|
Back to Index, Back to Special Index
This article participates on the following special index pages:
Zimbabwe's Elections 2013 - Index of Articles
Zimbabwe Transition Barometer - Issue 05
Crisis
in Zimbabwe Coalition (SA Regional Office)
June 30, 2013
Download
this document
- Acrobat
PDF version (927KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader
on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking
here
Executive
Summary
Media reforms
continue to dominate debate on pre-election
reforms in Zimbabwe. Harassment of journalists, through impeding
their work and physical abuse, as well as on suspicious and spurious
charges continued in the past 2 months. The Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) of 2002
and the Public
Order and Security Act (POSA) of 2002 have stifled freedom of
expression and general media freedoms. The state media continued
to function with a strong partisan bias in favour of the Zimbabwe
African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) and in disdain
of other political parties, especially the Movement for Democratic
(MDC) formations. The operations and behaviour of state owned media
houses contravenes section 61(4) of the Constitution
of Zimbabwe which provides for impartiality and fair representation,
including that of all political parties. This also breaches section
61(5) which specifies on freedom of expression as a merited right
for all citizens and institutions. The likelihood of increased media
polarity as the country heads towards the general elections continues
to be high. The state media is likely to continue to prop up Zanu-PF
while the independent media will ostensibly back MDC positions.
The recent recommendations by SADC at its Maputo
extra-ordinary summit held on 15 June 2013, to establish an inter-ministerial
committee to oversee pre-election media reforms, can be a trigger
for positive change. However, implementation in the limited time
available will be a considerable challenge.
The voter registration
process has had two phases. The first 20-day phase was in the April/May
period while the second 30-day phase began on 10 June and will legally
end on 9 July 2013. Some of the normative positive developments
in the second phase of voter registration process were:
- Those considered
as “aliens” were able to attain full citizenship;
- The proof
of residence requirement was replaced with the introduction of
an affidavit; and
- Voter registration
was in this period, supposed to be ward-based for easier access
by registrants.
However, some
of the challenges faced in the first phase have all persisted in
the second phase of registration. These are:
- Irregular
guidelines at registration centres;
- Inadequate
information available to the public;
- Irregular
opening times of some centres; and,
- Skewed distribution
of registration centres suspected to be along political party
dominant areas;
Since democratic
tenets emphasize on the need for equal participation in elections,
the challenges outlined above impact negatively on attaining a democratic
transition.
The consummation
of a second phase of registration, in accordance with 6th Schedule
of the new Constitution, Part 3, section 6(3), was commendable as
the first phase failed to serve all potential registrants. The second
phase seemed to attempt compliance with constitutional guidelines.
The ultimate goal is to produce a credible voters’ roll at
the end of these processes, a quest that still needs to be achieved.
However, without clarity on the mechanisms and the empirical procedures
of ensuring a credible voters’ roll, the forthcoming election
remains in danger of being disputed.
The Zimbabwe
Cabinet agreed on the amendments to the Electoral
Act, needed to align the act to the new Constitution. Although
President Mugabe invoked the Presidential
Powers (Temporary Measures) Act to “fast track”
the enactment of the Electoral Act, SADC recommended that this be
done through the due Parliamentary process and also that POSA and
AIPPA be reviewed by Parliament
for alignment to the new Constitution. The process of aligning the
legal framework to the new Constitution urges the democratisation
quest and ensures operationalization of the Constitution. However,
the current emphasis is on aligning those legal instruments that
have a direct impact on the pending harmonised elections. The rest
of the alignment process will then be assigned to the next Parliament,
after elections. Amendments to the Electoral Act will impact positively
on transparency of the voting process, the minimisation of intimidation
and the creation of opportunities for parallel voter tabulation.
Although all Global
Political Agreement (GPA) parties were consensual in amending
the Electoral Act, Zanu-PF has indicated that it will resist when
it comes to POSA and AIPPA.
SADC’s
role in the Zimbabwe conflict has evolved over the last five years.
Previously the regional bloc was divided and failed to build consensus
on key positions. It also “skirted around” issues and
‘lacked the courage’ to proclaim its expectations and
to censure parties that were in contempt. To-date, the regional
bloc has become more emphatic. The extra-ordinary summit held in
Maputo was reflective of this new dimension, now characteristic
of SADC. The intergovernmental status of the regional bloc, however,
still creates limitations in being fully involved in major internal
issues of member-states clothed under sovereignty, a factor that
Zanu-PF has at times fully exploited. The demands that SADC has
made as pre-election conditions in Zimbabwe will have a definite
impact on the democratisation process in the country, should there
be full implementation. SADC now needs to build effective and timeous
implementation, evaluation and monitoring mechanisms of those issues
that it has called for in Zimbabwe.
The date for
elections has always been elusive since the commencement of the
GPA. As early as 2010, Zanu-PF was calling for elections. In 2013,
Zanu-PF insisted on an election by June 29, 2013 upon the expiry
of the term of the current Parliament. The Constitutional Court
ruling of May 31 2013 led to the President proclaiming an election
date of July 31. The dates as well as the decision-making consideration
by the Court were both challenged by political players and some
citizens. SADC recommended that the political parties find consensus
on some pre-election reforms, with the assistance of SADC facilitators
and then approach the Constitutional Court for a possible extension
of the election date.
It is the democratic
right of the electorate to know the timing of elections. Ordinarily,
such timing must not be decided through legal processes but political
platforms. Seeking legal recourse in determining the election date
is an indicator of the political polarisation existent in any society.
Though approaching the courts affords the “rule of law”
to take precedence, the failure of the political system to find
consensus on election dates implies the weaknesses of political
democratic decision-making. We now turn to the details of the empirics
to substantiate our argument that if an election were held by the
31st of July 2013, the likely outcome is a prolonged transition.
Download
full document
Visit the Crisis
in Zimbabwe fact
sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
