A Mixed Bag: Evaluating Zimbabwe’s Response to Drug Abuse

By Ilyana Sithole

The latest Cabinet report on the National Drug and Substance Abuse Response, September 1, 2024, to January 31, 2025, is a mixed bag. Though the report contains many initiatives and staggering statistics, a closer look at the work done indicates progress and ongoing problems.

The scale of outreach is commendable – reaching over 7 million students through curriculum integration, reaching thousands of people through cultural activities and sports, and providing vocational training to over 150,000 young people reflects a sincere effort towards disseminating information and offering alternatives. The opening of three new rehabilitation centers is also a good step, addressing the critical need for treatment centers. In addition, the crackdown on drug dens and the arrest of close to 10,000 perpetrators indicate an adherence to enforcing the law.

But statistics only reveal half the picture. As appealing as curriculum integration, its effectiveness in discouraging drug use remains to be proven. Placing the subject on the syllabus does not necessarily lead to behaviour change. Likewise, the high numbers achieved through campaigns for awareness must be weighed for efficacy. Are these programs really reaching the vulnerable, or are they accomplishing it in a box-ticking fashion?

The report is also not without concerns. The fairly modest number of detained suppliers matched with end-users might imply that it is dealing with lower-level perpetrators and not kingpins supposed to dominate the drugs trade. The shutting down of merely five premises as compared to 117 inspections poses questions regarding the efficacy of the regulatory enforcement. Moreover, although the report states reintegration programs and psycho-social care, it does not mention anything about the quality and availability of these services. Are sufficient resources being allocated to make these programs effective?

The appeal to private and diaspora investment into rehabilitation facilities is a double-edged sword. While certainly there is a need for increased funding, it can also promote unevenness of access and care quality, aggravating the disparities. The government needs to ensure that any private participation exists with high standards and emphasis on universal equitable access.

Lastly, the enforcement and awareness emphasis of the report, as important as these are, appear to be secondary to the socio-economic problems that are causing drug abuse. Solving problems such as poverty, unemployment, and opportunity shortages is the key to long-term success. If these underlying causes are not solved, the war against drug abuse is a losing cause.

In conclusion, the government’s reaction to substance and drug abuse is encouraging in some ways, but much remains to be done. Further action is needed to address the problem more comprehensively, with effective prevention, aggressive enforcement, quality and affordable treatment, and real commitment to tackling the socio-economic determinants of drug abuse. Then, and only then, can Zimbabwe reasonably hope to make real progress towards combating this multifaceted and devastating scourge.