A free and fair election in Zimbabwe? An academic introspection

Zimbabwe Academic Forum (ZAF): 8 August 2013

Ambassador Hotel: 1730-1945hrs

Theme: A free and fair election in Zimbabwe? An academic introspection

Coordinator: Dr C. Manyeruke

Presenters:     Dr Tendi Miles (Political science lecturer,  Oxford University),

Mr Shakespeare Hamauswa (Political Science lecturer, University of Zimbabwe), Mr Gabriel Chaibva (Political Analyst)

Introduction

Opening remarks were made by the coordinator Dr C Manyeruke. After her welcoming remarks, she stressed the importance of the forum as an academic platform for debate which was attended by an estimated group of 30-35 people. She also gave a brief overview of the ZAF outlining the various topical discussions it covers. These are inclusive but not limited to democracy and governance, intellectual property, land and agrarian issues, development and livelihoods, environment and natural resources. Having done so, the moderator called upon the first Presenter Mr S. Hamauswa to make his presentation.

First Presenter: Mr S Hamauswa

Title of presentation: Free and Fair Elections in Zimbabwe? An academic introspection.

Duration: 1806-1830

In his presentation, the presenter gave definitions and the guidelines of what constitute a free and fair election. Hamauswa argued that an election is a contest for power which thus makes it difficult to have a fair election. The pre-election and the election environment were peaceful though in some instances minor cases of political violence occurred.

The debatable issue on the harmonised elections was the fairness. On one hand the winning party ZANU PF is saying its fair while on the other hand the losing parties the MDC-T are saying the elections were not fair. The presenter pointed out that world over it is difficult to have an absolute fair election. However, Hamauswa was of the view that the huge shift in results from the previous 2008 elections where ZANU PF lost and the 2013 election result where ZANU PF emerged as the winner raises questions on the fair conduct of the elections.

Hamauswa outlined the major international benchmarks which ensure the conduct of a free and fair election. These generally acceptable standards include observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, clearly defined universal suffrage and the independence of state institutions. On the first variation the presenter stated that the 2013 elections were free in the sense that human rights were respected. There were few cases of voter intimidation and violence which occurred. All political parties and their supporters were given room to freely campaign and associate with their supporters. He however, argued that there was intimidation in both ZANU PF and MDC-T campaign messages. On ZANU PF he cited that songs such as ‘Hondo here,’ and messages such as ‘Rangarira zva2008’ intimidated the people to vote or support ZANU PF. The MDC-T campaign material also had intimidating messages with photos of injured people and empty shelves in shops with a message that if you want a repeat of that, vote MDC-T. In such a way the people did not have an independent choice but rather were influenced by the past events and messages which they were being reminded of by the competing parties.

On the second benchmark of a fair playing field, the presenter stated that all the parties were accorded a fair campaigning environment. He stated that what also makes an election fair was the presence of an independent electoral body and in the 2013 elections there was the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). Hamauswa argued that the resignation of ZEC officials after the election was an indicator of electoral manipulation by the institution. Another comment that the presenter made was on the role of the military and police in the elections which he alleges that the security forces were partisan in favour of one political party. In the presentation he cited that the some army officials had said that they would not salute anyone without the liberation war credentials. From this statement he concluded that the army was partisan and not prepared to see the transfer of power. Chiefs were also cited as partisan forwarding the interest of a certain political party to the extent that they instructed their people of who to vote for.

The third benchmark was that of clearly defined universal suffrage. The presenter articulated that in Zimbabwe it was clearly defined on who can register to vote. He further mentioned that in the just held elections, aliens were also allowed to vote. On the voter registration process, Hamauswa noted that registration is a continuous process which is done as soon as the elections end, people can register to vote for the next elections. For example registration for the 2013 elections started in 2008. Despite this some people even failed to register to vote for the 2013 elections. Hamauswa was of the view that the registration process in the urban areas was frustrating and difficult as compared to the registration process in the rural areas. He also stated that an estimate of 1 million people failed to vote as they were turned away at the polling stations. As such the conduct was not fair as the presenter noted that the process thus tended to favour a certain political party which had a strong support base in rural areas.

From the presentation, the presenter argued that there was demographic manipulation in constituencies such as Harare South and Mbare. Hamauswa was of the view that people were moved from certain areas to go and register in areas they did not reside. To him these were pointers to the fact that the elections were not fair. He also pointed out that the voters’ roll has to be transparent and accessible to all political parties. In the 2013 elections, Hamauswa alleged that about 838 000 registered voters used the same name and address. In addition an estimate of over 300 000 people above the age of 85 were still appearing on the voters’ roll. To the presenter these figures were thus used in manipulating the electoral process thus making it an unfair process. Furthermore, the first presenter stated that the distribution of polling stations was not fair since they were too numerous. He also pointed that some people were found with registration slips and he questions how and where they had got them, making a conclusion that there was a rigging element in the process.

In his conclusion, Hamauswa argued that MDC-T is full of sympathizers and not supporters or true cadres as compared to ZANU PF. This comment was in line with fact that the bulk of MDC-T supporters who happens to be the youth did not register to vote. He also said that MDC-T took time in the inclusive government complaining about outstanding issues, forgetting that they were supposed to campaign and reach out to their supporters. In addition MDC-T supporters wanted to do a last minute registration when ZANU PF had already been doing the process long back. Finally he quoted Mao that a revolution is not a tea party neither is it knitting embroidery as such elections are about power and there maybe bloodshed when power is challenged. In an election there are winners and losers. The way forward for the country is to focus on development of the country in a democratic manner.

Second Presenter: Dr TendinMiles

Title: The Politics of the Elections

Dr Tendi Miles chose to discuss the 2013 elections in Zimbabwe within the context of credibility. He approached the debate from a comparative perspective, basing his argument on the fact that Zimbabwe and Kenya had undergone similar experiences. In this respect, he outlined that within both countries there had been the formulation of a new constitution;there had been cases of political violence, disputed elections deadlock and intervention of regional bodies such as the African Union (AU) to bring about stability in the form of Governments of National Unity.

With Kenya’s inclusive government coming to an end with elections in 2013, Dr Tendi Miles submitted that its election set the standard by which other African countries in power-sharing arrangements and entering into elections would be judged by.  As such, he argued that Zimbabwe’s 2013 election was judged, not according to the usual internationally accepted standards but against the only other country which had been in the same situation as Zimbabwe, namely Kenya. To this end, he argued that African countries had set the bar low in determining the freeness and fairness of the 2013 Kenya election as it was endorsed as credible because of the lack of violence. Dr Tendi Miles argued that since Zimbabwe’s election which was coming out of a power sharing arrangement, was peaceful and violence free like the Kenyan process, SADC endorsed the Zimbabwe election as credible as well. A key influence over the opinion of SADC’S decision on the Zimbabwe election was therefore the lack of violence. Dr Tendi Miles  further stated that the SADC and in turn the AU could not afford to declare the Zimbabwe election as uncredible because their reputation was at stake as guarantors of the inclusive government. Theybhad followed and natured all electoral processes.

In response to Mr. Hamauswa’s concerns about the role and impact of Zimbabwe’s military on the electoral system, Dr. Tendi Miles expressed his belief that the role of the military had been overstated and that certain remarks by some Generals had to be understood and quoted within the context of the speeches and the environment in which they were spoken. He argued that General Vitalis Zvinavashe had clearly stated that the defence forces would not support a person who has no respect of the liberation struggle. He said that this was unlike how the statement has been misconstrued by the opposition that the Generals said they will not salute any leader who did not fight the liberation struggle. He said that such misconception was really unfair and unfortunate.

Third Presenter: Mr Gabriel Chaibva

Mr Chaibva said that he chose to discuss the Zimbabwean election within an academic context but also focusing on reality. In reference to terms raised by Mr Hamauswa, Mr Chaibva stated that he believes the terms intimidation and violence are too powerful to use in describing the situation surrounding elections in Zimbabwe. He referred to political disturbances as political skirmishes as the term violence in the mind of some citizens abroad portrays mayhem and open armed conflict. In relation to intimidation, he argued that the people of Zimbabwe are above intimidation and it is not an effective tool to use to garner political support.

Mr. Chaibva also spoke about allegations of electoral fraud. He challenged the concept of electoral fraud and if anyone could define it and prove it.  In addition, he stated that allegations of electoral fraud such as 838 0000 people on the voters role with the same address were just fictitious stories peddled by people on the internet and online social platforms such as Baba Jukwa. Mr. Chaibva also spoke on how dead people are still on the voters role stating that it required a relative to testify and affirm or provide a death certificate of a person before he/she can be struck off the voters’ role. Further, he stated that dead people do not vote therefore their names on the role are really a non issue which cannot be electoral fraud. Pertaining to allegations of people found in unlawful possession of registration slips, Mr. Chaibva challenged that evidence be provided to prove this. He also affirmed that it was legal for a person to vote if his/her name did not appear on the voter’s role but produced a registration slip.

In addition, Mr Chaibva spoke about how all the political parties had access to the electorate through the media.  He contended that the MDC had unfettered access to the private press such as Newsday, Daily News and the Financial Gazette. To therefore argue that the MDC was disadvantaged by the national broadcaster is not a true representation of the situation that prevailed in relation to media assess.

Plenary Session

One participant questioned evidence to Hamauswa’s findings that it was based on civil society information such as  Zimbabwe Elections Support Network (ZESN) which tends to be biased in favour of a certain political party. Similarly another participant said that how does one come up with a 1 million figure of people who were supposed to vote. He stated that voting and registering to vote were not compulsory as is the case of census counting where every individual is supposed to be counted.

A certain gentleman raised the issue of the role of the military in the elections. He stated that it was individuals who made statements and not the whole army that issued the statement that they could not salute anyone without war credentials. In addition the gentleman argued that there is a need to compare the ratio of the liberation ex-combatants to non-combatants who make up the composition of the whole army and come up with a conclusion on the influence of the army in Zimbabwe’s politics.

One lady, expressed the need for the country to chart a way forward for the country as it cannot be in election mode forever.  She emphasised the realities on the ground that children need to go to school, and the youth need employment. She further urged citizens to demand what is due from the government for them. In addition, she argued that Zimbabwe is larger than any political party and that no single party owns the political space in Zimbabwe.

Another participant asked if elections were a security issue. He argued that they are a security issue and therefore they cannot be excluded from any election.

Another speaker raised the question of whether there was a likelihood of another coalition government. In response Dr Tendi Miles said there was no any chance as ZANU PF had won two thirds majority.

In plenary, it was raised that none of the panelists had answered the question which had been tabled for discussion namely were the elections free and fair. Dr Tendi re-emphasized his point that in the context of Zimbabwe it was the issue of credibility not fairness.

An observation arose that not having a national identity card is in fact denying yourself of your right to vote as compared to what Hamauswa had refered to as being denied a right to vote when potential voters were turned away.

One man believed that president Zuma did let Zimbabweans down by endorsing the election. Dr Tendi Miles responded that there is need for one to understand the mindsets and background of the observers. For example the then president of Nigeria Obasanjo who was heading the African Union Observer Mission was coming from a country where election irregularities are relatively worse off than what transpired in Zimbabwe’s 2013 election.

One youngster made his conclusion that the issue of free and fairness is subjective. As such it can never be an issue which can be conclusively agreed on as the losers tend to try to justify their loss.

Conclusion

The seminar ended with some questions being asked by the facilitator: What happens to the winners and losers after an election, do they have strategies for the future? Are media reforms still an issue to cry about in the ICT age with the Internet, whatsup, Facebook, twitter, blogs? Traditional leaders were embraced by SMS political parties whilst others threatened them. Who are these people? Are they part of us? Do we understand their roles in society and politics? What about the question of elections and legitimacy? Who decides on whether an election is legitimate? Is it the voters or the observers. Do observers play a complimentary role in confirming a vote?