Summary - Confronted with the results of Zimbabwe’s 31 March parliamentary elections, in which President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF claimed a sweeping 78 of the 120 contested seats, Zimbabweans are asking what will bring a resolution to the country’s deepening political, economic and humanitarian crisis.
The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has not put forward a clear strategy. Instead it is challenging the results in the new Electoral Court on the basis of compelling evidence of massive vote-rigging.
John Makumbe, a political science lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe currently on sabbatical at Michigan State University, criticised the MDC for going into the elections at all. “It was obvious that Zanu-PF was not going to allow them to win. The end result is that they have legitimised an authoritarian and undemocratic regime.”
Makumbe, a founder of the leading civic organisation, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, says Mugabe intends to change the constitution, and “there is nothing the MDC can do about it”.
Leading Zimbabweans have urged mass action. In the week before the elections, Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo Pius Ncube repeatedly called on the people to “take to the streets and throw out the Mugabe government”. Civic leader Lovemore Madhuku, leader of the National Constitutional Assembly, made similar calls. Jenni Williams, co-ordinator of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (Woza), was arrested with some 300 women for holding a prayer vigil. Williams has publicly urged MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to call a demonstration. An underground organisation, Zvakwana (Enough!), sent an open letter to Tsvangirai expressing its readiness to mobilise people to protest.
Tsvangirai hinted at a popular uprising by calling on the people of Zimbabwe “to defend their vote” but he stopped short of calling his followers out into the streets.
There are reasons why he and his party avoided such action. Tsvangirai was on trial for his life on spurious charges of treason and was acquitted only after a lengthy trial. He faces another set of treason charges for allegedly calling for a popular uprising. Many of his fellow MDC leaders and followers have suffered considerable harassment and violence. Organising action might well result in further violence.
In recent years there have been many examples of popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes. Zimbabwe, however, has a few key differences that make it difficult to organise popular resistance. The Rhodesian system located the townships housing the vast majority of Harare residents at a considerable distance from the city centre. Townships, 15 to 30km away, are connected to the capital’s centre by a single road that can easily be sealed off by police and army.
Further obstacles include the state’s Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), which has a network throughout the cities and the rural areas. As important is the visceral sense of Zimbabweans that the Mugabe regime is prepared to use force. A period of increased repression looms.
South Africa and other neighbouring countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have offered little hope. Despite glaring obstacles to fully free and fair elections, the South African and SADC observer missions endorsed the polls.
There is a glimmer of hope that the United Nations might become more assertive regarding Zimbabwe. But, says Makumbe, at this point, “the only way to achieve change now is through [extra-parliamentary opposition] and peaceful civic disobedience. There must be mobilisation to resist the regime.”
Confronted with the results of Zimbabwe’s 31 March parliamentary elections, in which President Robert Mugabe’s claimed a sweeping 78 of the 120 contested seats and emerged even more firmly entrenched in power, Zimbabweans and concerned friends are asking what will bring a resolution to the country’s deepening political, economic and humanitarian crisis.
No one has an easy answer to the question. Certainly the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has not put forward a clear strategy on the way forward. Instead it has cried foul over the conditions of the elections and is challenging the results in the new Electoral Court on the basis of compelling evidence of massive vote-rigging.
But critics of the MDC say the party is foolhardy to expect any positive results. Following the 2000 parliamentary elections, the MDC challenged the results in 32 constituencies and five years later the courts have failed to resolve a single one. With such a precedent and considering that the independence of the judicial system is even more compromised than it was in 2000, it is most unlikely the opposition will get any redress from the courts.
“If your wallet is stolen once, then you are unlucky,” said Zimbabwean civic leader and academic John Makumbe. “If your wallet is stolen again, you must be a bit stupid and you must stop carrying your wallet in an open pocket. But if your wallet is stolen a third time, then it is your own fault and you should not expect anyone to feel sorry for you. The MDC should not expect anyone to feel sorry for them now because three elections have been stolen from them.”
Makumbe, a political science lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe who is currently on sabbatical at Michigan State University, criticised the MDC for going into the elections at all. “The MDC messed up by participating in the first place,” Makumbe said. “It was clear the elections would not be free and fair. It was obvious that Zanu-PF was not going to allow them to win. The end result is that they have legitimised an authoritarian and undemocratic regime”.
Makumbe, a founder of the leading civic organisation, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, labelled the situation as depressing. “Mugabe says he will change the constitution. There is nothing the MDC can do about it. Their 41 members of parliament can argue against every clause and every paragraph, but the constitutional amendments will go through as Mugabe wants it”.
Indeed, many MDC MPs already express despair at what little they will be able to achieve as a reduced minority in parliament.
Makumbe reckons the MDC’s biggest mistake was not to mobilise for a massive public rejection of the voting results. “After the two previous stolen elections, the MDC should not have had any faith in the fairness of the electoral system. They should have prepared their followers for mass action against the Mugabe government. They did not. There is a price to pay for freedom and the MDC leadership was not willing to do that.”
Other leading Zimbabweans urged mass action. In the week before the elections, Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo Pius Ncube repeatedly called on the people to “take to the streets and throw out the Mugabe government”. Civic leader Lovemore Madhuku, leader of the National Constitutional Assembly, made similar calls. Jenni Williams, co-ordinator of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (Woza), was arrested with some 300 women for holding a prayer vigil. Several Woza women were badly beaten by police. It was Williams’ 18th arrest for participating in public protests over the past two years. She publicly urged MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to call a demonstration. An underground organisation, Zvakwana (Shona for Enough!), sent an open letter to Tsvangirai expressing its readiness to mobilise people to protest.
But Tsvangirai and other MDC leaders resisted that course of action. Immediately after the results were announced Tsvangirai denounced the elections as being “stolen” and declared that the results do not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people. He hinted at a popular uprising by calling on the people of Zimbabwe “to defend their vote” but he stopped short of calling his followers out into the streets.
Critics of the opposition party say that it missed an opportunity to tap the popular sentiment of anger and channel it into an uprising.
There are reasons why Tsvangirai and his party avoided such action. Tsvangirai was on trial for his life on charges of treason, for allegedly plotting to have Mugabe assassinated, and was acquitted of the spurious charges only after a lengthy trial. He still faces another set of treason charges for allegedly calling for a popular uprising. Many of his fellow MDC leaders and followers have suffered considerable harassment and violence. It is understandable that the party would shy away from organising action that might well result in further violence.
In recent years there have been many examples of popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes. Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, an independent republic in the Russian-dominated Commonwealth of States, are the most recent. Zimbabwe, however, has a few key differences that make it more difficult to organise popular resistance.
A crucial factor is that Robert Mugabe is benefiting from Ian Smith’s city planning. The Rhodesian system carefully located the townships housing the vast majority of Harare residents at a considerable distance from the city centre. Chitungwiza township, housing more than a million people, is more than 30 kilometres from downtown Harare. Other townships are 15 and 20 kilometres away. Each one is connected to the capital’s centre by a single road that can be easily sealed off by police and army. Unlike many European capitals where residents can pour out of their apartments and be on the streets of the city, the people of Harare are distant.
Further obstacles include the state’s Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), which has a network throughout the cities and the rural areas. CIO secret agents could well learn in advance of plans for an uprising and arrest the organisers. As important is the visceral sense of Zimbabweans that the Mugabe regime is prepared to use force. The police and army are well equipped with anti-riot gear, largely purchased from China. The vicious attacks and torture inflicted by law enforcement officers on opposition supporters show there are many who would not flinch at opening fire on a crowd of demonstrators.
“Either we die in a crowd or we starve quietly at home,” one Harare resident said when discussing the prospect of confronting the Mugabe regime. “Our families do not have enough food. Hospitals do not have basic medicines. We are suffering, so maybe it is better to do something about it.”
The Mugabe government, freshly empowered by an increased parliamentary majority, has not given much hope of improved policies or a government more responsive to the people’s needs. Mugabe has declared he intends to rule until he is 100, and few believe he was joking.
Once Mugabe appoints the 30 seats that the constitution allows him to, Zanu-PF will control more than the two-thirds majority needed to alter the constitution. Mugabe plans to re-establish an upper house of parliament, a senate for older nationalist politicians and traditional chiefs. Beyond that he is known to be considering increasing the numbers of seats in the House of Assembly. Both these changes are dismissed by civic leaders as merely opportunities for Mugabe to pack the legislature with loyalists and cronies.
A period of increased repression looms. Significantly, Mugabe has not offered a hand of reconciliation to the opposition nor has he put forward economic reforms that would bring relief to ordinary Zimbabweans, whose living standards have plummeted as the country’s GDP has shrunk by more than 40 per cent in the past five years. He is considering signing into law the Non-Governmental Organisations Act, already passed by the old parliament, which gives the government the power to shut down any private charity or civic organisation. It specifically prohibits organisations dealing with human rights and governance issues from receiving any foreign funds.
The Mugabe government continued its campaign against the press by arresting and jailing two journalists from Britain’s Sunday Telegraph. Charged with working without the required government accreditation, the two journalists, if convicted, face a maximum sentence of two years in jail. It is a worrying prospect for the two journalists and it would be a serious precedent for all journalists seeking to cover events in Zimbabwe. Foreign journalists would be discouraged from visiting Zimbabwe without accreditation and Zimbabwean reporters who have not been issued accreditation would be under threat as well.
South Africa and other neighbouring countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have offered little hope of a change for the better. Despite glaring obstacles to fully free and fair elections, the South African and SADC observer missions endorsed the polls.
The SADC mission specifically overlooked Zimbabwe’s harsh Public Order and Security Act and other laws that severely restrict the basic freedoms called for in the SADC guidelines for democratic elections. The failure of the African missions to be critical of Zimbabwe’s elections sets a worrying precedent for the entire region. It was hoped the SADC guidelines would strengthen democracy in southern Africa. But the SADC election agreement has failed its first serious test. Zimbabwe was able to sneak through by making minimal effort to meet the criteria while blatant and substantial violations were perpetrated, such as flawed voter registration procedures.
Far from becoming an example as to how democratic elections should be achieved, Zimbabwe has given all SADC member countries lessons in how to avoid credible elections while still getting a seal of approval.
It is not clear what South Africa’s post-election policy towards Zimbabwe will be. It seems President Thabo Mbeki’s much criticised ‘quiet diplomacy’ has become completely silent. For a few years Mbeki has suggested talks between the two parties, leading to a form of government of national unity. Emboldened by his election takings, Mugabe has already rejected this. The MDC is not keen on it either, largely because it does not have faith in South Africa as an impartial mediator.
While Mbeki achieves diplomatic coups by finding solutions to problems in Ivory Coast and other trouble spots in Africa, Zimbabwe remains a festering sore on South Africa’s doorstep. Mbeki’s reputation as the African continent’s leading peacemaker and problem solver will be tarnished as long as there is no resolution to the Zimbabwean crisis. Likewise, Zimbabwe’s unabated troubles will hobble international support for Mbeki’s Nepad (New Partnership for African Development) initiative and efforts to get a permanent seat on the United Nations security council.
“South Africa’s efforts to encourage progress in Zimbabwe may well come through multi-lateral organisations such as the SADC and the African Union,” Peter Kagwanja, regional director of the International Crisis Group, comments. There was a glimmer of hope that the United Nations might become more assertive regarding Zimbabwe, following the remarks by Secretary General Kofi Annan in which he expressed concern that the elections had left the opposition feeling completely excluded and alienated.
If you can’t beat them, join them and urge them to take positive action, is one possible solution to Zimbabwe’s problems suggested by Trevor Ncube, publisher of the country’s last two independent publications, the Zimbabwe Independent and The Standard. Ncube, who is also owner of South Africa’s Mail & Guardian, in a comment piece entitled Only Mugabe can save Zimbabwe says Mugabe should be encouraged to restore some of his reputation by implementing policies that would return Zimbabwe to prosperity and stability. Most Zimbabwean analysts have dismissed Ncube’s proposal that Mugabe could be convinced to change his ways as wishful thinking.
“Mugabe does not want to reform and there is little, if any, democracy left in Zanu-PF,” Makumbe said. “Experience has shown that you cannot remove a dictator as crafty and tenacious as Mugabe through elections. The only way to achieve change now is through (extra-parliamentary opposition) and peaceful civic disobedience. There must be mobilisation to resist the regime. That is the way forward.”
But Makumbe anticipates that a groundswell of public outrage is unlikely in the short term. “There needs to be a period of regrouping. The church still has credibility. But so far no group has shown the muscle and vigour to organise itself to get people onto the streets. But with time the people will reclaim the democratic space that Mugabe and Zanu-PF have taken.”
