point of IR scholarship is not to not to validate methods, but rather ―to answer questions about international politics that are of great normative concern‖ (Wendt and Fearon, 2002:68).
6.2 Policy implications
For practitioners that see the adoption of the norms of non-indifference and a greater concern for human rights and democracy as a desirable outcome of regional cooperation within SADC, this study provides the following policy implications:
There is little in the findings to indicate that the SADC member states are increasingly moving towards adopting norms that can be labelled democratic. As the case study of South Africa demonstrates, socialization might just as well lead to internalization of the norms of non-interference. The reason is that as long as there is no agreement on the interpretation of SADC‘s peace and security norms, influential groups of states are more likely to become socializing actors, rather than the organization itself. However, as the case of Botswana shows, states inclined to comply with the norms of non-indifference can find justification and legitimization of their stands in SADC‘s treaties. Particularly, if the legal texts contain explicit guidelines that are less open to individual interpretation. In this way, SADC rules and treaties can become effective at a later point, despite their initial hollowness.
However, for this to happen, dedication to democracy has to be strengthened, not only at the institutional level, but also within key member states. However, SADC‘s
particularities have often prevented the adoption of treaties and protocols that are both explicit and binding. A fruitful strategy would therefore be to lower the level of ambition in the content of the treaties, while at the same time making them more concrete and explicit. For SADC states that are willing to take commitments seriously, legal texts would thus provide an important tool, not only to determine possible courses of action, but also to legitimize and justify progressive actions and make them acceptable to the regional community. This can set off a process where obligations and promises made within SADC are increasingly respected by the members (Lindberg, 1970). In this way, practitioners can actually make use of SADC‘s group dynamics to strengthen member states‘ respect for human rights and democracy incrementally.