Abstract
The advances in technology have led to the emergence and rise of digital media platforms. This rise in “new media” through several social media platforms has resulted in the decline of legacy media platforms, in turn a decline in government control of the media space. Governments across the world and specifically in Africa have seen a rise in critical and opposing opinions through these digital media platforms. While social media has enabled restricted voices to speak out and has largely democratised communication, governments have sought to find ways of controlling critical and opposing voices. Zimbabwe and Zambia provide an interesting case study in this regard because of their similarities, differences and rich history, but most importantly in how their political trajectories have been conflicted by democratic and authoritarian tendencies. This thesis found that Zimbabwe and Zambia followed two different processes in the making of their cybersecurity laws. Despite their differences, both countries emerged with similar laws and provisions that at best can be described as interchangeable. This thesis contributes to the comparative study on the law-making processes of cybersecurity laws in Zambia and Zimbabwe, focusing on how autocratic legalism evolves through enacting laws which are repressive for the continuation of competitive authoritarian regimes. The findings advance the theory on competitive authoritarianism and how these regimes sustain their existence through the use of lawfare. The law-making processes contribute to the understanding of literature on how autocratic legalism evolve and the role of the public in further entrenching autocratic rule.