By Rui Lamarques (ruilamarques@gmail.com)
Maputo (MOZTIMES) – The recent press release issued by the Council of State following its seventh meeting is, in many respects, revealing. Despite its seemingly measured language, it contains clear indications that the Mozambican state may be on the verge of authorising a more aggressive intervention by the Defence and Security Forces (FDS) to suppress post-electoral protests.
The choice of words such as “make every effort” and the vehement condemnation of the “extreme violence” in the protests may appear as justifiable measures to safeguard public order. However, reading between the lines, it becomes evident that this is a warning aimed at the international community while, domestically, the orders have likely already been given: to clamp down more forcefully and, if necessary, more violently.
It is important to note that this decision does not come directly from President Filipe Nyusi but rather from the Council of State. This is no coincidence. By involving this advisory body, Nyusi shares responsibility for any potential escalation in repression, avoiding being perceived as someone acting unilaterally. This strategy also seeks to dispel suspicions that he might be using the situation as a pretext to cling to power, which would be extremely damaging to his image and the country’s political stability.
Another striking point is the attempt to balance the harsh tone with calls for dialogue and a review of electoral laws. These elements sound more like a public relations effort to appease civil society and the international community than a genuine commitment to change. After all, if the state were genuinely committed to social cohesion, as it claims, it would have prioritised inclusive and transparent measures from the outset, thus avoiding the violent scenario we now face.
Behind this statement, there may be a broader political strategy: using force to stifle dissent before it spirals out of control while maintaining a narrative of commitment to peace and legality. The presence of terms such as “privileging dialogue” and “resorting to force only in cases of extreme necessity” seems more like an attempt to pre-emptively justify any violent actions that may be taken, shifting the blame onto the protesters.
Should repression indeed intensify, it will reflect a state that, instead of addressing its own structural flaws—such as the lack of transparency and the partisan nature of electoral bodies—opts for the shorter and more perilous path of force.
I very much hope I am wrong. I want to believe that this statement represents a genuine effort to seek consensus and avoid an escalation of violence. Unfortunately, recent history teaches us that, in moments like these, repression tends to prevail over dialogue. If this happens, we will witness yet another missed opportunity to build a future of true cohesion and democracy for Mozambique. (RL)
P.S: Text was written before the violent incidents in Ressano Garcia.
