|
|
|
International Journal of Political
Science and Development Vol. 2(2), pp. 15
–22,
February, 2014
ISSN: 2360-784X ©2014 Academic Research
Journals
Review
The
Troubled Electoral Contestation in Zimbabwe
1Jephias
Mapuva and 2Loveness Muyengwa-Mapuva
1Bindura
University of Science Education, Department of Geography (Development
Students), P.O. Box 1020, Bindura, Zimbabwe. E-mail:
mapuva@cooltoad.com
2Midlands
State University, Faculty of Law, P.O. Box 9055, Gweru, Zimbabwe
Accepted 24
February 2014
Political events
that have prevailed in Zimbabwe since 1980 have presented challenges
for democracy, giving birth to a chequered electoral history.
Successive electoral contests have produced contested results and
this has been attributed to the defective electoral legislation.
Successive constitutional amendments and the enactment of the
attendant legislation guiding civil society participation in
governance processes have also contributed to the inability of the
voice of the people from being heard. The inheritance of colonial
legislation tended to harden the stance of the leadership. Despite
the fact that the SADC, and the AU, have facilitated the enactment
of guidelines to enable free and fair electoral processes, this has
not been binding on member states, leaving states to conduct
elections under own conditions. In some cases, violence has
characterized elections in Zimbabwe. The new Constitution in
Zimbabwe has not helped improve the way elections have been held, as
well as the authority of the election management body, the ZEC.
Key words: Elections, contestation, Zimbabwe, Constitution,
colonial, legislation, violation, violence
INTRODUCTION
Elections are a very significant tenet of democracy and the way in
which electoral contestations are held as well as the environment
obtaining in a country prior to, during and on the aftermath of
elections help to authenticate or dispute the legitimacy of the
results thereof. Across the globe, political power and the attendant
political administration of a country revolve around the winners in
an election. International legislative instruments bestow the onus
to administer a country on those chosen by citizens residing within
a geographical location. Consequently, elections play a pivotal role
in determining who should preside over the affairs of a country.
Zimbabwe is one of the countries that has help regular elections
since attaining political independence in 1980 and it has never
missed a chance to hold elections whenever these were due. Although
the country had had numerous elections, but those held in 2008 and
2013 stand out as the most significant due to the fact that firstly
these were closely contested. Secondly, the country was under
sanctions from Western countries (notably the European Union),
ostensibly “in protest at human rights abuses and violations of
democracy” . Thirdly the two elections were in stark contrast to
each other in that while the 2008 elections were held amid pockets
of violence yielding contested results, the 2013 elections were held
in a peaceful environment making it difficult for the losers to
lodge legal battles against the results. This article does not
intend to wade into the nitty gritty of the sanctions regime nor on
the impact of sanctions on the country not even the economic
challenges that became associated with the targeted sanctions, but
deliberates on the environment that prevailed during the 2008 and
2013 elections. The paper traces the roots of Zimbabwe’s troubled
elections, citing the country’s colonial legacy and the nationalist
ideology coupled with the influence of the Marxist/Leninist
ideological position that the country adopted at the attainment of
political independence in 1980. It should be noted that human rights
is at the epi-centre of the argument in this paper where the
country’s leadership seek to comply with the dictates of
international law of upholding the democratic virtue of citizen
participation in electoral contestations. On the other hand the
international superpowers in the form of industrialised countries of
the western blame Zimbabwe of human rights violations.
The colonial legacy
While there is no doubt that the right to vote is the first
primordial act of participation, the question that needs to be asked
is to what extent these rights have translated into credible
participation of citizens in matters that affect their day-to-day
lives .The colonial state was characterized by the absence of
citizen [black] participation in governance processes. The electoral
process did not involve the black majority. Almost three decades
after the attainment of political independence,; Zimbabweans still
experienced a semblance of colonial legislation, notably the Law and
Order Maintenance Act (LOMA) during the colonial era which became
the Public Order and maintenance Act (POSA) in the post-colonial
period, especially from 2002. This is echoed by Mamdani (1990:47)
who argues that “…the colonial state was simply ‘inherited’ at
independence [and] that the independent state was a simple
continuation of its ‘predecessor”. Although Zimbabwe “…made
significant progress in institutionalizing democracy, as reflected
by setting up democratic institutions, holding multiparty elections
as well and increasing popular participation in governance and
dialogue between government and stakeholders” (Olaleye, 2006:1), but
these steps still left a void. The quest for democratization of
public institutions has been characterized by either militarizing
these institutions or politicizing them (Mapuva, 2010). Some of the
elements of political freedom (or semblance of it) which citizens
had experienced during the colonial era have been compromised during
the post-colonial period, especially the right to property. Mamdani
(1990:47) further refers to the post-independence political
dispensation as “…a simple translation of the will of the colonial
power into reality”. The promulgation of a plethora of legislative
framework has been manipulated by the post-colonial state by
violating the same human rights that it fought against during the
liberation struggle. This is seen by the abolition of such colonial
pieces of legislation as the Law and Order Maintenance Act (LOMA),
only to be replaced by the Public Order and Security Act (POSA).The
legal provisions of the two pieces of legislation are comparable in
every respect. This is old wine in a new bottle. Therefore the new
political order in Zimbabwe has tried in every respect to maintain
and retain the colonial legacy, but under cover of ‘independence’.
The facility for the State President to invoke arbitrary legislative
powers, under the Presidential Powers [Temporary Measures] a
facility which existed during the colonial era is enough testimony
of the resemblance of the colonial and post-independence political
dispensation. It therefore comes as no wonder that the electoral
process in Zimbabwe, just like in many post-independence political
dispensations in Africa, resemble the colonial state.
The nationalist movement ideology
Nationalist politics have curved the politics of Zimbabwe.
Participation in the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe has equally
became the most determining qualification for access to the
corridors of power . The support of the East had a long lasting
ideological effect on Zimbabwe’s post-independence operations. The
ideology adopted during the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe has
formed the basis for any future action that the state would take.
The Marxist-Leninist ideology of ‘empowering the masses’ has been
manipulated to mean enriching the elite (Jacobson, 2008). The ‘Land
Reform Programme’ through a noble idea, did not actually benefit the
landless masses, but either the ruling elite or those sympathetic to
the ruling party. The Land issue has also been used as a retributive
measure to punish those who did not support the ruling party.
Utterances such as ‘Zimbabwe will never be a colony again ’ are
common knowledge every time the ruling party is faced with a strong
opposition or other political parties (Kagoro, 2003).
One of the main problematic elements facing the adoption of a
democratic dispensation in Zimbabwe has been the failure by the
Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) (ZANU PF) to
transform from a liberation movement to a political party. This has
been portrayed by its behaviour in failing to embrace a democratic
culture of allowing citizens to dictate the political pace in the
country (Sachikonye, 2001). Constant reference to the liberation
struggle has resulted in manipulating the gullible masses through
instilling fear and threatening to “return to the bush” if the
opposition wins any election .
In socialist parlance, anyone who goes against the grain becomes the
enemy of the state . That the people fought for the country is
common knowledge, but that anyone should preside over the populace
in perpetuity is uncalled for (Kabemba, et al, 2003). Having led the
liberation struggle does not entitle one (or a clique) to preside
over the affairs of the state in solitude (Makumbe, 1998; 2010). It
is therefore the nationalist liberation struggle ideology of giving
undue liberation credentials to individuals and crowning them
caricatures of the liberation struggle that creates dictators (Mandaza,
1990). It is this argument that those in power have seen prudent
enough to deny prospective political competition by making constant
reference to the liberation struggle and how people lost their
lives. Such euphemisms as “our motherland’ ‘liberation struggle’,
war heroes’ are used to hoodwink people into believing that
everything is well (Kagoro, 2003). Also terms such as ‘enemy of the
people’ are meant to instill fear into any pro-democratic forces
which might want to enter into the political fray (ibid).
The Political landscape and attempts at leveling it
Makumbe (2003:5) asserts that at the attainment of political
independence in 1980, “… ZANU (PF) took on a commandist and
regimentalist character rather than a democratic character in its
operations”. Post-independence developments in Zimbabwe pointed to
the right direction and benefitted the generality of the populace,
but these developments have had an intended ulterior motive
beneficial to ZANU (PF) more than the masses (Kagoro, 2003).
According to Moyo, Makumbe and Raftopolous, (2000:28) “…the
expansion of educational and health facilities were the most
concerted attempt to establish and extend the support of the state…”
which was an investment for ZANU (PF) when elections come.
These moves helped to further tilt the political landscape in favour
of the ruling party, thereby breaching the doctrine of free and fair
elections. Anyone who dared challenge the establishment was a
traitor “bent on reversing the gains of independence” (Masunugure,
2009). In addition, the establishment promulgated numerous pieces of
legislation that on the other hand contradicted democratic norms and
values of freedom of expression, movement, and assembly. While most
of the legislative provisions have noble intentions, but it is their
manipulation by the establishment which results in the disablement
of both opposition political parties and restriction of citizen
participation in governance processes (Makumbe, 2010). Olaleye
(2006:1) concurs with this argument by noting that “…a number of
constitutional, legal, administrative and economic decisions have
been taken that do not support the objective of consolidating and
deepening democracy in Zimbabwe”. The skewed nature of the public
media and subsequent selective application of laws, especially in
the dissemination of information has been the worst stumbling block
for civil society participation. Moyo, Makumbe and Raftopolous
(2000:34) note that the enactment of legislation on information
“…signified government’s monopoly over communication [as a] barrier
to freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution of
Zimbabwe”. While people have a right to information on the goings on
in the country, but the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (2002) prohibits the “publication of falsehoods ”, a
subjective term which has seen many journalists from independent
media houses and ordinary citizens alike being prosecuted.
Utterances such as those regarded as “diminishing the person of the
President” also constitute a criminal offence . Such a provision
violates the right to freedom of expression.The selective
application of these laws has frustrated various civic groups to
such an extent that they have decided not to seek police clearance
anymore when holding consultative meetings with their constituencies
(Human Rights Watch, 2003). At the same time a group of citizens
exceeding 3 people needing police clearance is yet another example
of a breach of the right to freedom of association and assembly .
Belonging to a political party other than the ruling ZANU (PF) party
is again an offence [not at law though] and can earn one his job,
injury or his life. This is also a breach of people’s freedom of
association or assembly.
Civil society and opposition politics
The political landscape in Zimbabwe has further been characterized
by the enactment of a plethora of legislation that restricted
political activities of opposition political parties in particular
and civil society in general. The Welfare Organisations Act (1967)
was superseded by the Private and Voluntary Organizations Act
(1996).The PVO’s mandate is “to register, monitor and deregister,
civic organizations. Raftopolous (2000:36) argues that the PVO Act
“…was a substantive departure from its predecessor in respect of the
extensive powers given to the Minister [of Labour and Social
Welfare]” because it was more prohibitive and protective.
Rafptopolous further maintains that the enactment of the PVO Act “…signalled
the eagerness of the state to control the growing NGO sector and, in
particular, the funding being channeled into these organizations at
a time when its legitimacy was being increasingly undermined by a
growing economic crisis” (ibid). This is based on the understanding
that civil society organizations thrive on donor funding and the
best way to cripple their operations would be through the enactment
of such legislation. This abomination equally applied to opposition
political parties that, according to the PVO Act, were required to
declare the source of their funding. Despite the existence of the
Political Parties (Finances) Act (No.14 of 1992),the opposition did
not really benefit from this constitutional provision, not until
there was a split in the main Movement For Democratic Change (MDC),
where the funds were given to the smaller faction of the party to
create more friction within the beleaguered MDC party.
Central to the enactment of restrictive laws has been the existence
of specific pieces of legislation that were meant to benefit the
ruling party at the detriment of other contesting political parties,
through giving financial assistance in accordance with the dictates
of the Political Finances Act of 1992. The Political Parties
(Finances) Act of 1992 facilitated the transfer of funds to a
political party that gets 2/3 majority in an election. The recent
victory of the opposition MDC may not have benefited thein this
regard. Through the Electoral Act (No.7 of 1990), the ruling party
has been able to benefit from the electoral process until the
promulgation of the SADC Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic
Elections which sets conditions, procedures and guidelines under
which free and fair elections could be held. The promulgation of the
SADC Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic Elections by SADC
member states was an attempt to level the political and electoral
landscape within the SADC region (EISA, 2003).
The Electoral Process in Zimbabwe
Elections in Zimbabwe have earned notoriety for being indecisive and
yielding disputed results, especially since the dawn of the new
millennium. Citizens have to participate in the process of making
laws and policies and their implementation, and have a
constitutional right to be involved in these processes in all
spheres of government. And the first-past-the-post system is
renowned for addressing participation (EISA, 2003) .
In Zimbabwe, the electoral process is prescribed and held in
accordance with electoral laws.
As alluded to above, the Zimbabwe an electoral process has been
bedeviled with many flaws. Since the 1995 Presidential elections,
voices of dissent have echoed sentiments of electoral rigging and
fraudulent electoral results. These allegations were confirmed
during the 2002, 2008 and recently in the July 2013 Presidential
elections when incidences of inconsistencies in the ballot papers
and where the environment in which the elections were held was
characterized by politically-motivated violence perpetrated by the
ruling party. The enactment of the Zimbabwe Electoral Act, at the
behest of the SADC Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic Election
could have been the genesis of Zimbabwe’s electoral problems as the
country failed to comply with the dictates of the SADC provisions on
elections. The international community has been watching closely the
events and developments of Zimbabwe’s electoral processes,
especially the 2008 and the 2013 elections. The mediation efforts of
the SADC which culminated in the establishment of a government of
national unity (GNU) in 2009 was a conflict prevention mechanism to
bring a temporary reprieve to the political violence that had
engulfed the country, on the backdrop of disputed results. Although
the opposition won the elections, it was by a slight margin that
called for a re-run and subsequently a coalition government.
Electoral Legislation
This section deliberates on electoral legislation and institutions
that administer elections in Zimbabwe under the watchful eye of the
State. In many countries, the electoral management bodies are
independent entities that help to provide checks and balances on the
conduct of free and fair elections. However in Zimbabwe, there seems
to be a strong affinity between the supposedly ‘independent’
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) and the State, with the
Executive having constitutional powers to see through the
appointment of election commissioners (Human Rights Watch, 2003).
The Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] and the Zimbabwe Electoral
Commission Act [Chapter 2:12].
Two electoral laws were passed during the last quarter of 2004, the
Electoral Act and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act. The
Electoral Act is the overall law that governs the conduct of
elections in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act created
the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), in charge of preparing for
and conducting House of Assembly (formerly parliamentary),
senatorial, presidential, council and referendums as provided for in
the Electoral Act.
Zimbabwe Electoral Act (2006)
The author has incorporated the Act in this paper as it would
provide a window of opportunity to establish how the electoral
processes at various levels are a manifestation and reflection of
the will of the electorate. All this has tended to put the
Zimbabwean electoral process into the limelight. The paper is
therefore intended to establish whether the electoral system can
conduct a free and fair electoral process. The paper has also
incorporated this Act to enable the author to establish the extent
to which it abides by the dictates of the SADC Guidelines on the
Conduct of Democratic Elections, a set of guidelines that all SADC
member states should follow when conducting elections.
The inclusion of the Zimbabwe Electoral Act in this paper has also
been necessitated by the controversy that Zimbabwean elections have
produced over the years, with different opponents accusing each
other of electoral rigging, vote buying and manipulation of the
electorate through politicizing food aid to rural communities (Maseko,
2013).This paper attempts to establish how the stipulations of the
Act have affected the entire electoral process, and whether the
subsequent results of the various electoral processes were a true
reflection of the wishes of the generality of the electorate.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Act (2004) is a constitutional provision that
provides guidelines on the conduct of elections both at national,
provincial and municipal levels. The Act provides for the creation
of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission whose mandate is to conduct
elections. This Act establishes an independent authority, the
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, to administer all elections and
referenda in Zimbabwe. The Act empowers the State President to
appoint members of the Commission. It administers Presidential,
Parliamentary, Senatorial and municipal elections (Chapter 2:13, Act
25/2004).
The provisions give the Commission far-reaching powers over voter
education. The Act also bars all foreign support for voter education
activities except through the Electoral Commission. Under the Act,
the Commission would be empowered to require anyone, other than a
political party, providing voter education to furnish it with
detailed information, including funding sources. Failure to comply
with any one of these laws would constitute a criminal offence,
liable to a fine or to up to two years of imprisonment. Much of
civil society and NGOs depend on foreign funding. Civil society has
therefore tended to view this Bill as government attempts to flash
them out of existence and to cause cash flow problems for civic
groups. A free election is one in which voters can freely vote for
the candidates of their choice. The electoral laws themselves must
create a set of rules that allow all contesting parties to compete
fairly in the elections and all eligible voters who wish to do so to
exercise their right to vote. A fair election is one in which all
the processes of the election are fairly and impartially
administered. These processes include the registration of voters and
election candidates, the voting process and the counting of votes
and the announcement of the results. Election candidates and parties
contesting the election must also be given a fair and substantially
equal opportunity before the election to campaign and inform the
electorate of their principles, policies and promises. This includes
equal opportunity for airtime on the electronic and print media
The Principles for Conducting of Democratic Elections
Contained in these laws are principles that enable the conducting of
democratic elections. Section 3 of the Electoral Act stipulates the
general principles of a democratic election in an attempt to
regularise the general conduct of elections to meet recognised
standards. These principles include the right of citizens to
participate in governance issues directly or through freely chosen
representatives. This should be achieved without distinction on any
grounds. A person can join a political party of one’s choice and has
the right to participate in peaceful activities to influence or
challenge the policies of government. All political parties shall be
allowed to campaigned freely within the law and have reasonable
access to the media during election time. The Act defines election
time to be 30 days before the polling day for the elections and ends
at the close f day or the last day of polling .
Recent Political Developments in Zimbabwe
Most SADC countries, notably Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana, Malawi, and
lately Zimbabwe use the first-past-the-post system, which is limited
in terms of representation but is potentially able to offer a
greater level of participation and accountability .
Recent political developments have further put Zimbabwe on the world
map and have even compromised Zimbabwe’s democratic standing “where
political leaders defy the very laws that they put in place” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni,
2008) . The new 2013 Constitution did not help either. Legislation
alone cannot ensure people’s participation in governance. It has
been noted that referenda can be used to force fearful people to
legitimize government policy proposals, for example the 2000
referendum in which citizens in different parts of the country were
coerced into voting for a ‘YES’ to a doctored constitution (Makumbe,
2010). Legislation has merely instituted the participative mechanism
already at work. A general observation is that notwithstanding
achievements in multiparty democracy, many elections have not
translated into citizen participation in state affairs .The Zimbabwe
Electoral Act was put to the test both prior to the March 29 2008
Harmonised Elections as well as the June 27 2008 run-off elections
at which politically-motivated violence compromised the conduct of
free and fair election contestation. The run-off was necessitated by
the Electoral Act which prescribes that in the event of there no
clear winner in an election, a run-off election should be held
between the first two opponents.
The prescriptions and provisions of the Zimbabwe Electoral Act were
breached unabated. Run-off elections were not held in line with the
requirements of both the Zimbabwe Electoral Act and the SADC
Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic Elections both of which
require freedom of expression, access to media for competing
political parties, the availability of political party agents for
contesting parties as well as election observers (both national,
regional and international). Politically-motivated violent acts
eroded peoples’ rights to participate in governance processes,
resulting in voter apathy. Victimisation of the electorate who had
voted for the opposition in the first round of the electoral process
in 2008 created an environment that was contrary to the Electoral
act and the SADC Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic Elections.
The maxim that your vote is your secret ceased to apply as people
were threatened with dire consequences if the voted the opposition
into power . The opposition was denied access to use media (both
print and electronic, as prescribed by electoral laws. Post-election
violence targeted at those perceived to have voted for the
opposition became commonplace.
The aftermath of the 2008 elections was the establishment of a GNU
which was criticized by much of the civil society movement in the
country as defying the tenet of democracy, but hailed by others as
providing a temporary reprieve from political violence. Firstly the
GNU was not a manifestation of democracy since power should be
transferred to the winning political party. Once the GNU is
established, all political parties should enjoy the same power,
However unfortunately in the Zimbabwean case, the tenure of the GNU
was characterised by the dominance of ZANU (PF), paving the way for
its electoral ‘victory’ in the July 2013 elections, a manifestation
of the theory of the preponderance of the incumbency. While the
electoral process was held in line with the prescriptions of the
SADC Guidelines on the Conduct of Democratic elections, but the
electoral environment was characterised by arguments from different
contesting parties, especially on the need to avail the voter’s roll
to all parties as well as the public for scrutiny, which demand was
never complied with. The electoral process was held in a tense
situation where different political parties accused each other of
vote-buying, mud-slinging as well as intimidation and threats. In
addition the administration of the whole electoral process provided
room for the conduct of a flawed election taking cognizance of the
fact that the staff of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission had been
approved by ZANU (PF) one of the contesting parties. The neutrality
of the ZEC became questionable. One would be given the benefit of
the doubt to assume that the institution is a de facto extension of
ZANU (PF). Additionally, the refusal of the ZEC to release the
Presidential results within a reasonable time frame in 2008 and its
subsequent refusal to avail the voters’ roll to the public (let
alone to the contesting political parties) raised questions about
the authenticity of the results thereof. Constant persuasion by
civil society to release the results (2008) and avail the voters
roll (Mapuva, 2013) was not heeded. This resulted in tension among
the electorate reaching fever pitch. Even regional groupings like
the SADC have failed to ensure that the will of the people of
Zimbabwe be respected through the timeous release of election
results or the creation of an enabling political environment.
While in 2008 the post-election period was characterized by violence
which the opposition has blamed on ZANU (PF), in 2013 different
political parties avoided violence which would taint the results of
the elections, hence the SADC and AU election observers described
the 2003 elections as “peaceful”. Together with its dominance of the
GNU, ZANU (PF) was (in some way) able to ‘reclaim’ some of the
constituencies that it had lost to the MDC in previous elections.
Much of the electorate as well as civil society organizations have
also accused the MDC of being too complacent and lacking in
ideology, resulting in their losing the vote to ZANU (PF).
Is democracy that elusive?
The assertion that “Mugabe will not transfer power to the winner”
and “President Robert Mugabe will step down if he loses” (Mail and
Guardian, 3 June 2008), contradicts the concept of democracy. The
results of the 27 June 2008 in which ZANU (PF) “romped to a
resounding victory” raises questions a few weeks after the MDC had
won, though with a slight margin to enable a re-run. What raises
questions about the June 2008 electoral results is the fact that the
same electorate which had voted for the MDC suddenly changed their
minds and developed confidence in ZANU (PF), thereby voting for it.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, democracy is that form
of government in which the sovereign resides in the people as a
whole, and is exercised directly by them or by officers elected by
them”. If that happens, then the holding elections become an
exercise that does not benefit the majority of people. While the
international community has attempted to exert coercive measures
through sanctions and other embargos, but in all intents and
purposes, democracy has remained compromised by the continued
bickering by different political parties which have not concurred on
the way forward in putting the interests of the population ahead of
political interests.
Fathers of democracy, notably Solon , Pericles, Machiavelli and Karl
Marx, Frederick Engels, as well as Jefferson, should be turning in
their graves to see their coinages of the concept of democracy being
abused through the formation of GNUs. Questions have been risen as
to whether the term ‘State President’ in Zimbabwe is cast in stone
and solely belongs to one party (has the state turned into a
hereditary fiefdom?) or is it open to alternative contests from
different parties, even those that did not participate in the
liberation struggle? Consequently, the term ‘State President’ in
Zimbabwe has become synonymous with individuals and any mention to
the contrary is viewed as subversive and treacherous. Such actions
do not conform to the dictates of either the radical or the liberal
definitions of democracy. It is only democracy when specific
political parties win and not so when dominant political parties
lose, with that if such parties lose, there will be war in the
country.
Are sanctions the answer?
Zimbabwe has been riling under sanctions since 2002. Sanctions have
been imposed and these have not been effective insofar as the
establishment in Harare is concerned. The only effect of the
sanctions has been decreased popularity for ZANU (PF) by the general
masses, which could most likely have been the intention of those who
imposed the sanctions in the first place. But in all fairness it is
the ordinary people who have borne the brunt of the sanctions more
than the intended “recipients”. Decisive action against the
perpetrators of violent acts and electoral fraud is the best option
and not sanctions. The most effective way of announcing the will of
the people can be through the ballot. The electoral results since
2000 have not been about occupying State House, but to put food on
the table of the electorate. Sanctions will and has always hurt the
ordinary people, and not the intended leaders
Conclusion
The different electoral elections, while answering to the dictates
of democracy, have failed to live up to the entitlement of democracy
by virtue of the uneven political playing field in the country,
coupled with the lack of transparency due to the failure by ZEC to
avail the voters’ role to the public. Secondly, having learnt from
the errors of the 2008 elections, ZANU (PF) was able to overcome
these by ensuring the prevalence of a peaceful political environment
prior to, during and after elections. ZANU (PF) also learnt that
perpetrating violence on opposition political parties and their
supporters contributed to the discrediting to electoral results.
REFERENCES
Croft A (2014). “EU eases Zimbabwe sanctions but keeps them on
Mugabe” Mail and Guardian, 14 February 2014. Available at
http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-17-eu-eases-zimbabwe-sanctions-but-keeps-them-on-mugabe/
EISA “The impact of Democracy on Public
Participation in the SADC Region” in Election Institute of Southern
Africa EISA (2003). EISA Occasional Paper No.13, October 2003
Human Rights Watch (2003). Under the Shadow: Civil and political
rights in Zimbabwe,6 June 2003
Jacobson C (2008). ‘Mugabe will not transfer power to the winner'
inMail and Guardian, 3 June, 2008.
Kabemba C et al (2003).The role of civil society in the organization
of elections in Zimbabwe,(Unpublished).
Kagoro B (2003).The opposition and civil society. Zimbabwe’s
turmoil: Problems and prospects, Institute for Security Studies,
Pretoria.
Makumbe J (2003). ZANU PF: A party in transition, Zimbabwe’s
turmoil: Problems and prospects, Institute for Security Studies (ISS),Pretoria,
South Africa,2003,www.iss.co.za.
Makumbe J (1998). ‘Is there a civil society in Africa?’
International Affairs 74 (2) 305-317
Makumbe J (2010). “Chapter 7-Theft by Numbers: ZEC’s Role in the
2008 Elections”, in Masunungure, E.V (2010) (ed) Defying the Winds
of Change: Zimbabwe’s 2008 Election, Harare, (Zimbabwe);
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS)
Mamdani M (1990); ‘State and Civil Society in Contemporary Africa:
Conceptualizing the Birth of State Nationalism and the Defeat of
Popular Movements’ in Africa Development;CODESRIA,Dakar.
Mapuva J (2010). “Militarisation of Public Institutions, Flawed
Electoral Processes and Citizen Participation” in Journal of
Legislative Studies, 16 (4) 460-475, (December 2010).
Mapuva J (2013). “Governments of National Unity (GNUs) and the
Preponderance of the Incumbency: Case of Kenya and Zimbabwe” Inter.
J. Polit. Sci. Develop. 1(3):105-116, November 2013.
Maseko N (2013). “Zimbabwe Election: A Guide to Rigging Allegations”
BBC News Africa, 7 August 2013. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23591941
(Accessed 12 November, 2013).
Moyo S, Makumbe J, Raftopoulos B (2000). NGOs, the State and
Politics in Zimbabwe, Harare: SAPES Books.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni S (2008). “Who Ruled by the Spear? Rethinking the
Form of Governance in the Ndebele State” 10(2&3): 635-656, Fall
2008.
Olaleye O (ed) (2005). Negotiating the Impasse: Challenges and
prospects for democratization in Zimbabwe. EISA Research Report
No.9.
Raftopoulos B (2000). NGOs, the State and Politics in Zimbabwe:
Harare; Baobab Books
Sachikonye LM (2001). “The electoral system and democratization in
Zimbabwe since 1980” .Paper presented at a conference on Electoral
Perspective in the DRC, Kinshasa, 2001
|
|
