| The ZIMBABWE Situation | Our
thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe - may peace, truth and justice prevail. |
SOKWANELE
Enough
is Enough
We have a
fundamental right to freedom of expression!
06 June 2004
Review of the Lupane
By-Election
“ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE – and only one, please
!”
The Lupane by-election held in May is now
history but the outcome gives rise to many serious questions which demand our
urgent attention. There are matters of deep concern here, not only for the
opposition MDC which surprisingly lost what was considered one of their safest
seats, but for all who have any concern for democracy and the rule of
law.
The background to this particular poll
can best be seen in the following table which records the votes for the MDC and
ZANU PF in the earlier parliamentary and presidential elections. The major shift
in voting patterns which occurred in the recent by-election becomes immediately
apparent when those results are set out alongside:
REGISTERED VOTES MDC ZANU PF
VOTERS
CAST:
2000 Parliamentary Election 46,425
14,439
3,300
2002 Presidential Election 47,607
14,524
7,778
2004 By-Election 48,134
9,186
10,069
The obvious question is how ZANU PF
managed to turn around a resounding defeat in the two earlier polls to record a
narrow victory this time. One might ask
where the probabilities lie. Here is a
poor rural community, struggling for survival, largely dependent on food
hand-outs from international donors – a community moreover that, between
elections, has been totally neglected by the ruling party (Oft-repeated promises of a Gwaayi-Shangani
Dam, a State University and other development projects have never
materialized) Is it likely, one might
ask, that such a poor, struggling community which has been largely ignored since
1980 when the ruling party came to power, should suddenly take it upon
themselves to reward that party with a massive show of support ? Moreover it must be remembered that this
very community was a particular target of the notorious Fifth Brigade and of
their reign of terror in the 1980’s.
Twenty years on the wounds of the Gukurahundi massacres are still raw and
memories as vivid as if it were yesterday. And who else to hold accountable for
these atrocities than the ruling party, among whose higher echelons many of the
known perpetrators still walk free ?
Leaving aside therefore the merits of the respective candidates, if one
asks where the balance of probabilities lies, it must surely rest with the
opposition rather than with a discredited administration associated with both
neglect and persecution.
But then the May by-election and the
official result showing a massive swing to the ruling party - which prompts the
question, does this result really reflect the will of the people ? And if not, how did ZANU PF pull it off
?
In our view the chances of a ZANU PF
victory in a free and fair poll in this constituency are so remote as to be
entirely discounted. So then, how did
ZANU PF manage to fix the result, effectively frustrating the popular will and
imposing their own candidate on an unwilling electorate
?
Certain things are clear. ZANU PF did not rely to any significant
extent on the use of overt violence as in earlier electoral contests. Incidents of violence were recorded but
judged by the standards of past elections they were relatively minor. At the end of the day the District hospitals
were not full of the wounded – though some were preparing for that eventuality.
Nor were there sufficient cases of beatings or torture to capture the attention
of the independent media. Indeed the hope expressed by the Zimbabwe Election
Support Network (ZESN) that the election would be conducted in a peaceful
manner, appears to have been fulfilled, for in their preliminary report on the
poll they say: “We commend the sense of
maturity of refraining from violence which was shown by voters, candidates and
party supporters during the two days of polling”.
So overt violence was not a major factor,
and Zimbabweans should take note of a change of tactics here. “Overt” of course is an important
qualification because the will of a violent oppressor can be just as effectively
secured by the threat of untold violence, backed up by a few exemplary beatings
and reinforced by memories of appalling violence in the past. And here we note the explicit threats
delivered by a number of ZANU PF chefs who brought the message “If you don’t
vote for us we shall go back to the bush”.
Such dire threats require no elaboration. Yet still, the level of violence was kept to
a minimum, and this of course well serves a party which has a history of radical
violence but still likes to present itself to the world as a party of sweet
reasonableness.
So how did ZANU PF achieve its victory
? By what intimidation or fraud did it
secure more votes than the opposition ?
The intimidation was not difficult to
see. To detect the fraud however one
must study the picture more closely.
There are several possibilities, and in all likelihood a number of different methods were used
simultaneously. The evidence points to a number of loopholes in the electoral process, each of
which should now receive the most careful attention from those intent on
exposing the fraud. Some of these
loopholes are set out below, together with the more obvious examples of
intimidation.
THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD
·
The presence
of large numbers of assorted war vets, youth militia and other known ZANU PF supporters
who were bussed into the constituency from other areas well ahead of the
election. Included in their number were some serving members of the defence
forces. On this occasion they were attired in civilian cloths, though still
instantly recognized as strangers by the resident population. These “strangers” were accommodated in camps
at strategic points across the constituency, their mere presence being
intimidating.
·
The use of
threats. The assembled ruling party forces were then
used to visit kraals and individual homesteads and to issue dire threats of
beatings (and worse) for any who dared to display the slightest measure of
sympathy towards the opposition. Here
was blatant intimidation and a clear violation of the electoral
process.
·
The deployment
of kraal heads as ZANU PF agents. The ruling
party’s politicization of traditional leaders continues to gather momentum, and
on this occasion it was noted that the kraal heads were playing a key role in
their strategy. They were “used” in
order to summon their people to attend meetings which were then taken over by
the ZANU PF hierarchy. (One can only
surmise that a summons to a ZANU PF meeting would not have achieved the same
result). Moreover time and again it was noted by observers that such meetings
were held at the same time as local MDC rallies. This would not have been mere
coincidence because the ruling party was always advised in advance of meetings
called by the opposition, for which police clearance had to be obtained under
POSA. At a stroke therefore ZANU PF
could reduce the numbers attending opposition rallies and increase the
attendance at their own meetings. The
calling of a ZANU PF meeting at Mabikwa just a few kilometers away from Somholo
where Morgan Tsvangirai was addressing a rally on the eve of the election is an
obvious case in point. The use of this strategy would undoubtedly have bolstered
ZANU PF morale, creating the all-important perception that this was a party that
enjoyed significant popular support.
Therefore at the end of the day a ZANU PF victory in the poll would not
be an altogether improbable result. This
in our view was a crucial consideration for the ZANU PF strategists. They could not afford simply to “win” the
contest by fraudulent means; in addition they had to show that such a win was
credible. Here blatant intimidation and
more subtle fraud overlap, both being necessary to the ruling party’s grand
strategy of winning in opposition strongholds.
·
The bussing of
ZANU PF supporters around the constituency. Many
observers have commented on the apparently limitless supply of transport
available to the ruling party. These
included ZESA and NETONE vehicles and local Council trucks, to which clearly
ZANU PF had no legitimate claim. But by
bussing villagers and their own assembled mob of supporters to party meetings
they were able to increase the numbers significantly. A subtle form of fraud which only those would
detect who know that the party does not equal state. (The use of state resources
for party business was specifically condemned by ZESN)
·
The use of
propaganda. Related to the above point ZESN noted with
concern the use by ZANU PF of a vehicle from the National Library and
Documentation Services. The vehicle was used
to spread crude party propaganda around the constituency. Even worse,
other observers recorded the use of a ZBC traveling unit which proceeded as far
as Jotsholo broadcasting ZANU PF slogans and propaganda.
DURING THE VOTING AND AFTER
·
Once again the
deployment of the kraal heads was crucial. Before the
voting began kraal heads had made a list of all the villagers under their
jurisdiction and when the polls opened it was observed that many positioned
themselves strategically in close proximity to the polling stations. They were so placed that they could observe
all those coming to vote, and just so that the point was not lost on any of
their “subjects”, they duly noted in their books the names of all who came
by. Some it is reported were well within
the forbidden 100 metres of the polling stations; others were beyond this
limit. Either way the kraal heads made
it their business to note which of their people were voting, and to let it be
seen that they were recording this information.
A not-so subtle means of intimidating the fearful, especially given the
traditional leaders’ new co-opted role as agents for the ruling party. This development was high-lighted with some
concern in ZESN’s preliminary report on the voting.
·
Admission to
the polling stations. In their
report ZESN also note with concern the deployment of police officers in manning
the ink detectors. The ink detectors of course are intended to prevent multiple
voting, but ZESN point out that they should be manned by (independent) polling
officers. Given the tragic reality of
the present situation in which the police can no longer be considered
non-partisan, it is clearly unacceptable that they be given this crucial
function. Observers record that in some
instances probable party allegiance could be determined simply from the
direction in which individuals approached the polling station – for example
those who had just been dropped off by a vehicle commandeered by ZANU PF.
One would not need to be a rocket scientist therefore to decide on the
likely party allegiance of such a group.
Given such a scenario whether an individual passing before him had
already voted or not, and whether or not there was evidence of that voting in
the ink marks left on his hands, a compromised police officer would know just
what was expected of him. Equally it
would not be difficult to devise a simple sign to pass between would-be voter
and police officer, confirming the would-be voter’s allegiance and hence whether
he should be admitted to the polling station.
When further intelligence from the constituency indicates that in some
instances police uniforms – either very old or brand new - were worn by ZANU PF
youths, the huge scope for fraud at this point in the electoral process becomes
clear. And in this context the time
given for voting also becomes relevant.
One might otherwise wonder why a constituency of a mere 48,000 voters should require two days in
which to caste their votes. But when the scope for multiple voting across the
constituency is exposed, a sinister motive is
revealed.
·
Access to the
voters’ roll. The MDC
complained about the frustration of their efforts to obtain timeous access to
the voters’ roll. And one of ZESN’s long-term monitors echoed this objection,
specifically with regard to “the relatively large number of unregistered voters”
who were given the opportunity to register during the period prescribed for
inspection of the roll. This becomes all
the more relevant given that the only people afforded access to the voters’
roll, both while the vote was continuing and afterwards at the count, were
individuals whose impartiality at the least was suspect. Taking account of this major loophole in the
electoral process and the scope for multiple voting, it was all the more
important that the process of comparing registers before and after the vote
should be transparent. But precisely at
this point access was denied to all but those officials already associated with
the ruling party. A simple method to
detect multiple voting would be to compare the registers after the vote, noting
which voters had their names cancelled at each polling station and seeing if
there was any duplication. The Registrar
General’s stubborn refusal to permit such a simple check on electoral fraud must
raise the gravest suspicions about his motives.
This list
of acts of intimidation and loopholes in the electoral process susceptible to
major fraud are by no means exhaustive.
The MDC whose candidate surprisingly lost the by-election and independent
observers such as ZESN and the
And who among us who believe in democracy, could disagree ?
“ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE – and only one please !”
Visit: www.sokwanele.com