Abstract
This study examines Zimbabwe’s 2003 withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Nations under Robert Mugabe as an empirical case of populist engagement with international institutions. Mugabe’s rhetoric and actions reveal how populist figures employ anti-imperialist and nationalist narratives to challenge global organizations and reinforce domestic authority. Building on theories of populist strategies toward international institutions, the study argues that Mugabe portrayed the Commonwealth as a neo-colonial entity undermining Zimbabwe’s sovereignty, using this framing to justify non-compliance with human rights and democratic norms. Situating Zimbabwe’s withdrawal within broader populist agendas, it compares Mugabe’s approach to other leaders who resisted external interference to strengthen domestic legitimacy. Using Pacciardi, Spandler, and Söderbaum’s framework, which identifies four types of populist disengagement, criticism, extortion, obstruction, and exit, the research locates Zimbabwe’s withdrawal within this spectrum. Mugabe’s policy evolved from vocal criticism, depicting the Commonwealth as neo-colonial, to exit, the most radical disengagement form. His rhetoric delegitimized sanctions as imperialist interference, consolidating an international populist narrative. By framing global condemnation as an attack on sovereignty and land reform, Mugabe aligned anti-institutional rhetoric with a rejection of external governance. This episode illustrates how populist leaders escalate from dissent to full disengagement, raising questions about the implications for institutional stability and global governance.