Zimbabwe Elections and the Question of Legitimacy

Zimbabwe Academics Forum (ZAF): 15 August 2013 

Ambassador Hotel: 1730-2000hours

Theme: Zimbabwe Elections and the Question of Legitimacy

Facilitator: Dr Charity Manyeruke

Presenters: Dr Musafari Mupanduki (Lecturer at University of Zimbabwe, Mr Psychology Mazivisisa (Lawyer), Mr Charlse Mangongera (Director Policy and Research-MDC-T) and Mr Job Sikhala (President of MDC-99).

Introduction

Dr C Manyeruke, the facilitator for the discussion gave opening statements on the discussion. The background of the ZAF was given as an academic forum which gives academic introspection on issues that will be taking place in the country. Critical assessments and analysis are made by panellists and participants. The platform allows academics and stakeholders to analyse events, policies and processes which affect the country.  The forum was attended by about 40 participants, comprising of politicians, members of civil society, academics, journalists and members of the public. After her opening remarks, the facilitator introduced the panellists for the evening.

First Presenter: Dr M Mupanduki

Dr Mupanduki began his presentation with a quotation from Monte McMurchy:

Elections can be very worthwhile institutions. They stabilise and regularize popular participation in government, and can provide decisive results about which leaders will direct government. They provide a means not only for the citizens to direct and to control their government, but also for the government to control and direct the mass citizenry. Thus, electoral systems have great consequences for the democratic qualities of any constitutional government. Yet, to be of any use, elections need to be credible, free, fair – and seen to be so. In short, they need to be legitimate.  

Dr Mupanduki proceeded to explain some of the theoretical underpinnings of election legitimacy. In a bid to explain the concept of election legitimacy, he argued that legal, sociological and moral aspects must be explored. The presenter explained that when electoral legitimacy functions as a legal concept, legitimacy and illegitimacy are gauged by legal norms. As measured by sociological criteria, he stated that a claim of electoral authority is legitimate insofar as it is accepted as deserving of respect and obedience. Concerning the moral criteria, he argued that electoral legitimacy inheres in the moral justification, if any, for claims of authority asserted in the name of the law as an exemplar of normative conduct.

Because of the multiple facets that are required to make an election process legitimate, Dr Mupanduki argued that an election process is not perfect and that it is not possible for it to receive the unanimous consent of the governed. In this respect, he argued that the electoral process qualifies as legitimate only under what he termed “minimal”, rather than “ideal” theories of moral legitimacy. He stated that, “The electoral processes moral legitimacy, like that of most nations, arises from the facts that it exists, that it is reasonably (rather than completely) just, and that agreement to a better electoral process would be difficult if not impossible to achieve.” Dr Mupanduki drew from his personal experiences in the West and his knowledge of how their electoral systems work. He said that the West’s systems were not full proof and gave examples of The United States of America (USA) 2012 election that gave Obama his second term but was fraught with irregularities and allegations of fraud. Another example he gave was the British one in which 406 case of alleged electoral fraud at local government elections were reported by the police in 2012 up from 271 in 2010 and 268 in 2011.  In this respect, the presenter argued that the West had lost credibility and were part of the problem and not the solution.  

Dr Mupanduki proceeded to address the legitimacy issue in Zimbabwe’s electoral process. Dr Mupanduki raised the question of who had the right to determine the legitimacy of the country’s election. He was of the view that Zimbabwean’s who turned out to register as voters, massively voted in the constitutional referendum, turned out in huge numbers for political rallies, and formed long queues to cast their votes in a radically individualistic way were clear indications of establishing legitimacy for the Zimbabwe electoral process. In his view, the international community and the regional community in the form of the African Union (AU), The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) and other African states only came to confirm the legitimacy established by Zimbabweans. 

The presenter stated that on the on the morning of the vote, Mr Morgan Tsvangirayi, the leader of the MDC-T posted a testimony on his (Tsvangirayi) Facebook page stating “I am humbled by the huge turnout… We are poised for a landslide.” Dr Mupanduki argued that by challenging elections, he (Tsvangirayi) took part in and fully supported, in the Constitutional Court, Mr Tsvangirayi was providing opportunities for foreign interference and that the MDC-T should concede defeat. 

Second Presenter: Mr P Mazivisa

Mr Maziwisa argued that in assessing the legitimacy of Zimbabwe’s election, it was important to analyse the political environment before, during and after the election. In addition, the question of if the outcome of the election reflects the will of the people should be answered. Mr Maziwisa, like Dr Mupanduki, argued that the general acceptance by observers and participants of the election legitimised the Zimbabwe election. He described the election as one of the most credible elections in Africa especially with the calls by President Mugabe for peace to prevail. The prevailing peace during the election was confirmed by observers both from within and outside Zimbabwe. 

Similar to Dr Mupanduki’s remarks that there is no perfect election, Mr Maziwisa argued that Zimbabwe had done her best and that perfection is not a feasible standard by which to gauge the legitimacy of the election. Zimbabwe had conformed to SADC guidelines and in this respect, her election was legitimate. Drawing from Biblical examples of Saint Peter and FROM Christian examples of Mother Theresa, he argued it was unfair and impossible to demand a perfect election.

He went further to state that it is not right to state that an election was legitimate only if Britain and the United States of America said it was. In this respect he argued that external interference was aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean election. He argued that to assess the legitimacy of the election, there was need to look internally at the people who took part in the election and at the observers. The presence of independent observers at every polling station was also an indicator of the legitimacy of the election. 

Mr Maziwisa argued that the election was legitimate because when one looked at the outcome, people had chosen empowerment and a reliable candidate over a candidate who would take the people back to subjugation and who did not have the people at heart as reflected by his lavish lifestyle.  It was therefore legitimate because the people affirmed their support by voting for their preferred candidate. Mr Maziwisa concluded that if parties felt aggrieved by the outcome and the legitimacy of the election, there were legal channels to follow and were free to use them. 

Third Presenter: Mr C Mangongera

Mr Mangongera started his presentation in response to what the first and second presenters had alluded to.  He pointed that as academics there is need for elements of truthfulness in all they say for the betterment of Zimbabwe and future generations to come. On the topic in question, the presenter argued that there was no need to compare the electoral processes in other states such as United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada in order for us to conclude that Zimbabwe’s 31 July elections were legitimate. As such Mangongera laid down the Zimbabwean standards that can be used to determine the legitimacy of an election. And these were but not exhaustive of Zimbabwe’s laws, norms, standards, expectations of the Zimbabweans, SADC and the AU election guidelines.

Mangongera’s argument was that Zimbabweans and Zimbabwean standards should be used to measure the election outcome as legitimate or not. He alluded that, Zimbabwe Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO) election reports should be considered in concluding whether the elections were legitimate or not. The NGOs reports include Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network (ZESN), Zimbabwe Crisis Coalition and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGOs. In his view, the reports made by the above organisations prove that the election outcome was illegitimate. In the case of 31 July elections he stated that the outcome was illegitimate since the pre-election processes were marred by irregularities.  The presenter considered the following points before concluding that the elections were not legitimate.

The first point was the proclamation of the election date by the President which he argues that was illegal in accordance to Zimbabwe’s new constitution. Mangongera cited sections 157 and 134F which provide that statutory instruments must be laid before the National Assembly so that they can determine the election date. He argues that the President unilaterally proclaimed the Election Day. Thus, it renders the elections outcome illegitimate.

He said that another factor that makes Zimbabwe’s election unlawful was that voter registration process favoured one party at the expense of the other. The presenter gave an example that distribution of mobile registration teams was unfair given that on one hand in Mashonaland East there is population of about 1.3 million and it had 18 mobile voter registration teams. On the other hand, Harare which is an MDC-T stronghold and has a population of 2.1 million had 5 teams for the registration. To this end, he felt that there was disenfranchisement of the urban voter proving that the pre-election environment was unbalanced.

Mangongera added that the voter’s role was unclean, unavailable to parties and inaccessible. He said that the hard copy of the voter’s role was made available on 27 July which made it difficult for MDC-T to scrutinise the copies before the Election Day. In the presentation, he made claims that there was the involvement of NIKUV Israeli International in the voter registration process. He alleged that between 4 February 2013 and 13 February 2013 NIKUV was paid US$10.5 million and part of the payment (US$200 000) was paid off on the afternoon of 30 July.  On the payment, Mangongera said that they could make bank statements available to anyone of the transactions. Given the above scenario, the presenter said NIKUV had a significant role to play in the rigging of the 31 July elections which makes the outcome unlawful. 

The presenter made reference to section 51A of the Electoral Act which provided that there is need to notify parties of where the printing of ballot papers was done; how many were printed, used, those left and how they were distributed. His comment on this was that they were not furnished of the above information. Besides the issue of ballots, Mangongera argued that the public media was biased in favour of ZANU PF campaigns. He said that during their launch of their manifesto in Marondera they were quoted US$164 000 for coverage by the state broadcaster, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Cooperation. He said the MDC-T considered this figure unreasonable and doubted ZANU PF ever paid such amounts for its coverage. Out of President Mugabe’s 10 rallies 9 of them were fully broadcasted whilst MDC-T 60 rallies were not aired, except when the Prime Minister made mistakes in his speeches. To this end he concluded that these were not African or Zimbabwean standards that lead to a legitimate election outcome.

Furthermore, the presenter questioned the special voting system and made it clear there were some irregularities which surrounded it. He argued that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) had said that there were 60 000 police officers. This did not tally with the 38 000 figure of officers who were on payroll of the treasury, which they were given by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The remainder of the 60 000 from 38 000 were said to be on reserve. On voting he noted that 30 000 officers managed to vote whilst the remaining were denied access to vote, after ZANU PF had discovered that the police were voting for MDC-T.

Mr Mangongera made comments on the processes during the Election Day. He alleged that there was bussing of voters from rural areas such as Honde Valley to Mount Pleasant, Mbare, Hatfield, Harare South and Harare East constituencies. In rural areas his view was that traditional leaders intimidated people to vote for ZANU PF by threatening that if one would vote for MDC-T they would be kicked out of the chiefs area. He added that the figure of 200 000 assisted voters can be queried given that Zimbabwe has a high literacy rate of 93%. All these renders the electoral outcome illegitimate as the process was not free and fair.

Conclusively, the presenter argued that, only Zimbabweans could determine the legitimacy of an election outcome. This could be measured or determined using Zimbabwe’s standards, laws and norms and also in line with the SADC and the AU guidelines on the conduct of free and fair elections. He thus also went on to state that ZANU PF did not have a plan for the country and that civil servants were not going to receive their salaries month end. More so, USA and UK did not have the power to legitimise Zimbabwe’s election outcome.

Fourth Presenter: Mr Job Sikhala

Mr Job Sikhala started his presentation by giving a background to the formation of the MDC now MDC-T. His position is that he was among the founders of the party in 1998. The presenter alluded to the fact that the 31 July elections were not the only major event in Zimbabwe’s election history. As such he made reference to the 16 March 2013 referendum were all the political parties and leaders supported the outcome of a Yes vote. He argued that there was no big difference on the conditions and process of the 16 March elections and the 31 July elections. He said that those who lost with a No vote during the referendum elections were irrelevant Zimbabwean as they were defeated and were arguing that the two month period given by the courts of going through the COPAC draft was not adequate. Sikhala was of the view that 31 July elections were the most free and fair elections in Zimbabwe’s history. On legitimacy, he raised the point that the internal perceptions or views of the people who participated in the elections should be used as a measure of legality or illegality of the whole process and procedures.

The presenter dismissed Mr Mangongera’s view that they do not consider the views of the international community in determining the legitimacy of elections. Sikhala stated that these were double standards by the MDC-T which he termed as ‘double speak’ of what was once celebrated by the party. 

In his presentation, he made reference to his rural home Masema in Gutu - a farming community where he conducted a research on the opinions and views of the people on the 31 July elections. At one of the polling stations in the area, he noted that Mugabe scored 99 whilst Tsvangirai got 23 votes. This was a reverse of the 2008 elections when Mugabe lost to Tsvangirai. Asking the people in his area on the change of the vote outcome on the two presidential candidates, the people said “hatinga vhotere ana ndove ava” (how could we vote for such dung) referring to an MDC-T MP whom they said that never came back ever since they were elected into parliament. He gave an example that the MDC-T party disserted her own supporters’ families who had people killed during the 2008 elections. He made claims that he donated 4 cattle to one of the family to use for ploughing their fields 

During the heroes day holiday Sikhala made a survey and sat at ‘Ndari’ (a community drinking place), drank beer with the people and gathered that the people in his area had benefited nothing from their MDC-T MP whom they had voted in. ZANU PF aspiring candidates had begun their campaigns in the area a year and half before the Election Day whilst MDC-T candidates were in Harare thinking that it was an obvious case that they would win. From the above he concluded that the election result was a true reflection of the people’s choices.

In his presentation, Mr Sikhala cited Kenya’s elections of 2007. His argument being that the people are the ones who determine the legitimacy of elections. In Kenya 2007 election, he stated that voters felt that their vote was robbed and took it to the streets to demonstrate, claiming back their victory. Arguably, the presenter said that Zimbabweans were satisfied with the election result as they did not take it to the streets to claim their victory. For example, no flyer was even distributed between 31 July and 15 August 2013 with a message that elections were rigged. He gave examples of Savimbi and Dhlakhama of Mozambique that when they felt that their victory was robbed they went back to the bush in Gorongoza and fought back from there. As such, he stated that any leader who claims that the elections were not legitimate should go in the bush without persuasion and reclaim what is theirs.

Sikhala said that even in St Marys Chitungwiza, MDC-T councillors were infamous soon after they were voted in, the councillors stole everything and only failed to steal the air we breathe. In addition they did not give feedback and absconded their own homes for five years. All these events were in the minds of the electorate on the voting day and thus they voted for what they really wanted which led to MDC-T’s defeat. 

On the Election Day, Sikhala commented that by 10 am in St Marys people had finished voting. There was no intimidation. In Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe voter turnout was high as the voters were mobilised out to go and vote which was not the case in urban areas. The presenter was of the view that political parties such as the MDC-T need to address fundamental issues within their parties on how and what went wrong for their loss. He went on to state that there was no room for fantasizing in politics. Parties need to question what they have done for the people in order for them to determine their success of failure in an election.

The presenter articulated that Zimbabwe’s elections were legitimate. He cited the endorsement by the AU (Obasanjo leader of the observer team), SADC, and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa states (COMESA), African Caribbean and Pacific states (ACP) and the United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who congratulated the peaceful conduct of the elections. In addition countries in the Asian continent such as China, South Korea, Singapore; Middle East: Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan and India; Europe: Russia and Turkey; Latin America: Cuba, Peru, Brazil and Venezuela had endorsed the outcome of the elections. Countries such as Botswana, USA, Australia and UK opposed the outcome of 31 July elections. The nod by the majority of the international community renders the elections’ outcome legitimate. He concluded that Zimbabwe’s destiny was in its peoples own hands as they should define the future of the nation.            

Plenary

One person from Buhera commented that electricity poles passed through a school going to Tsvangirai’s homestead which the people in the area concluded that the leader was not pro people but selfish as the school did not have electricity. In addition, he claimed that Tsvangirai’s mother was in her son’s campaign team and Tsvangirai came and said to her  mum “muri kushayei” (what is it that you do not have that has made you to be in the team). These statements being heard by other team members discouraged them to campaign for the effectively campaign for Tsvangirai.

Another participant was of the view that electoral fraud in Western countries should not be used to justify Zimbabwe elections which were marred by irregularities. Dr Mupanduki and Mr Mazivisa’s response on this was that they cited these examples as these countries claim to be the so called mothers of good electoral practices.

A United Movement for Democracy spokesperson noted that the MDC-T was supposed to address all the election irregularities whilst they were still in the GNU and not to take people for granted. Mangongera stated that since day one in the GNU, MDC-T was fighting for reforms to be made which they did not wholly succeed in doing, so since ZANU PF is a strong party.

A question was raised that if a political party agreed to take part in an election and later argued that the election was flawed, why did it agree to take part in the first place? Is not taking part an indication of support of the electoral process? In the same line of questioning, a lady asked what MDC-T’s motivation of going to the election was. In response, Mr Mangongera stated that taking part in an election does not mean one has given it legitimacy. He stated that the MDC was naïve and underestimated the level of rigging ZANU PF would engage in. He stated that his party had consistently and continuously pushed for a reform agenda even before elections at various regional platforms. 

From a lady arose the question of what has the ordinary Zimbabwean voted for in ZANU PF? Why did the electorate think it is a better option than the other parties chief of them been MDC-T?  In response, Mr Sikhala stated that people had voted for ZANU-PF because of its political strategy. He stated that with the inception of the inclusive government, ZANU PF deployed to every constituency talking to the people, staying with them and learning what their needs and grievances were. The abuse of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and neglect in developing constituencies and of the electorate by some MDC MP’s also made ZANU-PF a preferred option. He gave an example that Sibanda, an aspiring candidate in his rural home started his campaigns one and half years before the election whilst opposition candidates were busy drinking tea in Harare. Candidates such as Kereke went and sat with people at Ndari (community drinking place) and visiting families in his constituency. His point was that people vote for candidate whom they know and is available which is what ZANU PF did leading to MDC-T MPs losing the race.

Another speaker argued that it is possible that people voted for ZANU-PF in the form of a protest vote against the MDC because of its shortcomings.

Another individual asked if rigging could fully explain the loss of MDC-T to such a scale. Has the MDC-T looked internally and at other factors in accounting for its loss? Mr Mangongera answered stating that every party has its issues but to say internal issues fully account for MDC’s loss does not suffice.  He pointed to his analysis of voter trends in Zimbabwe and argued that findings indicate in the 2013 election ZANU PF doubled its support base which he argued was impossible and that MDC remained stagnant.

It was also asked that as the court has already ruled that the proclamation of the election was legal; will anything come out of challenging the outcome of the election in court? Mr Mangongera stated that the MDC was not a violent party and would seek peaceful avenues to air it grievances.

Conclusion

There was a general agreement amongst the presenters and participants that Zimbabweans had legitimised their election through a free and fair voting process It was noted that in addition to the role played by the citizens, the international community also had a say in the legitimacy of the election as the country does not exist in isolation. A conclusion was also reached that organisations such as the AU the SADC and ACP countries had an important role to play in considering the legitimacy of the election outcome. It was noted that these regional bodies had concluded that Zimbabwe’s election was free and fair. Participants recommended that parties which lost the election must begin to strategise on how they can win the next election and those that won must begin to plan for implementing their policies in Government.