The Zimbabwe Situation

Our thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe
- may peace, truth and justice prevail.

Zim voted for economic collapse?
Line of fire
We let ourselves down
Horror in the polling station
This is not a victory
The election: what they said
Electoral Court independence questionable - lawyers
Mugabe, Milosevic and Zimbabwe's 'John Paul' option
Mbeki's dilemma over Zimbabwe worsens
What transition, what dialogue?
The case for a democratic constitution
How Zanu PF stole the ballot
Way forward for the MDC
It's the people, not MDC who lost
IMF team to arrive next month
Police force or party thugs?
Parliament's unfinished business
Another chance for economic revival
Zanu PF's triumph a Pyrrhic victory
Poll statistics stir familiar dispute

Zim Independent Zim voted for economic collapse? By Allister Sparks IF one is to accept, as our Southern African observer teams apparently do, that the result of the Zimbabwe election "reflected the will of the people of Zimbabwe", then one should also accept its corollary. Which is that the people of Zimbabwe enjoy economic collapse, unemployment and starvation and so turned out in record numbers to vote for more of the same. Either that or they are crazy and wilfully voted against their own interests. I do not accept either proposition. The election was rigged. This was not only predictable; it was predicted by just about every independent analyst in the business. They noted that the regime was permitting freer electioneering in the closing weeks of the campaign to make it easier for the "friendly" observer teams to declare the poll free and fair, but that plans were afoot to rig the election in less visible ways. That is exactly what happened. The playing field was skewed from the beginning. The constitution enabled President Mugabe to handpick 30 MPs, which meant the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) needed 76 of the 120 contested seats to win a majority of one while the ruling Zanu PF needed only 71 for a two-thirds majority. Add to that the years of intimidation of opposition voters, no access for the opposition to the state-controlled media, the closure of the country's only independent daily newspaper, the shutting out of foreign observers and correspondents, the redrawing of constituency boundaries to eliminate several safe MDC seats and make others marginal, a hopelessly outdated voters roll which opened the way for nearly two million "ghost" votes to be cast, and you begin to get the picture. Ghost voters aside, more than 133 000 living voters were turned away from the polls because of the defective roll. But it was the count which proved decisive - something which was also widely predicted but which the friendly observer teams appear not to have observed. With the pro-Mugabe police and troops appointed as the only electoral officers, opposition election agents around the country found themselves denied entry to the polling booths where the ballots were counted. In the urban constituencies, legally wise MDC candidates were able to challenge these illegal restrictions and gain access, but not in the rural polling stations. There the count took place with only the pro-government electoral officers and Zanu PF candidates and agents present, making the manipulation of figures easy. The MDC claims this took place on a massive scale, citing discrepancies between figures released before the count began of the total number of votes cast and the numbers for each party announced after the count. In Kariba constituency, for example, it was announced as the polls closed on Thursday night that 16 676 people had voted. But when the result was announced on Friday morning the electoral officers reported that Zanu PF has received 13 719 votes and the MDC 9 540 - a total of 24 142, or 7 466 more than the total given the night before. An MDC candidate in a Gweru rural constituency noted the anomaly that in a densely populated communal land area favourable to the opposition the polling stations reported an average of between 250 and 300 votes each, while polling stations in a much more sparsely populated part of the constituency more favourable to Zanu PF reported an average of 700 votes each. More insidious still was a back-up system intended to impress the observer teams. Voters were required to dip their fingers in indelible ink to ensure they could not vote a second time. But the ink was not indelible. A little Vaseline or Jik and it could be washed off in minutes. But all this venality is now history. President Robert Mugabe remains in command with a stronger grip on power than ever. He has total control over the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the police and the military - added to which he now has the power to rewrite the country's constitution to his liking. But what he does not have is a solution to Zimbabwe's deepening economic crisis. That cannot be resolved without international aid, and Mugabe is not going to get that as long as the Western powers perceive him to be stealing elections and violating human rights. So where does that leave Zimbabwe and its people? With more of what they have been suffering for the past five years. Mugabe says he will use his two-thirds majority to change the constitution within the first four months. He says he will establish a senate, a second parliamentary chamber to "cater for those people who, because of their age, are no longer as energetic as they were, and for traditional chiefs". Faced with a deepening rift between a party old guard still clinging to office and younger members champing at the bit as they wait for the succession issue to be resolved, Mugabe may use the senate as a dumping ground for old cronies while introducing some new blood into his government. But which new blood? Is there any in that atrophied and pervasively corrupt party? If so, it is well hidden. I suspect this is the moment President Thabo Mbeki has been waiting for, hoping Mugabe will seize the opportunity to shape a constitution that will enable him to proclaim himself a purely ceremonial president and appoint a prime minister to head a government of national unity which would include the MDC. Mbeki's choice for such a prime minister would presumably be Emmerson Mnangagwa, whom he pointedly invited to the last ANC national congress in December 2002. That would be a satisfying culmination to all these years of "quiet diplomacy", and Mbeki would doubtless be rewarded with international acclamation. But there are snags. Mugabe has already shouldered Mnangagwa aside, having appointed the more obscure Joyce Mujuru to the key vacancy of vice-president at his party congress last December. Now Mnangagwa has suffered the further setback of losing to the MDC in his home constituency of Kwekwe. It is the second time he has lost in successive elections, and this surely puts paid to his prospects of being named heir apparent. As for the government of national unity, Mugabe is unlikely to make a serious offer to the MDC - and the MDC would be unlikely to accept even if he did. It is too outraged at having been abused and cheated for so long by the Mugabe regime, and too sceptical of Zanu PF's ability to undo its disastrous economic policies. Mugabe may make some gesture in the context of his constitutional changes as a token of gratitude to his southern neighbour for his long and patient support, but it is unlikely to mean much in real terms. More like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Which, the election observers would have us believe, is in accordance with the will of the doomed ship's passengers. *Allister Sparks is a veteran South African journalist and former editor of the Rand Daily Mail.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Editor's Memo Line of fire LAST Wednesday I spent two interesting hours under heavy fire from the military at the KG VI garrison. The assault from the four dozen or so mostly three-star officers was incessant. I survived because they were not using guns. I had entered their territory and provoked them. But I would like to think I held my own against the men in uniform who displayed undisguised partisanship and gullibility not expected of soldiers. I had been invited to KG VI to make a presentation on an expansive subject of "The Zimbabwe Defence Forces' image in the eyes of the public and the role of the media in military issues". Two other media colleagues, Dr Rino Zhuwarara, the executive chair of Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings, and Herald editor, Pikirayi Deketeke, were also part of the panel discussion aimed at helping the military understand the role of the media. In the end I felt the officers had not learnt much from the three of us as they took defensive positions in aid of the political establishment. Some of them sounded like party commissars. Forget about Deketeke and Zhuwarara, they all wanted a piece of me because my brief presentation in kicking off the discussion, accused the military of partisanship, unnecessary secretiveness and occasional lapses of professionalism. The officers were not impressed. They had to defend themselves from this civilian invader with no respect for the military. The officers believe that Zimbabwe is under threat of attack from the West. They believe the media has been used as part of the military build-up to create a crisis, mobilise international opinion against Zimbabwe and to justify military intervention. They believe in particular that the Zimbabwe Independent and other critical media have been "demonising" (this appeared to be the buzzword for the officers) President Mugabe and government as part of this build-up. "By demonising the president and the government, does that mean you do not have a sense of belonging - you do not feel you are a Zimbabwean?" asked a female officer in civilian attire. "Highlighting corruption, inefficiency and repression by government is not the same as demonising the president or the country. It is a way of providing checks and balances on the ruling elite," was my answer. Part of the exchange went something like this: "Why do you think that the army buying motor vehicles is a story?" "Because they are using my tax money to do so." "Can you deny that your paper is demonising the government as part of the build-up to justify the invasion of Zimbabwe?" "Yes, I deny that. It is absolutely not true." "I fought for this country in the liberation war. Do you think I should sit back and allow a traitor to come in and run this country?" "I think the army has been sucked into this unfortunate belief by African leaders, including ours, that because they liberated their countries from colonial rule they hold a monopoly over our freedoms and should prescribe them in measured doses. As a modern army you should break from that partisanship.(interjection)." There were interesting questions from a South African officer who wanted to know if Zimbabwe had a properly constituted media complaints council to deal with complaints from the public. Another officer in civvies wanted to know what was wrong with Aippa. Then came the issue of regime change. The army is taking the statements by Tony Blair that "there is no salvation for the people of Zimbabwe until that (Mugabe's) regime is changed" and another by United States secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that Zimbabwe is an "outpost of tyranny", seriously. President George Bush announced last month that Zimbabwe posed a major threat to America's foreign policy aspirations. There is all the evidence of serious indoctrination of military officers. They seriously believe, as propounded by Mugabe, that the MDC is a creation of the British and the party's ascendency to power means a return to British rule. While there might not be visible evidence of military readiness, the army has been readied for the psychological warfare which is crucial in protecting ideologies and ultimately the ruling order. The military has donned its gloves to mimick Mugabe in shadow-boxing the apparitions of Bush and Blair. A senior officer conducting the course had this to say about regime change: "There can never be regime change in the United States unless a communist government takes over. A regime change in Zimbabwe means replacing the legitimate elected government with one that does not believe in the values and ideals of the liberation struggle." That rang a bell. Remember former Zimbabwe Defence Forces commander General Vitalis Zvinavashe in 2002 threatening not to salute anyone without liberation war credentials? The indoctrination started long back and is being consolidated. Perhaps the officers have seen this definition by online free encyclopedia Wikipedia: "Regime change is an overthrow of a government (or regime) considered illegitimate by an external force (usually military), and its replacement with a new government according to the ideas and/or interests promoted by that force. "In contrast to a revolution or a coup d'état, regime change happens as the result of an external force. Regime change may or may not replace the whole administrative apparatus, existing bureaucracy and/or other regime remnants." But do you know that during the heat of the campaining for the US presidency last year, Senator John Kerry, who eventually lost the poll, called for a regime change in that country? Does anyone believe he meant bringing Fidel Castro into the White House? Regimes that permit indoctrination of the armed forces, and few can now doubt ours, have been thoroughly immersed in the puerile mantras of the ruling party, should be careful. Egypt (1952), Nigeria (1966, 1983, 1985), Libya (1969), Ghana (1966, 1972, 1978, 1979, 1981), and Uganda (1971, 1985), among others, all suffered military interventions by young officers who had been introduced to political ideas by their rulers in the hope of securing their loyalty. Instead they got the opposite. Of course that couldn't happen here!

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent We let ourselves down By Blessing-Miles Tendi THAT Zanu PF would win the 2005 parliamentary election was a forgone conclusion. Zanu PF saw it coming. The electorate saw it coming. Civic groups saw it coming. The media saw it coming. And, for all the posturing, even the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) saw it coming. In fact, we all saw it coming because nobody could fail to see that the deck was unfairly stacked in Zanu PF's favour. Zanu PF held all the key cards, the ace in the pack being Zimbabwe's existing constitution which renders palpable electoral advantages to the ruling party. What many of us did not see coming was that Zanu PF would secure a two-thirds majority in parliament. Zanu PF, and President Robert Mugabe in particular, was effervescent in his proclamations that obtaining a two-thirds majority was a must. It was an open secret that the party took the matter of winning a two- thirds majority seriously. An open secret that the MDC seemed not to acutely consider. It was an open secret which, in hindsight, we all seemed not to take so seriously. During the campaign, we were guilty, as Zimbabweans, of not taking Zanu PF's increasingly authoritarian designs seriously, and leaving our human rights at the mercy of others. Zanu PF's trusted and abominable political violence of old did not transpire this time, but the MDC still has legitimate grievances. The high number of voters who were turned away at polling stations - because they were "improperly registered" - was a highly questionable irregularity. And the chaotic state of the voters' roll meant that it was open to manipulation. Nonetheless, the MDC's failure to acknowledge the shortcomings of its 2005 campaign is dumbfounding. Zanu PF blames the "white neo-colonial Western world" for everything, while the MDC blames Zanu PF for everything. The art of naming and blaming the other, and never self, is a quality that marries Zanu PF and the MDC. It is an unholy marriage of convenience that is symptomatic of both sides' inability to be self-critical - a refusal to be introspective. Just as in the 2000 election, the MDC triumphed in the urban constituencies and was routed in the rural areas, five years on the opposition remains cocooned in the cities. And yet it goes without saying in Zimbabwean politics that if you cannot clinch the majority rural vote, you are doomed to political subordination. The MDC may also have dithered for too long on the question of whether to run in the 2005 election or not. It entered the contest belatedly and, in the process, disillusioned and confounded some of its support base. There is also no doubt that the MDC's final decision to contest served to alienate old allies such as the Lovemore Madhuku-led National Constitutional Assembly (NCA). Furthermore, the MDC's success in the Matabeleland province must be treated with scepticism. Generally, the Ndebele people despise Zanu PF for legitimate historical reasons and appear to vote for the MDC because of the absence of a potent alternative party. Anything but Zanu PF seems to be what the Ndebele people are resigned to. This is not to say that the Ndebele people are tribalists. This is merely to say that it would be foolhardy to discount ethnicity as an influential aspect in Zimbabwean politics. Jonathan Moyo's victory in Tsholotsho as an independent candidate demonstrates that if there were noteworthy Ndebele politicians to emerge and form a credible Ndebele party, the Ndebele vote would cease to be a guarantee for the MDC. During the campaign period, Mugabe maintained that the 2005 election would bury the MDC for good. That did not happen. But after last week's heavy defeat, the alarm bells are certainly ringing for the MDC. If the MDC does not take heed, Mugabe's seemingly madcap declaration may eventually prove to be a very sane one. The MDC is, undoubtedly, in need of a major overhaul in terms of vision, image, stratagems and, perhaps, leadership. All of this can be done, and should be done. At first glance, the growing chorus of voices calling for a "third force" in Zimbabwean politics seems valid, but, in spite of everything, premature. The groundwork and able political actors for the emergence of a formidable third party are, at present, non-existent. There is no point having a "third force" for the sake of it. What is simply needed is political rethinking and reconfiguration on the part of the MDC. The MDC must begin to actively engage Zanu PF on its fundamental tenets, especially history. It must realign itself with civic groups like the NCA and press for a national constitutional reform exercise by means of a broad-based mass movement. This, more than ever before, is a time for lobbying the grassroots and marching on the streets for a democratic constitution. Brian Raftopoulos once made the point that "the lesson has to be learnt that politics is not out there for other people to engage in; that if people retreat into their personal and family lives, and ignore their loss of rights and liberties for long enough, then the realities of such repressive encroachments will follow them into their particular retreats". This is the mistake, we, as Zimbabweans, made last week. Only 40% of the electorate turned out to vote. Had the independent media not been so fixated with the sideshow that was and is Jonathan Moyo and focused more on rallying the electorate to come out on election day, a Zanu PF two-thirds majority might have been averted. Had we, the electorate, turned out in droves, it would have been more difficult for the powers-that-be to rig the 2005 election. We took Zanu PF's bid to win a two-thirds majority lightly. With a two-thirds majority, Zanu PF can now amend the constitution whenever it pleases. Zanu PF amended our constitution to suit its self-serving ends in the past. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do the same today. The starting premise to the 2005 election should have been to ensure that the MDC did not forfeit any of the 57 seats it won in the 2000 election, which would have effectively denied Zanu PF a two-thirds majority. However, the MDC, the media, civil society and the electorate's misplaced sense of impotence in the 2005 election meant 16 opposition seats were forfeited. This is what carried the day for Zanu PF. We should have been out there casting our vote, even if the deck was unjustly stacked in Zanu PF's favour. At the very least, we could have averted the two-thirds majority Zanu PF gained. Now we have to bear the brunt of a resurgent, confident and increasingly intolerant regime. We let ourselves down last week. *Blessing-Miles Tendi is a freelance writer based in the UK.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Horror in the polling station MARCH 31 will go down as the day I was cheated the most. As I was standing in the queue awaiting the turn to cast my vote, little did I know the horror awaiting me in the polling station. I was told that my name did not appear on the voters' roll despite having registered in January and inspecting the roll before the February 4 deadline. I even went to the extent of producing a receipt of registration to prove my claim but the polling officer simply acknowledged the validity of my claim but indicated there was nothing that could be done. What irks me is the fact that Zanu PF romped to victory in my constituency - the only one in Harare - and I know of two colleagues who faced the same predicament. If this is not a classic example of rigging, then what else is? Dejected, Harare.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Muckraker This is not a victory HOW can Zanu PF celebrate a "victory" in which they failed to win a single urban seat and lost several they had flagged as marking their return to national ascendancy such as Zengeza, Kadoma and Lupane Turning a blind eye to their failure to make any inroads in the MDC's core constituencies, the ruling party's propagandists tried to turn this disappointing outcome on its head. "What stronghold can the MDC talk of when Zanu PF has won Harare South, Bubi/Umguza, Manyame, Gwanda and many other seats that opposition myths branded as untouchables.?" one gloating commentator asked in the state press. The answer to that is obvious: the cities and towns of Zimbabwe. That stronghold populated by the people who were able to make an informed choice, unlike their country cousins! Harare South, as the Herald pointed out in its remarkably sober account on Saturday, is a mixed urban/rural constituency. Zanu PF candidates were utterly crushed in Bulawayo, Harare, Kadoma, and Mutare. Only in Masvingo was it a close-run thing. What did poor old Victoria Chitepo do to deserve being humiliated in this way (4 648 votes to Priscillah Misihairabwi-Mushonga's 14 841) in Glen Norah? And why couldn't Zanu PF manage more than a pathetic 5 555 in Kambuzuma to the MDC's 17 394? Now let's hear Zanu PF claim the MDC is only a "flash in the pan"! It was Zanu PF's capture of Zengeza and Lupane that were the flashes in the pan. Trudy Stevenson's core vote came from the Hatcliffe Estate. Evidently, President Mugabe's pernicious message about whites failed to travel there. And does anybody for one minute doubt that Heather Bennett would have won Chimanimani in a free and fair poll? And what of Emmerson Mnangagwa? How come there hasn't been a single mention in the government media of his fate? Didymus Mutasa said the MDC would win a maximum of 15 seats. What can we say now of his analytical powers? And Mugabe, speaking of Jonathan Moyo in Tsholotsho, said "the real Tsholotsho doesn't belong to this man - the chiefs don't even know him". They don't know Mugabe either, it would seem. He clearly miscalculated in the inducements offered to chiefs and headmen. The real Tsholotsho placed the president's party third in its list of loyalties. And Binga, Hwange East, Hwange West, Nkayi, Bulilima, Mangwe, Matobo and Umzingwane remained loyal to the opposition. Hardly a Zanu PF clean sweep even in rural Zimbabwe! Meanwhile, Zanu PF apologists did their best to make the best of a bad job. We particularly liked the report on election day from the ZTV man with the helicopter rotor blade churning in the background. He was completely drowned out and so was Augustine Chihuri. But ZTV ran the clip anyway! Then there was the Zimbabwe/Mozambique music festival filler interspersed with a very old cricket match that popped up in the middle of it. ZTV must ensure when recording over old tapes that we don't see the original footage in the middle of a concert! President Mugabe, voting in Highfield, said "the people are behind us". Indeed they were. He had jumped the queue. But alas, when it came to the count, the people were no longer behind him. His party managed only a miserable 4 296 against the MDC's 12 600. And this was the cradle of the revolution we are always being told! Somebody else the people were behind was land-recipient Reuben Barwe. He referred to the long line of voters behind him. Unfortunately it was rather difficult to see behind Reuben as he occupied most of the screen. And let's hope in his final term as president that Mugabe mellows a bit. Every time he was asked an awkward question by Western journalists he appeared to be on the verge of losing it, then caught himself and calmed down. But he shouldn't be so disconcerted by every question put to him by Sky and others. It's all part of the business of politics and he should be able to handle that by now. Asked about the MDC's response to defeat, Mugabe said: "History has shown us that (the MDC) are a very violent people." We recall him saying the same thing when Cain Nkala's body was found in November 2001. We now know that information was false. So does he - but he repeats it. Why wasn't he asked where Joseph Mwale was hiding? That was a perfect opportunity while he was claiming that Tony Blair was lying when he said there was no rule of law in Zimbabwe. If there is rule of law why do political killers and bombers continue to run loose? He should answer that. We liked the Sunday Mail's commentary on Zanu PF's defeat in Masvingo Central. Governor Josiah Hungwe said Mugabe had wanted the party to win the seat back. Hungwe said he had wanted to deliver the seat back "but failed because of circumstances". And Dr Joseph Kurebwa appears to think "Harare is unique because it is a city of government, hence voters in this area tend to be polarised". What is he talking about? The message to the president from Harare was the same as that from Bulawayo, Mutare, and every other urban centre. It was unambiguous: "We don't want your lame excuses here." The Sunday News published a set of six pictures on its front page. The top three were winners: Obert Mpofu, Bright Matonga, and Samuel Udenge; the bottom three were losers: Renson Gasela, Paul Themba Nyathi and Amos Midzi. Now, wasn't there somebody who should have been in the bottom row ahead of the other losers; somebody who has now lost three elections, one in 1999, the other in 2000, and the latest last week? Strange how the Sunday News didn't find that noteworthy. The newspaper told us the election outcome was "a moment to savour". Indeed it was in many constituencies! While the state press was congratulating itself on a free and fair outcome, the government was busy arresting and deporting journalists whose reporting proved inconvenient. A Swedish journalist was deported for "stage-managing an incident". And what was this incident? He tried to interview former farm workers in Norton about their plight. He was arrested after a complaint by the farm owner, Chester Mhende who had taken possession from Mr Whaley. Free speech has it limits, it would seem, especially when it comes to ex-farm workers! The Department of Information should understand that any goodwill built up by allowing so many journalists in during the election would have been dissipated at one stroke by the deportation of the Swedish journalist - who was accredited and therefore free to ask whatever questions he liked - and the detention without bail of the two Telegraph journalists who will tell the world about Aippa and our prison system. Another own goal! Meanwhile, the Herald thought we would be impressed by the news that Zvimba MP Sabina Mugabe had scored a first in the region by being the only mother to sit in parliament with her two sons. The paper seems blissfully unaware that having the head of state's relatives occupying seats in parliament is not something most countries - except perhaps Swaziland - like to boast of! Should Tafataona Mahoso be getting himself into a messy media spat with the Law Society over Aippa? He was responding to an LSZ statement on electoral preparations. Mahoso seems to think he is obliged to leap to the defence of this thoroughly bad law - and Posa for good measure - every time it is criticised, or in this case, because the legislation impinged on a free and fair electoral outcome. He called the LSZ statement an "absurdity". Not content with this maladroit foray, he goes on to defend his Media Ethics Committee's survey that long ago sunk into oblivion and deserves to remain there. Did anybody, apart from Mahoso himself, take its conclusion seriously that the "overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans" wanted statutory regulation of all mass media services? Can you imagine thousands of Zimbabweans out on the streets carrying placards saying "We demand statutory regulation of all mass media services"? The Supreme Court has already commented on Mahoso's alleged bias emanating from his newspaper articles. Many would say he is well qualified to comment on "absurdity" when he finds it in others. But he should understand there are times when silence is golden if he hopes to earn public respect. This was one of them. We must thank presidential spokesperson George Charamba for setting the record straight about Aippa. According to the Daily Mirror, Charamba let it be known last week that he was the brains behind Aippa and was proud of his product. This could explain why it was so sloppily drafted, not to mention malignant. Eddison Zvobgo described it as the most serious assault on civil liberties he had ever seen in his career in parliament. Charamba told reporters in Harare: "Aippa was an attempt to have a rule that manages the media. It has gone a long way in doing that and I am proud of it." He claimed to have done a lot of research into the law. We all know the result of that law was the closure of four newspapers in two years. One proud promoter of that legislation was his former boss who now wants to seize every opportunity to get coverage from the same media he sought to close down. We hope Charamba is learning something from Moyo's folly instead of indulging in braggadocio. Muckraker was amused to read the silly article in the Herald on Tuesday saying "some" manufacturers and the MDC were in cahoots to push up food prices in order to "cause unrest". This is the sort of childish conspiracy-theory economics that has caused so much damage in the past. The reality is of course that the government artificially held down prices in order to buy votes and is now facing the consequences of its populist policies. One of the things MDC youths were accused of in their fliers this week was saying there would be petrol shortages. We recall the head of the fuel marketers association before the election telling his members how unpatriotic it was to charge realistic prices. This could sabotage Zanu PF's chances in the poll, he helpfully said. He should be held accountable for partisan collaboration and subsequent fuel shortages. Has Lowani Ndlovu undergone a sudden transformation or has he left the Sunday Mail? This week's contribution was remarkable for its lack of the usual venom and use of profane language. Instead, there was a call for unity of purpose among all Zimbabweans for the country to move forward. Is this the same fellow who before the election was seeing running dogs of imperialism at every turn? But he appears to take President Mugabe's offer to talk to the MDC too seriously. He has given us no precedent for fair-dealing with the opposition. Those who are in doubt can check with former PF-Zapu leaders who negotiated the 1987 Unity Accord. The result was complete capitulation. Lowani said: "Constructive engagement between Zanu PF and the MDC is the best and shortest way forward for Zimbabwe ." to limit the pain that people are going through. This has been evident to all Zimbabweans and foreigners of goodwill since the 2000 election. It is only Zanu PF, Mugabe and the new Lowani who are making the discovery now! Soon after the February 2000 constitutional referendum Mugabe made similar unctuous remarks about peace and accepting the people's verdict. Many are still licking their wounds from the retribution that followed. There were similarly half-hearted overtures about talks after the presidential election. But that was only up to a time when Mugabe started setting his own terms of trying to swallow the MDC which he routinely attacked as an imperialist outfit. Why should we trust him now to honour his word? Why does Lowani believe Mugabe now means it, although in truth everybody knows that is the best option for Zimbabwe? For the painful truth for Mugabe and his Zanu PF is that their victory is as hollow as a tunnel echoing to itself. It cannot bring together the key stakeholders that the country needs to move forward. It has spawned a debilitating national depression and cynical disillusion about the entire electoral process. Nobody takes the rural result seriously. Not even Mugabe himself can be proud of the so-called electoral mandate he has got. This is in sharp contrast to the delusional Mzala Joe of the Sunday News. Still pursuing the discredited line that British prime minister Tony Blair wants to colonise Zimbabwe, Mzala Joe asserted this scheme had been thwarted by his party's victory. The landslide victory, proclaimed Cde Joe, would enable Zimbabweans to focus their energies on socio-economic development and "get on with life as we know it". If Mzala Joe is not a Martian he will know that the last five years have been the darkest part of the Zanu PF nightmare and political stalemate. Nobody would want to get on with life as we have known it in past few years. In fact Zimbabweans were praying for a break from their misery and have no illusions about the causes. But we enjoyed the macabre irony in the heading of his article: "Zanu PF tsunami buries MDC." Unfortunately, in his short-sighted euphoria he could not realise it was more than the MDC that has been hit by this Zanu PF calamity. Only irredeemable idiots would see a positive result out of a tsunami. And what could be more alarmist than the Herald lead headline on Tuesday: "MDC unleashes violence"? The self-serving story then claimed rowdy MDC youths had "rampaged" in the Harare city centre in the afternoon "beating up people and stoning shops" in order to "misinform and confuse" the public about the situation in the country. The alleged rowdy youths were moving in "several groups" across Nelson Mandela Avenue when they were spotted by the alert Herald reporter who was standing in a bank queue. The reporter claims to have been "kicked all over the body" before the youths disappeared. Police at the time managed to arrest only two of the youths from the "several groups" terrorising people in the city centre in broad daylight! One wonders what the situation is like in the rural areas if it's so easy to cause mayhem in the city centre and police can only apprehend two offenders. Where was Newsnet to capture the horror as it unfolded we wonder? Finally, now Tony Blair has announced an election date in the UK, will it be an anti-Mugabe poll?

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent The election: what they said Grace Kombora/Ndamu Sandu AS controversy swirls around the just-ended parliamentary election, observers and individuals are unable to agree on a final verdict. *Movement for Democratic Change: "The MDC and the people of Zimbabwe know very well who the real winners are. This election was stolen. The results are in no way an accurate reflection of the sovereign wishes of the people of Zimbabwe. *There are serious and unaccountable gaps between the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC)'s official pronouncements on the number of votes cast and final totals accorded to each candidate. This indicates massive electoral fraud by the ruling party." *Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights: "Not all Zimbabweans have been able to freely exercise their right to vote or be voted for in the March 2005 election. The election has produced a situation of selective rather than universal suffrage which should be condemned." *South African parliamentary observer mission: "The mission unanimously agreed that the elections were credible, legitimate, free and fair and conformed to the Sadc election guidelines." (However, the mission's statement has drawn the ire of opposition political parties in South Africa such as the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front and Independent Democrats which have disagreed with the "unanimous" verdict, saying the election had been "anything but free and fair".) *African Union observer team: "The MDC has alleged that there are serious discrepancies in the official results released by ZEC for several constituencies. It is hoped that both ZEC and ESC will promptly look into the allegations with a view to assuring the Zimbabwean people of the authenticity of the results of the election." *US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Although the campaign and election day itself was generally peaceful, the election process was not free and fair. The electoral field was heavily tilted in government's favour. The independent press was muzzled, freedom of assembly was constrained, food was used as a weapon to sway hungry voters, and millions of Zimbabweans who have been forced by the nation's economic collapse to emigrate were disenfranchised." *The SADC Election Observer Mission specifically took issue with the following, which they indicated needed "recasting and or improvement": The need to simplify the procedure and to ensure that authorisations for voter education are provided easily and timeously by the relevant institutions; the need for wide publication of updating and verification of the voters' roll." In addition they stated that: "SADC Mission was concerned about the number of people who were turned away from polling stations. Notwithstanding [the] reasons [provided by the ZEC and the Registrar of Voters] it is the Mission's view that the voters' registration process requires improvement." *United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed the peaceful election contrasting it with previous elections which were marred by violence. Annan expressed concern "that the electoral process has not countered the sense of disadvantage felt by opposition political parties who consider the conditions were unfair" and called on all sides to "engage in constructive dialogue in the period ahead". *British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "The elections were seriously flawed. Zimbabwe had yet again denied ordinary Zimbabweans a free and fair opportunity to vote, further prolonging the political and economic crisis Mugabe has inflicted on their country." *Australian Foreign minister Alexander Downer said there had been "a pleasing reduction in political violence during the campaign and greater freedom for opposition parties to campaign compared to earlier elections. But the electoral playing field remains strongly tilted in favour of the ruling party. Intimidation of voters is pervasive including through the use of food supplies. There are also significant question marks over the state of the electoral rolls, recent changes to electoral boundaries and the independence of the electoral machinery supervising the election." *German junior Foreign minister Kerstin Mueller: "President Mugabe's government has again abused fundamental principles for holding free and fair elections." *Sweden's Foreign Affairs minister Laila Freivalds: said she regrets "the obstacles that the government has placed in the way of a free and democratic election process". *Zimbabwe National Students Union: "Zinasu deplores the whole electoral process as fundamentally flawed in favour of the ruling party both in terms of the Electoral Act and constitution and hereby states unequivocally that Zimbabwean elections can never be free and fair until Aippa and Posa are repealed and the law begins to apply uniformly to all political parties in the country."

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Electoral Court independence questionable - lawyers Godfrey Marawanyika THE Electoral Court is susceptible to manipulation by the executive which effectively results in it failing to operate independently, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights has said in its report on last week's parliamentary election. Mordecai Mahlangu, a board member of the legal umbrella group, said the impartiality of electoral institutions in the country was also questionable. "The Electoral Court has been found susceptible to executive manipulation and ZLHR is unable to express full confidence that it will be able to deal effectively, independently and timeously with any and all cases lodged with it," Mahlangu said. "The impartiality of the electoral institutions is questionable. They have failed during the electoral period (especially the counting of votes phase) to exhibit full transparency and assistance to those observing the process. In light of the serious questions raised in respect of the inconsistent statistics provided by the ZEC, it is to be hoped that answers are forthcoming sooner rather than later to deal exhaustively with all concerns." The Electoral Court was set up by the government to handle election-related disputes. Last month it came under pressure following President Mugabe's comments that he would not recognise a ruling enabling jailed MDC legislator Roy Bennett to stand in Chimanimani. The court had ruled that Chimanimani polls be held at the end of this month and not last week. Mahlangu said that as long as the ZEC fails to deal publicly and decisively with the allegations made, it continues to be seen "as an ineffective institution with something to hide". ZLHR has made recommendations to improve the integrity of future elections. Among its recommendations, it wants constitutional reviews involving all sectors of society. The lawyers want measures to ensure an efficient, adequate and impartial system of voter education, including the youth who will vote in future elections. They said: "The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act should be revisited and reviewed to ensure that well-equipped non-governmental organisations are provided with help, not hindrance, in carrying out such a mandate," Mahlangu said. "The process of voter registration needs to be overhauled. ZLHR calls for a new voters roll to be prepared, for the process to be effected transparently, in a manner which is facilitative to all sectors of the electorate, and for access to the roll to be drastically improved and made available in electronic and hard-copy forms." The ZLHR also recommended a repeal of all repressive legislation in force today, adding that the authorities must provide avenues for the entire Zimbabwean electorate to participate in parliamentary and presidential elections. The lawyers also believe there should be one body to deal with electoral issues. "The Electoral Court needs to be revisited and form a separate structure with its own administrative and substantive personnel. Without such resources it will never be able to satisfy its mandate in terms of the Electoral Act." The lawyers' body also believes that not enough was done and "not enough political will was shown to reassure the people that their will remained central at all times in the electoral and political process".

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Houston Chronicle

Mugabe, Milosevic and Zimbabwe's 'John Paul' option
By AUSTIN BAY

Zimabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe combines the worst aspects of Cold War and War on Terror tyranny.

Think of Mugabe as an African Slobodan Milosevic. When the Cold War closed down, Milosevic morphed from Yugoslav communist to Serb fascist. As time passed in southern Africa, shape-shifting Mugabe adjusted his schtick, moving from Marx-spouting revolutionary to kleptocrat tribal dictator. Both thugs are ethnic cleansers and cynical thieves who murder rivals, silence the press and brutally intimidate domestic opposition.

There is a major difference: Milosevic is under arrest, while Mugabe continues to destroy a once wealthy nation, while hiding behind a slick PR campaign that co-opts and corrupts classic "human rights" themes.

Mugabe can give Milosevic — and, for that matter, Russia's Vladimir Putin — lessons in rigging elections. On March 31, Mugabe stole his third election in five years, making Zimbabwe the world's current leader in charade democracy.

Mugabe and his thugs tried to steal the last one quietly. As elections approached, Mugabe began denying foreign reporters entry visas. He imposed a law that made "unauthorized demonstrations" a felony punishable by up to 20 years in jail — a law aimed at his democratic opponents in The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). And then there's the food weapon. Mugabe's government controls Zimbabwe's food supplies. Cooperate, and you get your loaf of bread. Oppose Mugabe, and food's denied.

Ah, but those pesky priests who won't shut up. Mugabe has had to threaten church leaders he deems responsible for "encouraging" street protests. Catholic Bishop Pius Ncube — a major domestic critic of Mugabe and his dictatorship — has been a special target.

Ncube predicted last week's election would be rigged, and Ncube was right. The "final tally" gave Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) 74 seats and the MDC 40

There's no question Mugabe committed mass fraud — and the MDC has refused to accept the results.

Mugabe may get away with it, breaking the democratic pulse surging through Afghanistan, Ukraine, Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, and testing the Bush administration's "pro-democracy" doctrine. The man is ruthless, and in the past ruthless has worked. Though Mugabe's ethnic cleansing of the Mdebele in 1980 brought extensive criticism, criticism never became international opposition to his regime. Whenever international outrage builds, Mugabe trots out two themes that have been political trumps for too many African tyrants, "combating colonialism" and "fighting racism." This mantra stymies a fossil segment of the "human rights Left" — a crowd that railed against Milosevic.

Mugabe also appears to have another hole card — South Africa's Thabo Mbeki has not played pro-democracy Poland to the Zimbabwe democrats' would-be Ukraine. In fact, Mbeki looks increasingly weak, ineffectual and churlish — a man who knows he stands in Nelson Mandela's shadow and resents it. Mbeki declared Zimbabwe's elections "free and fair" before the vote. A few commentators conclude this is Mbeki and Mugabe acting out a senescent form of "freedom fighter" solidarity, and it may be just that, another mid-20th century political relic thwarting 21st century democratic change.

Still, international criticism is mounting — if Kyrgyzstan can rally for freedom, why not Zimbabwe?

What can be done to support the democrats? Any effective military action or political-economic sanctions regimen requires South African cooperation, and Mbeki looks like he's been bought off.

The priests, however, haven't been co-opted. Pope John Paul II's death has kept Mugabe's electoral fraud out of the news cycle, but there is a "John Paul" option that could benefit peaceful change throughout sub-Sahran Africa. The Polish pope inspired Eastern European resistance to communism and inspired billions with his spiritual and moral leadership. An African pope could do the same for African democrats.

There are signals that this could happen. French Cardinal Bernard Panafieu, when asked about electing a "Third World" pope, replied, "Everything is possible."

An African pope would change the political dynamics in sub-Saharan Africa, and put dictators like Mugabe under insistent global scrutiny — the first step to putting them all in jail.

Bay, a nationally syndicated columnist based in Texas, specializes in military and foreign affairs.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Mbeki's dilemma over Zimbabwe worsens By Charles Mangongera A FEW years ago I wrote about South African President Thabo Mbeki's dilemma in dealing with President Robert Mugabe. In that submission, I argued that Mbeki's policy on Zimbabwe was fundamentally flawed in that he was pursuing "quiet diplomacy" in the hope that Mugabe would see the light, but he would not. The problem with Mbeki's foreign policy on Zimbabwe, I argued, is that it puts into jeopardy his ambitious projects of African Renaissance and Nepad. I also warned that Mbeki would be judged harshly by history for having protected a stubborn dictator by failing to condemn his evil deeds. I still hold the same views. In fact, I think things are getting worse in Zimbabwe and Mbeki is facing more and more dilemmas. As the situation continues to deteriorate Mbeki has continued with his crusade to convince everyone who cares to listen that everything is normal in Zimbabwe. His public posture as an African political godfather with intricate knowledge of the goings-on in Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zanu PF is in pursuit of that goal. I find Mbeki's actions mind-boggling. I also think he is not very perceptive. Remember his warped ideas about the HIV/Aids-poverty nexus? And his disrespectful chiding of the good Archbishop Desmond Tutu after the man of the cloth had complained about the culture of sycophancy in the African National Congress? Not that there is anything wrong with not being perceptive. There are many of us that are not so gifted with mental prowess. The reason I think Mbeki has got more beard than brains is because of how he has been handling Uncle Bob and the Zimbabwe circus. The man has been desperately trotting the globe attempting to portray himself as a great statesman of Africa. Yet he lacks the guts to stand up to our dear leader and implore him to see reason for the benefit of the entire region. Why he lets his paranoid delusions about a non-existent white man's conspiracy against the black man cloud his judgement baffles the mind. We all know that Mbeki thinks he owes a lot to Uncle Bob, given that he was given refuge in Harare at the height of apartheid in South Africa. But there comes a point where you let go of personal friendships and act like a statesman, especially when you want to be remembered as one. Moreover, he was not living on Uncle Bob's personal funds at the time. It was taxpayers' money. He therefore owes everything to Zimbabweans. If the truth be told, Mbeki has not been sincere about Zimbabwe. Firstly, he has lied to the world that the crisis in Zimbabwe is about land. And yet every right-thinking Zimbabwean knows that the crisis is about Mugabe's obsession with political power. The crisis had nothing to do with land, because Uncle Bob had more than two decades to give land to his people - meaning his friends and relatives in the higher echelons of power. Genuine beneficiaries of the process had not received an ounce of soil,while those that had received the land had, by Mugabe's own admission, become "cell-phone farmers" using the farms as "weekend braai resorts". What does Mbeki say about this? He whines about not wanting to be pushed to use "megaphone diplomacy" in place of his "quiet diplomacy". And in Mbeki-speak "quiet diplomacy" means employing every trick in the book to protect his ageing ally. It means lying to the whole world that the autocrat is talking to his political foes and that before everyone knows it, there will be a "political breakthrough" in Zimbabwe, after which we all can sit back in the VIP lounge of the Cigar Bar in Cape Town, puffing on Havanas and sipping the finest whisky. Don't we all remember being told this when George Bush came on his whirlwind tour of Africa a couple of years ago? Of course some of us never believed what the political quack had to say, although Dubya did. The point I am making is that Mbeki is attempting to do the impossible on Zimbabwe. In fact, I think he has failed in whatever he was attempting to do. This is because his attempts at packaging and repackaging the "Mugabe product" in the hope that it would become a bestseller on the global market have come to nought. My marketing friends tell me that when a product has overstayed its welcome in the market, the best thing to do is withdraw it and introduce another one, with a completely new marketing strategy. Perhaps Mbeki needs a bit of tuition on this. The tuition might have to wait a bit though. I suspect the man is busy penning the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) verdict on the 2005 parliamentary election in Zimbabwe, which will obviously be filled with the usual Mbeki innuendos: "The people of Zimbabwe have expressed their democratic will and despite the few mishaps that were encountered, we are confident that the result of the election is a true reflection of their wishes." So much for the Sadc guidelines on elections. *Charles Mangongera is a political researcher.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent What transition, what dialogue? Vincent Kahiya WHEN President Mugabe said he would win back the urban constituencies from the opposition MDC in the general election held last week, he was wrong. Equally, when the MDC confidently told us it would snatch rural seats from Zanu PF, it was also wrong. Zanu PF, which won 78 seats, maintained its grip on the rural areas while the opposition, with 41 seats, held on to its urban fortress. This was almost the same story as in the 2000 general election. The 2005 election was a poll no party really won if we are to move away from the posturing by Mugabe about a two-thirds majority in parliament. Two weeks before the election Mugabe appeared to relent on his strong-arm tactics. Opposition parties were seen on national television. (They are disappearing fast.) The opposition was allowed to campaign in the rural areas where it had virtually been banned. Mugabe preached peace with the passion of a saint while the state media was told to sing the latest mantra that the country was now a "mature" democracy. The gullible saw a country in transition which would continue after the election. Zanu PF, they believed, would build on the miniscule goodwill it had secured on the eve of the election to implement progressive policies that would integrate Zimbabwe back into the international community. That is all a bit far-fetched, because as soon as the last observer leaves it will be back to repressive business as usual for our ruling elite. Mugabe will sign the NGO Bill, opposition faces will disappear from television screens, while the police will be back to their heavy-handedness. Computer donations and government largesse will dry up. The MDC and Zanu PF are still worlds apart and are likely to remain so. There is no transition to marvel at. It is the same old story of deprivation and retrogression. The election result is a harbinger of tougher times to come for Zimbabwe. Mugabe's landslide win is just that because in it, there is no guarantee of food on the table for the hungry populace, jobs, foreign investment, balance-of-payments support, affordable health care and housing. The election result is a further complication of the political logjam that has been the hallmark of Zimbabwe politics over the past five years. The economic meltdown is a product of Mugabe's failure to come up with an acceptable internal settlement that takes on board the opposition and civic groups. Dialogue has in the past failed due to Mugabe's insistence that talks should be solely on his own anti-Blair terms. At a press conference at State House last Saturday, Mugabe tried to be magnanimous. He appeared to be handing an olive branch to the opposition. I doubt his sincerity. This is not the first time that such magnanimity has failed to sway the public into believing that Mugabe is now amenable to dialogue with the opposition. At his inauguration as president in 2002, he spoke in the same vein but the ruse did not wash. The political tension in Zimbabwe will be heightened by the refusal of the opposition MDC to accept the results of the poll which they said was rigged. There are likely to be court challenges, which will only increase Mugabe's anger at the opposition. The more militant fringe in the MDC has been limbering up for streets protests. The dress rehearsal in central Harare on Monday brought out the best in our heavy-handed police. Then there is a group which is pushing for the 41 MDC-elected MPs to boycott parliament. All the actions being mooted by the opposition constitute a major threat to Mugabe's quest for legitimacy. Stories of the opposition's defiance will have Mugabe under the glare of international media for the wrong reasons. He does not like that and with it Zanu PF and the MDC will struggle to find common ground. The first stage of any useful dialogue should be premised on the two parties agreeing on election results. The debate about Mugabe's legitimacy has bogged down the country since the disputed 2000 general election. It is not over yet and Mugabe is aware that legitimacy and international acceptance of his rule require the blessings of the opposition, hence the subterfuge that he wants dialogue. Apart from the nagging issue of legitimacy, Mugabe has to tell the nation when he is leaving office. He has tried to make it a big secret as if he is getting any younger. Mugabe is the embodiment of the systems and processes of government which international investors abhor. Any national discourse to mend the politics and the economy has to include the shelf-life of the incumbent. The issue of leadership renewal will not also escape the opposition. There is simmering discontent in the ranks of the MDC on the leadership capabilities of party leader Morgan Tsvangirai. The various interest groups which created the opposition party in 1999 do not seem to agree on an alternative leader. The internal dynamics in the party sometimes mirror the embarrassing factional squabbles that have become the hallmark of Zanu PF over the years. Despite his shortcomings, especially in articulating national issues and taking crucial decisions, Tsvangirai has been the glue holding the various voices together. But he has to be more than just an adhesive. The centre has to radiate diligence that is required to keep the party relevant after this election. His leadership is under scrutiny. Tsvangirai has to ensure that leaders in his party march in step towards important policy issues. MDC leaders have in the past failed to agree on how to engage Zanu PF in dialogue. There was also no homogeneity among them on whether to participate in last week's election or not. This fragmentation threatens any prospects of successful dialogue between Zanu PF and the opposition. With it, President Thabo Mbeki's diplomacy, geared to achieving a government of national unity, is in jeopardy. The South African election observer team which was in Harare has endorsed the poll results. So has the Sadc team and the African Union mission. This endorsement of Mugabe by his African brothers will only inflate his ego and strengthen his obdurate grip on power. There is currently no love lost between the opposition and Mbeki, who has tried to broker dialogue between Zanu PF and the MDC. The MDC will now question Mbeki's integrity if he tries to mediate. Just when Mbeki is about to come under increased pressure from London, Washington and Brussels, his leverage is reduced by his own diplomacy! Meanwhile, the political and economic climate will continue to fester. This has been a "no-change" election just when the country most needed it.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent The case for a democratic constitution By Wilfred Mhanda THE 2005 parliamentary elections have come and gone. Whether they were rigged or "free and fair" is neither here nor there. It is as immaterial that Zanu PF won the election as it is that the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) lost the election. The material outcome of that election is that Zimbabwe as a country and its inhabitants were the biggest losers. Where a democratic dispensation does not obtain, the will of the people will not prevail. Those political parties that participated in this election including Zanu PF and the MDC were taking people for a ride and hoping to salvage the most from the political charade. Zanu PF is now claiming to have garnered a two-thirds majority in the election. This is being deliberately disingenuous. The party by fair means or foul got 78 seats in an elective parliament of 120 seats. Simple arithmetic clearly shows that 78 is less than two-thirds of 120, which is 80 seats. To claim a two-thirds popular mandate is therefore tantamount to no less than political fraud and electoral rape. Zanu PF's claim of the two-thirds majority is based on borrowing two or three seats from the 30 seats appointed by the president without an electoral mandate. This may be legal in terms of the present constitution but it remains undemocratic all the same. It is doubtful whether the spirit of the constitution ascribes the 30 seats appointed by the president to a given political party. If that were the case it would only serve to underline the deficiency, unsuitability and undesirability of the present constitution. In technical terms, those appointed members should be nothing more than alternate MPs with restricted voting rights. If Zanu PF is as popular as it claims, then it should have won the two-thirds majority from the contested seats. If they hold that the elections were free and fair, then they should accept the people's verdict which denied them the two-thirds majority as their free expression. To act otherwise would be to flout the will of the people and behave like bad losers. The claim of a two-thirds majority therefore does not pass the test of legitimacy based on either consent or the popular will of the electorate. Zanu PF will obviously argue that their claim is based on the provisions of the current constitution. But was that constitution ever subjected to the electorate to confer legitimacy on it? Is it the will of the electorate that the president arrogates to himself the equivalent of one third of the power of the electorate to appoint MPs of his choice? What brand of democracy would that be? Fair and fine, even the devil himself and the numerous tin-pot dictators may have their own "constitutions" and their brand of the rule of law but the bottom line for a truly democratic constitution is the involvement of the populace in crafting the constitution - a people- driven constitution as opposed to an imposed one. We may have whatever constitution but it has to pass the legitimacy test. If it does not, then it cannot be democratic. Dictators like Saddam Hussein used to boast of over 95% popular support in elections but that was not a true reflection of the will of the people of Iraq. The same applies to the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe that used to invariably lay claim to electoral victories in excess of 90% of the 'electorate'. But when the people finally spoke as they will inevitably do in Zimbabwe, those huge majorities vanished into thin air! Zimbabwe's electorate, according to the voters roll used for the March 2005 General Election, comprises approximately 5,7 million registered voters. It is common cause that inclusive in this roll are over three million Zimbabweans in the diaspora who are either economic or political refugees. This clearly represents almost 50% of the registered voters by any means of calculation. What sort of legitimacy can Mugabe claim, which is based on less than 50% of the electorate? When this reality is taken into account, Zanu PF's 78 seats translate to less than a 33% electoral mandate which is a far cry from the two thirds they claim to have secured. What sort of democracy would justify a political party or an individual for that matter to claim the right to change a people's destiny by tampering with the constitution on the basis of less than 33% electoral support? Are we talking of genuine democracy? This is democracy - Zanu PF style, characterised by the chastisement of more than 60% of the provincial chairpersons for daring to think differently. Just as President Mugabe correctly maintains that the West does not have a monopoly of democratic values, neither does he or his political party hold that monopoly. Democracy, whether in the West or in Zimbabwe, should be characterised by the unfettered expression of the will of the electorate which was obviously not the case in the just- ended election. If Zimbabweans in the diaspora are not qualified to vote, why on earth should their names be retained on the voters roll? Would it not make sense to compile a voters roll of only those citizens of voting age resident in the country? Can the Zanu PF government claim to represent people, whose names are on the voters roll but are denied the right to vote? Is there consent from the disenfranchised people for Zanu PF to purport to act on their behalf when the party talks of the will of the electorate? Those political parties that participated in the elections should respond to these very pertinent democratic questions. It is plain to all Zimbabweans that the result of this election will not bring respite to the country and its suffering people. How long are Zimbabweans prepared to wallow in poverty at the whims of undemocratic leaders and political parties? Zimbabwe does not belong to President Mugabe or his political party for that matter. If that were the case why would they bother calling elections at all? If they call those elections then it is incumbent upon them to respect the will of the electorate even if it denies them the two thirds majority. Otherwise they become guilty of being bad losers! Just as Zanu PF had a legitimate right to advocate land reform (never mind the implementation and outcome and the corruption associated with it!) to correct historically engendered inequities, the people of Zimbabwe have an even greater legitimate and sovereign right to demand constitutional reform to correct the democratic inadequacies and deficiencies that have plagued Zimbabwe since Independence in 1980. The people-driven constitution should serve as a contract between those who wield power in the name of the people on the one hand and the people themselves on the other as the custodians of the power and the right to be governed well. Democracy can never prevail in the absence of such a political and social contract that confers legitimacy on a political dispensation. The people of Zimbabwe have never had such a contract. The British-imposed Lancaster House Constitution cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be such a contract. To argue about free and fair elections and their outcome in the absence of a homegrown national contract is at best to miss the point of the true meaning of democracy and at worst an unscrupulous and irresponsible attempt to usurp the people's sovereign right to demand accountability of those who govern them on their behalf. *Wilfred Mhanda is the chairman of the Zimbabwe Liberators Platform.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent How Zanu PF stole the ballot By Benjamin Chitate WHAT happened during the 2005 parliamentary elections is really a sad development. Zanu PF has turned traditional leaders into masters of repression; it has oriented chiefs and kraal heads to hate their subjects because of their political choice. In a way, the ruling party is indirectly declaring a one-party state in the rural areas where it knows the people there are gullible and can easily be intimidated. That the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has become popular with the rural electorate is fact, as evident from the large turnout of supporters at its rallies in the rural areas - some of which were screened on television. However, Zanu PF came up with a strategy where it would hold its own rallies after the MDC. Police officers who gave the MDC clearance to hold rallies were instructed to pass on that information to Zanu PF so that the ruling party would hold its own rallies after the opposition's. At all those rallies held in the rural areas, Zanu PF would first have meetings with the chiefs, kraal heads and headmen, where they were allegedly tasked to come up with programmes of action to intimidate the electorate into voting for Zanu PF. The traditional leaders would compile lists of all people under their jurisdiction. They would then identify from the lists those who were Zanu PF and those who were MDC. MDC rallies were also used to identify MDC activists as some Zanu PF spies would attend the same rallies. All MDC supporters were systematically denied access to maize sold through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB). MDC activists were subjected to various forms of harassment. Some had their identification documents defaced so that they could not vote, others had the same documents confiscated and were instructed to collect them at specific polling stations on voting day. Kraal heads were instructed to hold village meetings where they lied to the people that because of the use of transparent ballot boxes, and because counting of votes would be done at the same polling stations and that Zanu PF activists would write down the names of the people voting on the election day, it was easy to know who one voted for and all those who voted for the MDC would be evicted, or denied access to GMB-sold maize and agricultural inputs. Villagers were told that it was a punishable offence not to vote, and voting meant putting their X against the Zanu PF candidate. For the sake of their survival, the villagers had no choice but to vote in a way that would ensure that they were not denied access to agricultural inputs and, above all, vote in a way that would ensure that they were not harmed in any way by Zanu PF hooligans. That is how Zanu PF stole the election from the MDC. This method of rigging is one which most observers would not easily detect, and that is why some of them are saying the election was free and fair. Zimbabwe needs not just observers, it needs some investigation conducted by bodies such as the African Union and the United Nations to establish the extent of such human rights abuse by the regime. Bodies such as the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights can submit reports that would persuade these bodies to take a closer look. The MDC could also help compile the cases of human rights abuses for political purposes and present them to the same bodies. But we know very well how Zanu PF is the party that has made life so unbearable for most Zimbabweans. The rural electorate knows this, and had they been allowed to vote the way they wanted, they could have voted for a new beginning for our beloved Zimbabwe. It is a challenge to those who are more enlightened about the voting process to educate our relatives who have been misled into thinking that someone will know who they voted for. Each individual who is enlightened must spread the message to all their close relatives who could be gullible. Voter education is best done at family level, and should start now for the 2008 presidential election. It is only three years away and that is not a lot of time from now. But with an economy that is in tatters, will Zanu PF be able to deliver on its election promises? Will the people of Zimbabwe want to suffer all their lives under a government that has failed to deliver in 25 years? The answer lies in our hands, and it is a question of choice. *Benjamin Chitate is a freelance writer based in Harare.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Way forward for the MDC EVERYBODY knows what has happened. Not that it was unexpected. What was painfully unexpected was the absence of Plan B. Notable leaders have been noted throughout history for their vision. Vision can be described as the ability to look into the fog of the future, and be able to read the terrain as accurately as possible, and work out how they would navigate the terrain once the fog cleared. Those who can only plan their strategy when the fog has cleared, history has always relegated to the role of management, and not leadership. What has just happened cries loudly for a visionary. I propose that we in the MDC should seriously consider merging with the NCA without delay with the view to finding a vision. That way we will keep our trusted organiser and manager of the people, Morgan Tsvangirai, whilst at the same time continuing with the programme of regime change in Zimbabwe. After all, the programme has always been the same but taken different routes. Think clearly on this. Shupiko Mudzamiri, Harare.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent It's the people, not MDC who lost I RECEIVED the news that Zanu PF had won the Zimbabwean election with great sadness. President Robert Mugabe says that the MDC must accept defeat with grace. Am I the only one seeing that the MDC did not lose. Losers are the people of Uzumba and indeed all the people of Zimbabwe. They lost a chance to get jobs so that they can stop being used by Zanu PF for a plate of sadza. They lost a chance to be able to feed their children. They lost a chance of attracting investment. As the Zanu PF supporters celebrated their "win" the price of soft drinks, cigarettes and beer went up. Inflation is over 100% and the black market is running away with all the foreign currency. For Mugabe to insist that the MDC has lost shows that he has lost his soul to the devil. I know that after Zanu PF supporters are through with their celebrations, they will return to their empty homes to face hunger. They will go back to the hospitals with neither drugs nor doctors. They will return to the fuel and mealie-meal queues. I hope that as Mugabe says, they will accept their defeat with grace. Busani Moyo, Bulawayo.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent IMF team to arrive next month Godfrey Marawanyika THE International Monetary Fund (IMF) team will arrive in the country next month for Article IV consultations, a month after Zimbabwe's parliamentary election. The IMF team is set to arrive on May 3 and depart on May 16. During its visit, the IMF team will meet Zimbabwean authorities on issues pertaining to the Zimbabwe Allied Banking Group and the National Oil Company of Zimbabwe (Noczim). On Noczim, the fund will discuss the issue of external debt arrears, import of fuel, operating results and restructuring. The IMF delegation will comprise Sharmini Coorey (head of delegation), Paul Heytens, Sonia Munoz and Sanket Mohapatra. Article IV consultations are held by the fund with each member country. During the visit the Washington group will meet with officials from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Finance, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries, the Central Statistical Office and the opposition MDC. The Coorey-led team is expected to discuss monetary and exchange rate developments, capital markets and concessional lending with the central bank and Ministry of Finance and Economic Development officials. On May 4, the IMF is expected to meet with central bank governor Gideon Gono. On May 5, the fund will meet officials from the Grain Marketing Board and the newly-established Agricultural Marketing Authority. During its last visit in September last year, the IMF noted that fiscal operations were almost balanced in 2003, but said the 2004 budget was expansionary, with a deficit target of 7,3% of gross domestic product. The mission noted that expenditure fell sharply in real terms in 2003 as wages were eroded by inflation while the domestic interest bill declined owing to negative real interest rates. It said other government spending was constrained by shortages of foreign exchange and weak administrative capacity. During the first quarter of last year, the budget deficit rose to 13,4% largely because of a 220% wage increase in January and "a catch up in current and capital spending", the IMF said after its visit. The external current account deficit narrowed to 6% in 2003 from 7,3% in 2002. "In the absence of foreign financing, arrears continued to accumulate to reach US$2,1 billion or 44% of external debt," the IMF said. "The average exchange rate in the economy strongly appreciated in early 2004. This resulted from the introduction of a heavily managed foreign exchange tender system in January and the clamping down on the parallel market, where the bulk of foreign exchange transactions took place in 2003." On May 11, the IMF will meet with officials from the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority to discuss the power utility's external debt and other arrears. The same day, the fund is also set to meet with Zimbabwe Stock Exchange boss, Emmanuel Munyukwi. On May 13, the IMF will meet with the Office of the President to discuss the issue of land reform, anti-corruption and anti-monopolies. In February, the IMF's executive board spared Zimbabwe from expulsion but noted the country's payment of US$16,5 million since the last review which it said fell short of stabilising its arrears with the Bretton Woods institution. The board noted the authorities' intention to further increase payments to the IMF from the second quarter of 2005, and urged Zimbabwe to resolve its overdue financial obligations to the IMF. Zimbabwe has been in continuous arrears to the IMF since February 2001. As of February 15 this year, Zimbabwe's arrears to the IMF amounted to Special Drawing Rights 202 million (US$306 million) or about 57% of its IMF quota.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Police force or party thugs? ON April 4 I witnessed two ZRP open trucks weaving dangerously in heavy traffic, whilst laden to the brim with ZRP members chanting Zanu PF slogans. I always knew that the ZRP was an extension of Zanu PF, but it was only on Monday when I realised the extent of their unprofessional bias. They were behaving like thugs: chanting, wielding and pointing their truncheons menacingly at passers-by. They were obviously trying to instill fear in innocent civilians, letting them know who is in charge. If this is a taste of things to come, then God help us. Be afraid, be very, very afraid... Tony Namate, Harare.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Parliament's unfinished business Godfrey Marawanyika DESPITE parliament last year passing a record 22 Bills that were subsequently signed into law, there were still four outstanding reports when the House adjourned for business in January. Among measures passed, the NGO Bill and the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Bill are still to be gazetted. The outstanding reports are from the Portfolio Committee on Transport and Communication on broadcasting licences, the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare on the half-year budget performance, and from the Phillip Chiyangwa-chaired Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs, Industry and International Trade on the influx of foreign goods. The Fidelis Mhashu-chaired portfolio committee on Education, Sport and Culture failed to submit its report on the review of the Education Act. The NGO Bill has attracted fierce criticism from both local and international human rights groups as it will make it illegal for NGOs engaged in human rights and governance issues to receive foreign funding for their activities. There have been concerns that if the Bill is promulgated into law, it will result in 10 000 people losing their jobs. Local NGO groups, led by the National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations, have even lobbied Mugabe not assent to the Bill. Under the Criminal Law amendment, any person who makes a statement which may cause ridicule, hatred or contempt of the head of state, faces a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $400 000. Under the law, if a person recruits or trains insurgents, bandits, saboteurs or terrorists, he shall be guilty and liable to imprisonment for life or any shorter period. The failure by the previous legislators to submit the reports effectively means the new members of parliament will have to either adopt the reports or start their own fact-finding investigations. Constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku said both the NGO Bill and Criminal Procedure and Evidence Bill could still be gazetted. "The Bills can still be gazetted after the elections, it will still be permissible," Madhuku said. "Mugabe probably signed both Bills a long time ago, but did not want them to be part of the debate during the election campaign. I suspect that they will soon be gazetted." Some of the Bills passed between 2004 and 2005 include the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Bill, Balance of Payments reporting Bill, Acquisition of Farm Equipment Material Bill, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Debt Assumption Bill, Asset Management Bill, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Bill and the Non-Governmental Organisations Bill. Also passed during the 2004-2005 session was the Ex-Political Prisoners, Detainees and Restrictees Act, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act and the Electoral Act.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Eric Bloch Column Another chance for economic revival DESPITE the government's vociferous contentions to the contrary, few will agree that last week's parliamentary elections were truly free and fair. Even if there had been no ulterior motives for the Delimitation Commission's revision of constituencies, and even if there had been no tampering with the registration of voters, and even though there was evidently no "stuffing" of ballot boxes, the elections were not wholly free and fair. Admittedly, various regional observer teams gave the "thumbs up" to the conduct of the elections, but they were clearly duped or unaware of certain realities. Although the state-controlled media pretended to give equal time or space to all contenders, that did not happen in practice. That applied only to paid advertising and to so-called party political broadcasts. But for months there was not a day when the news reports, commentaries and articles did not focus exclusively upon promoting Zanu PF and castigating the Movement for Democratic Change. While the elections were relatively peaceful and without the violence that had characterised previous polls, nevertheless there was intimidation, even though the government denies it. On the one hand, many constituencies having been the victims of intimidation in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2000 and 2002, there was an entrenched fear that if any constituency failed to elect the ruling party candidate, there would be retribution in due course. On the other hand, the president, addressing a Tsholotsho rally, threatened that if Zanu PF did not win that constituency there would never be further development there. That made many in other constituencies fear similar repercussions. Be that as it may be, Zimbabwe needs to accept the result, for every attention should now be directed vigorously to achieving the long-talked-about economic turnaround, for the ever greater slide into the depths of poverty for most of the population must be halted. And Zanu PF's resounding victory, howsoever attained, makes it possible for the government to concentrate intensively upon bringing about the desperately needed, long overdue economic recovery. Inclusive of the 30 president-appointed members of parliament, Zanu PF will have 108 seats in parliament out of 150, or almost three-quarters of the legislature. With that strength, the government can afford to abandon past destructive policies and to embark upon others which can restore the Zimbabwe economy to its 1997 levels, and then build thereon. The first focus should be upon the dismal failure of the land reform programme. Few can deny that, for the greater part of the 20th century, Zimbabwe had appalling, racially discriminatory land policies, and that reform was needed. But if there had been a deliberate attempt to destroy agriculture - the foundation of the economy - the government could not have done so more effectively than it did with its unjust and ill-conceived programme of land acquisition and redistribution. That programme displaced over 4 000 successful farmers, 300 000 farm workers and more than a million of their dependants. It reduced Zimbabwe from self-sufficiency in food to a nation of under-nourished. It lowered agricultural production by almost two-thirds. The government attributed the collapse of agriculture to drought. But the government, the populace and the world know otherwise. Only two weeks before the election, Vice President Joseph Msika appealed to new farmers to cooperate and work with white commercial farmers. That appeal should be progressed, in the interests of the white farmers, the new farmers and the Zimbabwean economy. At the outset, the government should make a sincere endeavour to attract the former white commercial farmers back to their farms or, in the case of larger farms, to parts thereof. Concurrently, it should implement a genuine compensation for those lands not returned, for the improvements thereon, the vandalisation and looting that has decimated many of the farms, and for years of loss of income. While doing so, the government must unhesitatingly, although belatedly, return all farms as were protected by international bilateral investment agreements, such as exist between Zimbabwe on the one hand and Germany, Italy and the Netherlands on the other, among others. Failure to do so is not only to the prejudice of agriculture, but also an overwhelming deterrent to procuring foreign direct investment, although the president has declared 2005 as the year of investment. The second key task is to intensify the war on inflation. The Reserve Bank has done much to reduce inflation from its January 2004 all-time high of 622,8% to 127,2% for the year to February 2005. But rising world oil prices, an inevitable need to import food, declining industrial productivity and significant real depreciation of the Zimbabwe dollar (within the unlawful parallel market which fuels much of the country's imports) are all likely to force inflation upwards once more. That is unless the government does something about it. Its actions must be to reduce its own spending very considerably. Perhaps the first step would be to abandon the intent to establish a senate to complement parliament. Zimbabwe cannot afford to create "more jobs for the boys"! Foreign Zimbabwean embassies in excess of real need should be closed, parastatals privatised, the number of state residences reduced, provincial governorships dispensed with, presidential entourages cut in size and the budget of the Information and Publicity department substantially slashed. Motivating investment is critical, in order to achieve job creation, access technologies, source new markets, generate economic activity and source foreign exchange. But attracting investment is not easy when an economy is derelict, and especially so when potential investors are given grounds to doubt the future security of their investments. The blatant disregard for bilateral international investment protection agreements was a major nail in the coffin of investment promotion. Then the government hammered in another big nail when the president first stated that at leas 50% of all mines must be owned by Zimbabwean blacks (which is how he defines "indigenous"), subsequently modifying the demand to 20%, and more recently there have been statements that the countries of the region intend "to repossess the mineral wealth bequeathed to them by Cecil Rhodes". And recurrently the government makes statements demanding indigenous participation in all enterprises. It is time that it learned that coercion is counterproductive. Motivation, incentivisation and facilitation is more effective. Who will invest, be they residents or non-residents, when they must live in continuing uncertainty as to whether they will, at some stage, be forcibly deprived of some or all of their investments, particularly without even receiving fair compensation? To motivate foreign investment, Zimbabwe must also demonstrate that it is a genuine democracy. The government will argue that the recent parliamentary election is the proof of that democracy, but many will remain unconvinced. However, were the government to repeal the oppressive, iniquitous and undemocratic Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Public Order and Security Act and facilitate the re-establishment of a free and independent daily press, it will go a long way towards conversion of the unconvinced. That would be strengthened if, concurrently, a genuine independent, free and fair judiciary and judicial system would once again come into being. And that should be further augmented by demonstrating real intent to re-establish law and order throughout Zimbabwe.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Comment Zanu PF's triumph a Pyrrhic victory PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe's "landslide" election win last week may turn out to be less than that. Once the self-congratulatory euphoria has died down, Zanu PF will wake up to the cold reality that it won a Pyrrhic victory. Not a single urban constituency fell to the ruling party. Harare South is a mixed rural/urban seat which has been the location of intensive resettlement, not to mention gerrymandering. But elsewhere Mugabe's threats and blandishments made no impression on the country's most important concentrations of population where a younger, more educated generation - the nation's future - resides. At the end of last week, Mugabe remained what he had been before: the ruler of rural Zimbabwe where voters, in the absence of independent newspapers and alternative voices on the radio, were denied their right to make an informed choice. This is hardly the unambiguous declaration of support he said was necessary to confront Tony Blair and George Bush. They will have seen a failed autocrat unable to carry his message to Zimbabwe's teeming towns and cities. They will have seen the scepticism of a younger generation who know perfectly well who is responsible for their unemployment and growing poverty. Mugabe's electoral deceit worked only where there was nobody to expose it. Similarly, his racist pursuit of a handful of whites left in the country failed to do the trick in Harare North or Bulawayo South. Trudy Stevenson and David Coltart were retained with large majorities. Even in the ruling party's rural heartland, seats such as Chinhoyi, Kariba, Makoni East, Manyame, Bikita East, Gutu South, and Zhombe showed significant support for the MDC. So did large parts of Manicaland while the MDC held on to eight of its Matabeleland constituencies in situations where voters were susceptible to threats to their food supplies. The MDC won back Lupane which had been lost to Zanu PF in a by-election and which we were told at the time had been restored to its "natural" allegiance! Far from being the "flash in the pan" of Zanu PF's propaganda, the "fluke" winner of 57 seats in 2000, the MDC has emerged from this battle intact and with its core support base in good order. Zanu PF's fiction that 2000 represented some aberration has been exposed for the lie it is. Zanu PF is the aberration, an anachronism in modern Africa still clinging to the mantras of the liberation war. Meanwhile, Mugabe will have difficulty selling himself as the unchallenged voice of Zimbabwe. He does not speak for the cities, for the youths, or for commerce and industry. And when the blatant cheating is taken into account, there are many rural people he manifestly doesn't speak for. Mugabe's legitimacy remains in doubt so long as the many discrepancies in the final figures are open to challenge. How does the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission explain the huge gap between its totals for those voting and the votes won by the individual candidates? Apart from these anomalies, the institutional framework remains defective. Military and intelligence officers continue to serve on the Electoral Supervisory Commission which is appointed by and answerable to Mugabe. The National Command Centre is a gaping black hole. And the ZEC is anyway fatally compromised. It appears not to have found a single problem in last week's poll! The state media, while allowing the occasional appearance of MDC spokesmen in the final weeks of campaigning, churned out a diet of Zanu PF propaganda and hate speech - not to mention transparent lies - directed at the opposition. Zimbabwe does not have a democratic system that permits voters access to differing views. It remains essentially a dictatorship manipulating the levers of state power. Perhaps the worst dimension of this is a suborned judiciary unwilling to uphold rights enshrined in the constitution. The fact that MDC court applications against violence and fraud in 2000 remain outstanding underlines this point. At the end of the day the country remains as divided as ever between those struggling for freedom because it can improve their lives and the rest who have no idea what it means and for whom hunger is the price of political demagoguery. Mugabe is either unwilling or unable to bridge this chasm. Nothing will change until he goes. That much must be obvious to even his closest associates who thought, until recently, their loyalty to tyranny was a ladder to power. What do they say now? Meanwhile, the MDC should stop licking its wounds and instead congratulate the hundreds of thousands of voters who successfully defended its turf against a predatory ruling party which, as this election has proved, is incapable of winning a free and fair poll and long ago lost its national mandate.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Zim Independent Poll statistics stir familiar dispute Ray Matikinye ZIMBABWE'S election results in the 21st century have broken their own record. Two general elections and a presidential poll in the past five years raised the losing contestants' hackles and generated intense disputes that the nature of their outcome appears cloned from a prototype. Investing so much faith in translucent ballot boxes and the new arrangement of one-day voting, followed by counting of ballots at each polling station, did not guarantee transparency as many Zimbabweans believed. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has rejected the results of last Thursday's polls outright while the ruling Zanu PF is basking in the glory of having handed the opposition party a crushing defeat, garnering the elusive two-thirds majority it needs for constitutional change. Mugabe direly needed the required majority to consolidate his grip on power. The ruling Zanu PF had predicted a landslide even before the final vote count was announced. "We are going to win. By how much is what we are going to see," President Robert Mugabe beamed after casting his vote at Cyril Jennings Hall on Thursday before discussing his party's intention to make constitutional changes after garnering the required two-thirds majority. Pollsters have remained unsurprised by the source of dispute - statistics. Political pundits have often described statistics as the most vulnerable and unreliable form of determinant, particularly because these are susceptible to manipulation and easily convert into counterfeit data, often employed to achieve an end. Zimbabwe's bureaucracy has become a master at using counterfeit data to prolong the lifespan of a moribund regime. Oddly enough, the MDC, which said it had reversed its decision to boycott the election in response to pressure from 95% of its members and took the decision with " a heavy heart", fully aware that the odds were heavily skewed in their opponent's favour, came out of the poll battle with an even heavier heart. The election outcome inflicted on the opposition party untold heartaches and left it wondering whether it was worth all the effort. Voter figures released by the newly constituted Zimbabwe Election Commission (ZEC) appear at variance with those announced as polled by Zanu PF candidates in several constituencies. But the African Union (AU), the 13-member regional Southern African Development Community (Sadc) and government delegations from Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi joined economic powerhouse South Africa in saying the poll was free, credible and reflected the will of the people. For the South African observer teams giving the election a clean bill of health seems to be a clone from a prototype too. When polling day came, about a tenth of the voters were turned away from polling stations for various reasons. One constituency, in which 14 812 people voted, according to ZEC, was announced the next day to have awarded more than 15 000 votes to the president's nephew, Patrick Zhuwawo. Bulawayo South MP David Coltart, who is also an attorney, said the party was preparing a report on election fraud. He said it would document "major disparities" in the vote, including an unexplained 244 000-vote increase in the turnout, hours after the official vote had been announced. Although MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai ruled out taking legal action to contest the results on the back of past experience of the 35 contested cases whose outcome had been stayed by the Supreme Court since 2000, Coltart said the party may consider contesting as many as 10 individual races to document the poll abuses. An analysis of the election results indicates that in a number of districts where Zanu PF candidates won narrowly, the number of people who tried to vote but were turned away on technical grounds exceeded the margin of the opposition candidates' defeat. According to the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (Zesn), in Makoni East for instance, where Zanu PF won by 9 201 votes compared to the MDC's 7 708, a total of 2 223 voters were turned away. In addition, in Mutasa South, where Zanu PF got 9 715 and MDC 9 380 votes, a total of 1 460 voters were turned away. In both cases, the number of voters turned away was higher than the margin of victory. This contravenes Sadc principles and guidelines which oblige all states to allow all citizens the right to participate in the political process and afford them equal opportunity to vote. Tsvangirai told a media briefing that among the irregularities his team had uncovered was subjective use of postal votes, citing 800 party militia he said had been deployed into one constituency to bolster Zanu PF support. Glaring variances are evident in the Beitbridge constituency where 36 821 people had voted by close of voting, according to announcements by the ZEC. But the winning Zanu PF candidate polled 14 305 votes while his opponent garnered 6 297 votes, giving a total of 20 602 votes. The total leaves 16 219 votes unaccounted for. Five years ago only 21 680 people voted in the constituency, pointing to a phenomenal increase of 15 141 more registered voters this year. By contrast, Mutare South recorded 8 558 less voters than those who voted in 2000. This time the constituency had 14 054 ballots cast last Thursday although the final result showed the total votes were 19 772, with 11 552 going to the ruling party. The discrepancies in the number of people who cast their votes in six of the 13 constituencies as announced by ZEC exactly equals the number of voters turned away in the whole province. These discrepancies are in Chegutu (8 221), Hurungwe East (3 227), Hurungwe West (2 789), Manyame (8 948), Zvimba North (7 931) and Zvimba South (4 447). ZEC announced that 250 806 voters had cast their votes in Mashonaland West province with 35 267 voters turned away. When an election official in Harare South constituency heard election figures announced over national radio, he was taken aback: "Those are not the total votes our team agreed with the contesting parties as the final figures for the election," he remarked. With the European Union (EU) condemning the election and the US damning it as a "sham" for its inconsistencies, Zimbabwe is set for a long haul of economic stagnation. The cost of a landslide victory could be a worsening of economic prospects for a country that desperately needs foreign direct investment to survive. It could prolong Zimbabwe's isolation from the international community. While the poll outcome has entrenched Mugabe's grip on power, the chorus of condemnation about his manner of victory from important international quarters is only likely to worsen Zimbabwe's isolation. University of Zimbabwe head of political and administrative studies Eldred Masunungure says more targeted European and American sanctions are likely to follow Mugabe's victory. "Some of the EU countries and America will contemplate stiffening and broadening the sanctions unless there is a fundamental policy shift by the government. There has to be a serious paradigm shift and Mugabe must make a conscious decision to change his domestic and foreign policies if he expects a reprieve from the international community," says Masunungure.

Back to the Top
Back to Index