Zim elections: A veneer of credibility

by Editor · March 26, 2008

Unless something quite remarkable should happen, this weekend’s elections in Zimbabwe will see Robert Mugabe returned to the presidency by a robust margin.

The international election observers -a group shrewdly selected to create an impression of impartiality and credibility will most likely declare the poll substantially free and fair.

It is true that the Zimbabwean government has allowed the base minimum of campaigning to produce such a judgment, even if the opposition’s access to state-controlled media was controlled to such an extent as to openly violate prior agreements, and its ability to campaign was not applied everywhere with equal liberty.

Nonetheless, we may anticipate that a minimum of concessions will satisfy the electoral observers sufficiently to recognise the re-election of Mr Mugabe, and with it his claims to have obtained a valid mandate. With this, the South African government will hope to have removed a main criticism of its policy on Zimbabwe: that it is giving undue recognition to a president and government with a disputed mandate.

And yet, the poll cannot be considered to have been free and fair, even if it was conducted peacefully and ballot boxes were not stuffed. Regardless of how fair the electoral process may have been, the mandate it delivers is contaminated.

A truly free and fair democratic process requires more than stage-managed liberty at an appointed time. A truly free and fair democratic process demands unobstructed political activity between elections, without fear of repercussions when one’s political views challenge those of the ruling party.

These obligatory conditions have been absent in Zimbabwe. Even during the election campaign there were reports of opposition supporters being intimidated, if not always by violence, then by the threat of food supplies and services being withheld from them. To that end, electoral districts were re-demarcated specifically to identify communities that do not back Mr Mugabe, his Zanu-PF and its candidates. This is not democracy, but coercion.

After the last election, the Mugabe government retaliated against urban opposition voters in informal settlements by leaving hundreds of thousands homeless in the reprehensible Operation Murambatsvina. How can voters feel free now to cast their ballots against Mr Mugabe and Zanu-PF?

Intimidation of the opposition, sometimes openly violent, has been a standard feature of Zimbabwean politics, at least since the advent of the Movement for Democratic Change. When even its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, could be openly brutalised while detained by the police, what freedoms can lesser known activists expect? How can opposition candidates feel secure that their activities in this election campaign will not have repercussions? And will those who endorse these elections stand surety for their safety?

Between elections, the government excludes its opposition from participation in public debate by denying it access to the state media and closing down media which facilitate such debate. The freedom of association is routinely violated by arbitrary police action and by thuggery. Generally, the opposition can reach the public only through informal channels. This is not characteristic of a functioning democratic society, and this renders a brief interval of comparatively free campaigning meaningless.

So if and when the electoral observers judge this weekend’s election free and fair, they will commend a poorly applied veneer of respectability which barely covers a thoroughly rotten structure.

The mandate Mr Mugabe and his Zanu-PF will claim must be regarded as gravely tainted. Any policy in addressing Zimbabwe’s crisis must recognise that these elections have merit only as an exercise in buying time while a peaceful and sustainable solution is being pursued.