| |
Back to Index
The
Zengeza by-election vis a vis the Zimbabwe question
Itai
Zimunya, Crisis
in Zimbabwe Coalition
March 29, 2004
On
the 27th and 28th of March 2004, there was another
parliamentary by-election in the Zengeza constituency of Harare political
province. The by-election came as a result of the resignation of Tafadzwa
Musekiwa of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) for alleged fear
for the loss his life after receiving life threats from the operatives
of government sponsored terror.
Of importance to the
people of Zimbabwe is the broader environment under which electoral processes
are managed in Zimbabwe. Specifically, the contestations of the legitimacy
of electoral outcomes as a result of a myriad of dubious issues that include,
inter alia, the state of the voters roll and its availability to public
scrutiny, the role of paramilitary state institutions such as the Border
Gezi youths in the election process and the role of the security forces
(the Police and the Army).
It is important at
this moment to scan the Electoral Supervisory Commission in the context
of its composition and independence. We will analyse the role of the Zimbabwe
Republic Police in the process of the by-election. The partiality and
the operations of the media, especially state electronic and print media
in their reports of the campaigns of all the candidates registered to
contest in the by-election.
Using trend analysis
of previous elections held in Zimbabwe and comparative analysis with the
Southern African sub-continent, this paper seeks to make an opinion on
the extent of its fulfilment to one of the prime demands of the liberation
struggle, "Majority rule as a result of one person one vote, in a free
and fair electoral process"
It is a fact that
the Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC) is wholly at the mercy of the
government. It is the government that decides what to be done, how and
when. The commission is a fictitious claim of democracy. The ESC is appointed
by the president and reports to that very president. This is so unfortunate
in that, the very people who led the liberation struggle are corrupting
the very tenets that they claimed Ian Smith was not respecting. The silence
of the former front line states in this debacle must not boggle the mind,
even the betrayal of the socio-economically powerful Azania (South Africa).
The reasons for the current African focus on Zimbabwe are numerous but
do not form the subject of this analysis, despite its relevance and thin
veil with the issues under spotlight.
Because there is no
line between the government and the ZANU PF ruling party, it becomes difficult
to administer justice, democracy, and fairness. The assault on the independence
of the judiciary, the media and even sport must ring in the minds of progressive
forces within and without Zimbabwe. This marriage of inconvenience has
resulted in the current, and deliberate use of party structures to run
elections.
Who appoints constituency
registrars? Who register election observers? What criterion is used to
register election monitors and observers? Who do war veterans and green
bombers report to? Why in many cases do the police and the army bay for
the blood of the victims? Yes victims! Victims of media exclusion, victims
of propaganda, victims of rigging, victims of abductions and victims of
truth.
It is a fact that
the state media is closed to all opposition citizens of Zimbabwe. The
state media (Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation radio and television,
the Herald, the Chronicle and the Sunday Mail, the Manica Post among others)
only reports loudly and with emphasis of visionary divisions, dissertations,
infighting, failures and violence of the opposition. The Media Monitoring
Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ) reported the facts of how the Media covered
the Parliamentary elections of June 2000, the presidential elections of
March 2002 and published several observations with clear recommendations.
In Media under Siege, the MMPZ note, for example, that from December 01
to March 08th 2002, ZANU PF was given 94% of ZBC TV airtime,
the MDC got a paltry 4% and other parties shared a minute 2%. It must
also be emphasised that the 4% and the 2% coverage that the MDC and other
parties got was not espousing their policy positions, but to attack, denigrate
and discredit them. This is the same context that the Zengeza by-election
is took place under. From the television we learn the opposition candidates
as uncouth, socially dirty, neo-colonial, political virgins whilst the
representative of the ruling party as the messiah, befitting the status
of the second jesus who heals the sick of Chitungwiza for free and reduces
household water bills. We must be joking as a people or we are not serious
with the future of Zimbabwe, both in terms of its internal locations and
its return to the status of being a jewel of the SADC region.
The second area that
must be interrogated is the very existence of the unindependent ESC. It
is clear that them who pays the piper calls the tune. The ESC is appointed
by the President both of ZANU PF and the government of Zimbabwe (by default
though). The facts here speak for themselves. Further complicating the
whole issue of elections in Zimbabwe is the existence and accountability
of the National Election Directorate and the Delimitation Commission.
Recommendations of the SADC parliamentary Forum of 2001 and the Commonwealth
concurred in the need for the government of Zimbabwe to appoint an Independent
Electoral Supervisory Commission that would ensure a level playing field.
Secondly, they called for the rationalisation of these numerous elections
bodies whose duties and jurisdictions often confuses and in fact wastes
taxpayer’s money.
In comparing the electoral
process of Zimbabwe with those of other SADC countries, we must note that
these are the very serious areas that led the Front Line States (Zambia,
Mozambique, Botswana, Angola, Tanzania and Namibia) to donate their resources
and land as catalysts in the liberation of Zimbabwe and finally Azania.
Because SADC is not the end-world of Zimbabwe, this comparative analysis
will also feature observations from other observer missions to the Zimbabwe
elections.
Zimbabwean elections
have been conducted in appalling manners both in terms of SADC and International
norms. The Zengeza by-election included. This is not because the government
does not know what ought to be done, nor that the government has no capacity
to initiate such. It is also not because the people have not spoken or
that the people do not know what they fought for during the liberation
struggle. It must be noted as a case of defiance, stubbornness, dictatorship,
a native imperialism. It is a cause for another struggle of liberating
the people from the native oppressors.
The SADC parliamentary
forum commenting on the conduct of the Zimbabwe Republic Police in the
March 2002 elections, acknowledged that, "in any situation of conflict,
the police were expected to be impartial. In spite of the arrests made,
these are significant claims that the police have been partisan in their
handling of the political situation when called upon to intervene".
This is the truth and no analysis is necessary here. The Commonwealth
Observer Group 2002 Presidential election noted that, "…(ZANU PF) the
party and its supporters regarded the police as part of its machinery
of violence and intimidation against the opposition. Such a situation
seriously calls into question the application of the rule of law in Zimbabwe".
The South African Parliamentary Observer Mission also reported in 2002,
after their meeting with Mr Tobaiwa Mudede, the Registrar General, that,"…the
registrar general was not able to indicate the number of total number
of registered voters. This caused a great deal of confusion amongst observers
about the preparedness for the elections". The International Ecumenical
Peace Observer Mission from the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the
All African Conference of Churches (AACC) concurred with the other earlier
noted observer missions. They raised serious concerns about the denial
of the sovereign right of the people, especially the endurance of pregnant
women who queued in Harare and subsequently denied their birthright. It
must be mentioned that there were other observer missions that, despite
witnessing violations against human rights, chose to emasculate principle
and insult the people of Zimbabwe by concluding that the elections in
Zimbabwe, by Zimbabwe’s standards, were legitimate. The South African
observer mission is one that concluded that the elections of 2002 were
legitimate. They had their arguments, among them that the opposition had
participated and that there was a huge voter turn out in this election,
notwithstanding what they described as "the quality of the electoral
process and the restrictive environment."
The reasons
for this fiction and anti-truth declaration are numerous. However, they
are not the main subject of focus in this discussion.
The Zimbabwe question
has continued to frighten politicians since the time of Ian Smith up to
the present day. Recently, it was reported that Prisoners are going to
vote in South Africas presidential elections in April 2004. Where does
that place Zimbabwe and her standards? There are more than two million
Zimbabweans spread in the Southern African Sub-continent, more than a
million in Europe and several spread in the Middle and Far East, the Americas
and Australia. They remain Zimbabweans despite being economic refugees.
The striking difference in electoral conduct with say, South Africa is;
Prisoners shall vote in South Africa whilst it is very dangerous for the
opposition people to campaign and vote in Zimbabwe. It therefore means
prisoners of South Africa have more civil liberties than those people
in the opposition and those forced out of the country in Zimbabwe. Is
this the Zimbabwe standard that the South African Observer mission was
referring to? What difference does this have to the Rhodesian insults
of kaffir, second-class citizens if south Africa finds it normal for Zimbabwe
to be have as such. Many perspectives emerge, but we have interest in
two only.
First, South Africa
(the few elite in government-not the poor masses) adores the person of
Mugabe and fear so much to be labelled neo-colonial, for its political
leverage at home. Whilst it supports and declares violence and rigging
in Zimbabwe as normal; South Africa condemns these in its own backyard.
The Landless Movement of South Africa is reported to have got very strong
warnings from President Thabo Mbeki when it threatened to use the "Normal"
Zimbabwe mafia style of resource misallocation. It confirms the
assetion that, whilst South Africa sees the evil in Zimbabwe, it does
not have the political muscle to condemn such. If the labour movement
get into power in Zimbabwe, it also means doom for the current ANC as
the South African Communist party in alliance with the Congress of South
African Trade Unions might create a new regime of leaders that will quickly
dispose Mbeki and his crew. So, Mbeki knows the truth but it does not
benefit him to help the Zimbabwean people.
The second perspective
is from the economic school of thought. South African Industry has always
survived on native cheap labour from Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe.
The current educated and cheap two million Zimbabweans in South Africa
are boosting the Rand so much. The same arguments for the Witwatersrand
Native Labour Act (WENELA) motivated for Mbekis continued silence
on the Zimbabwean crisis. Whilst others argue about the social effects
of the influx of foreigners or Makwerekwere in South Africa, Mbeki
will not listen to those arguments. By the way, it is the same Mbeki who
declared that there is no AIDS, claiming that people of Africa die of
hunger and not the virus.
The arguments about
the placement and location of the Zimbabwean question in the region have
raised hot debates. Some argue that, the Zimbabwe question must be addressed
at home through organised confrontation and ignore the Mbekis and Commonwealths
of this world. Yet others have advocated for more foreign lobbying and
telling the real Zimbabwean story-a crisis of governance.
Specifically, many
people, including myself, in the regional focus target Mbeki because he
has declared positions on Zimbabwe. The other front line states save for
Namibia, have reserved their comments and in some cases noted abuses of
human rights. Secondly Mbeki promised the world, including Zimbabweans
that by June 2004, there would be reforms in Zimbabwe. Being clear that
Mbeki is not the president of Zimbabwe, neither does he tell Mugabe what
to do, diplomatically he has the muscle to persuade Harare to be normal,
which again is difficult because he views Zimbabwe’s violence as normal.
It means either there is a crisis of definition of what is normal in the
eyes of Mbeki or for his convenience; he deliberately closes his eyes
and ears to the evils taking place North of South Africa. That is civic
education business and we have no doubt that our fellow sisters and brothers
in South Africa will assist. It also has to be highlighted, to those that
argue for a totally internal policy that focuses on the local means of
resistance; that every conflict must be resolved on two fronts. One is
the battlefront where there are no rules and morals and secondly the diplomatic
front. Commander of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA)
forces Comrade Josiah Magama Tongogara summed it up in London, 1979 during
the Lancaster House Conference when he said, "to us London is a second
front. What is meant by the second front is that we have a home front,
which is the front for physical confrontation, and we have the London
front, which we term the peaceful front…. where you go and talk ".
I, without reserve
agree with Comrade Tongogara.
It is from this thinking
that we have to totally look at the Zimbabwean question, the methods of
its resolution, allies of the truth and its bloodsuckers. Though it is
not the subject under scrutiny, for the purposes of those not in the know,
we will briefly describe the Zimbabwe question. Whilst to further locate
it in the current discourse of dialogue between the MDC and ZANU PF spearheaded
by the local church and or presidents Mbeki , Muluzi and Obasanjo might
be necessary, it is not sufficient to see the light that the people of
Zimbabwe are praying for.
The
Zimbabwe Question
Zimbabwe’s
case is a clear case of class struggle that was never addressed by the
attaining of independence in 1980. There was an unsustainable skewed distribution
of wealth among the new nationals of Zimbabwe. Like much of post liberation
Africa, this was a challenge to the new government. After the expiry of
the constitutional prohibition not to acquire private property in 1987,
the government ministers embarked on a large scale-looting spree. The
Willogate corruption scandal of 1989 triggered widespread protests from
the students, workers and artists. The government here kept quite to this
evil; and these seeds of corruption did geminated and grew over the years.
What we see today are the fruits of this Misgovernance. Through corruption,
the black empowerment crusades and the recent land reform process all
attempted, though they failed, to address the Zimbabwe question of creating
an equal society irrespective of race, gender, age or political opinion.
Corruption is now
severely embedded in the crust of business such that the current scratches
by Dr Gono are just a tip of the iceberg. Secondly, the land reform programme,
though noble, missed the target to redistribute wealth. It was hijacked
by a powerful few who grabbed prime land and left the majority of peasants
and those of other political persuasions out. In their language and reports,
they argue that government policies are for everyone, but reality is what
shapes tomorrow. The land reform addressed the aspect of colour, removing
(often illegally) the few white farmers and replacing them with a few
black farmers. The Lorenz curve that displays the distribution of resources
in Zimbabwe still shows a skewed wealth ownership pattern. The governments
land reform review report (the Utete) also note the existence of
this, which ultimately culminated in the creation of a department in the
Presidents office that pleads with those that abused their positions to
overtake peasants in their right to land to return the land.
To safeguard the loot
that has accumulated since 1989, it means there must never be an opposition
political party or any person within ZANU PF, perceived as not capable
of guarantying security to property and the misdeeds of those that are
in power, who gets into power. To safeguard power means by any means necessary.
The means are numerous, and include stage-managed treasons, emasculation
of the media, and strong sentiments of anti-imperialism to get south-centred
sympathy, rigging of elections etcetera. This is where the Zimbabwe question
is located in history and in the current discourse. We do not mention
it because it will take away the tears and pain in the people of Zimbabwe,
but because the truth remains the truth. More so, that should we fail
to liberate ourselves, the following generations will definitely not.
On the other front,
people of Africa must be wondering why there are perpetual conflicts on
the beloved motherland. Is it imperialism, neo-colonialism or the second
scramble for Africa? Writing from the privileged position of being an
African in distressed Zimbabwe, I am seriously persuaded to conclude that
Africa needs to observe the sanctity of human rights. Values of truth
and honesty are rare among African politicians, despite being in abundance
in the tenets of African tradition. Whilst neo-colonial pressures could
be contributing, clarity of the vision of a continent that they want is
of paramount importance for the African civil society. Removing dictators
and addressing the wealth gaps are critical too. Therefore, the question
of Zimbabwe has to initiate action through the African blue print of New
Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). The fallacy of NEPAD comes
to the fore through the failure and hesitancy by, even NEPADS proponents
to institute peer review mechanisms. This compounds the crisis.
In conclusion, we
note that the crisis in Zimbabwe is multi faceted. The democratic roots
of Zimbabwe of free and fair elections and branches of health, education,
housing and the economy are withering. The few powerful continue to impose
their will on the people through state force, forced radio and television
programmes, massive propaganda and unfortunately, Africa keeps quiet to
this evil. It must not shock us because it is the same Africa that kept
quite when about 800 000 people were skinned in an ethnical clash in Rwanda.
It is important to continue engaging several means of resistance and formulating
necessary strategies of self-liberation. Hope is a necessity, for whatever
the case may be, light will conquer darkness. So, even as the Zengeza
election came and went, and the 2005 election shall come and go, still-we
must, as a people with a common vision, sojourn and continue our march
to freedom. Long live Zimbabwe, we shall never forget you!
Visit the Crisis in
Zimbabwe Coalition 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
|
