Zimbabwe and the probably rigged election
It was much suspected in advance of the March 29th election in Zimbabwe that the results might be rigged. The International Crisis Group issued a press release on March 20th stating the the African Union must be prepared to deal with that possibility.
The regional mediation offering the most realistic chance to resolve Zimbabwe’s eight-year crisis has failed. South African President Thabo Mbeki’s stated objective in talks between the ruling ZANU-PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was to secure conditions for free and fair elections that would produce an undisputed outcome. But on 29 March 2008, Zimbabwe will hold elections already flawed by pre-poll misbehaviour, notwithstanding what may occur on polling day and thereafter. The results are likely to be heatedly disputed. Though the playing field is far from even, and efforts to create a united opposition have failed, ex-ZANU-PF politburo member Simba Makoni is seriously challenging Robert Mugabe’s re-election. The 84-year-old president probably has the means to manipulate the process sufficiently to retain his office, though possibly only after a violent run-off, but there is little prospect of a government emerging that is capable of ending the crisis. If the situation deteriorates, the African Union (AU) needs to be ready to offer prompt mediation for a power-sharing agreement between presidential contenders and creation of a transitional government with a reform agenda.
Primary responsibility for the failure of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) initiative lies with Mugabe. He and his party conceded changes to security, media and election laws, while obtaining MDC acceptance of a constitutional amendment that paved the way for simultaneous presidential, parliamentary and local government elections and facilitated his opportunity to use the parliament to select his own eventual successor. But at the end of January 2008, Mugabe unilaterally called snap elections and ruled out passage before the polls of the new constitution that was supposed to be the single most important product of the negotiations. ZANU-PF has subsequently been using all the extensive means at its disposal to maintain an unfair advantage….
Human Rights Watch also released a report saying that they judged a free and fair election unlikely.
Zimbabwean critics of Mugabe’s government set up a Zimbabwe Election Watch project, ahead of the March 29th election, which used Google Maps to look for possible breaches of election rules.
Despite the fact the map is based on a small sample of information we have logged since July 2007, and despite the fact that our ability to gather a full picture has been curtailed by a restrictive media environment, the ZEW map clearly shows that conditions in the country are not conducive for free and fair democratic elections.
For more detail on the full range of breaches we have logged through the duration of the project, and more information on the SADC Principles and Guidelines, please visit the Zimbabwe Election Watch section of our website and explore the data through the database interface.
The elections proceeded on Friday with a high turnout; an article at AllAfrica.com Sunday reported that the government said voting progressed smoothly, but that
Many people openly expressed fears of a repeat of the 2002 presidential election controversially won by President Robert Mugabe and in which thousands of voters were turned away after polling closed before they could cast their ballots.
The US office of the Zimbabwean opposition party MDC released a statement on Sunday alleging that the military was conspiring to instruct the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission to declare Mugabe the winner, regardless of actual results.
Reports by independent observers of the questionable fairness of the election soon followed.
An experienced southern African election monitoring group has judged Zimbabwe’s electoral process “severely wanting in respect of fairness.”
The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa, which has monitored elections in most southern African countries over the last five years, issued a seven-page report which said that compared to previous elections in Zimbabwe, last Saturday’s polls were “partly free in that there existed a more peaceful environment allowing for freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech.”
However, EISA said, “most critical aspects of the process lacked transparency.”
At this time, Zimbabweans are still awaiting the release of election results. The opposition claims an outright victory, while the government calls the MDC win announcement “mischievous.” There were rumors that Mugabe was planning to step down, and in the process of making an exit deal with MDC, but a minister speaking to Al Jazeera dismissed those rumors as an “April Fool’s Day hoax.”
Andrew Sullivan quotes a Zimbabwean blogger (actually, Sokwanele of This Is Zimbabwe, the same Zimbabwean blogger that I quoted above posting about the use of Google Maps).
These results clearly show that the opposition coalition now enjoys a majority control of the House of Assembly. However, please be aware that should Mugabe steal the Presidential vote, according to the constitution he would have the power to dissolve the House of Assembly.
Parallel Voter Tabulation (PVT) results have been compared to the “official” Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) figures. The “official” results are emanating from the government controlled body at a snail pace and indicate massive discrepancies in certain constituencies, a clear sign Zanu PF is desperately attempting to inflate results in their favour. [...]
The delay in the announcement of the official results by ZEC is being strategically planned in order to give the Central Intelligence Organisation the much needed time to manipulate the results. This is blatant rigging at its most iniquitous.
The people of Zimbabwe have spoken and it is now time for Zanu PF, SADC, all other African bodies and the rest of the world to respect and support the will of the people.
I notice a parallel to the post election crisis in Kenya: in Kenya, the opposition party won a majority in Parliament, which they briefly used as a forum to raise questions about Kibaki’s claimed win of the presidency, but Kibaki then put Parliament in recess. It seems as if strong presidencies and legislatures that aren’t able to provide an effective counterweight are a common problem. In this regard, I’ll note a recent Reuters Africa article on how Africa needs stronger parliaments to monitor aid.
The report cited research by the Overseas Development Institute which found that donors, including Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the World Bank, were partly responsible for Africa’s weak parliaments.
It urged donors to earmark more funds for strengthening parliaments, which often lacked the staff and facilities to monitor state expenditure and whose elected members were often poorly paid and motivated.
The study cited complaints from parliaments in Zambia, Tanzania and Malawi that they were unable to approve their own budgets and so were beholden to the executive.
What’s different, between the Zimbabwe and Kenya situations, is that while Kenya’s post election crisis was a meltdown in a country that had long been seen as a bastion of stability, Zimbabwe has long been troubled.
Zimbabwe’s ongoing crisis dates to 1965 when Ian Smith, leader of Southern Rhodesia, issued Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Britain, imposing white-minority rule. Action prompted international sanctions and guerrilla war which, by 1979, had claimed some 36,000 lives and displaced some 1.5 million. Britain brokered peace deal 1979 involving government, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), culminating in Lancaster House Agreement.
1980 elections, Mugabe won 57 seats of 80 reserved for blacks, becoming Zimbabwe’s PM and Africa’s most feted leader, presiding over continent’s second largest manufacturing base. Opposition coerced 1987 into merger with ZAPU creating ZANU-PF, paving way for constitutional change giving Mugabe executive presidential powers and turning country into de facto one-party state. Attempts to create de jure one-party state failed 1990, but Mugabe secured re-election 1996.
Forcible seizures of mostly white-owned land by ZANU veterans crippled economy and led to chronic shortage of basic commodities and services from 2000. President lost 2000 constitutional referendum, but defeated Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) opposition in parliamentary elections, though missing two-thirds majority needed to change constitution. Following seriously flawed 2002 presidential election, Mugabe resorted to using state machinery, war veterans and youth militias to intimidate, suppress dissent, gag the media and violate human rights….
Global Voices is on top of the situation with round ups of Zimbabwean bloggers. Prominent among these voices is This Is Zimbabwe, which is keeping up a running report on results. At last report, 189 constituencies have now been announced by the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission. There is an ongoing effort to compare these official results with a parallel vote tabulation. The Netherlands Institute of Southern Africa gave another group a grant to capture the Zimbabwe elections in photos.
I’ll have a round up of recent news from the rest of Africa tomorrow. If any of you have other useful sources of Zimbabwe news, feel free to supply them in the comments.
For further information: