Back to Index

Credibility of SADC and South Africa's President Mbeki 'on the line'
International Bar Association
March 29, 2005

In most repressive regimes a point is reached where the use of violence as a form of repression takes on a life of its own. Eventually it no longer is necessary for a regime to use public brutality and torture as a way to instill fear – the mere presence of the repressive forces becomes enough of a threat to hold a citizenry in a state of suspicion and tension. So too in Zimbabwe.

As the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, ‘Not a level playing field: Zimbabwe’s Parliamentary Elections in 2005’ , released on 21 March, shows, the history of violence as a tool of repression coupled with the application of repressive laws have set such a precedent, that the ruling party’s thugs and the state’s police and Central Intelligence Office spooks only need to make an appearance to prevent ordinary Zimbabweans from speaking their minds freely, from holding meetings and from exercising their democratic right to vote for whomever they choose. It is in this broader context of violence and a repressive legal framework that the March poll must be judged, HRW argues.

Seen in this light, the much publicised lower levels of violence preceding the upcoming Parliamentary elections – as compared to elections held in 2000 and 2002 – take on an entirely new meaning. As Tiseke Kasambala, researcher in the Africa division of HRW, pointed out, there is ‘a continuity’ between all these elections. The violence preceding the 2000 and 2002 elections was well-documented. Zimbabweans therefore know that the ruling party’s recent threats to withhold food aid from or ‘deal with’ those who have voted for and who are thought to have voted for the opposition Movement for Democractic Change (MDC) are not empty, Kasambala said.

During HRW‘s visits to Zimbabwe in December 2004 and in February this year, the researchers found ‘high levels of intimidation’, particularly in rural areas. The report documents cases of people beaten or detained for wearing an MDC scarf or for holding meetings, of threatening visits by ruling party loyalists to households in rural areas or townships to ‘enquire’ about the party affiliations of the residents. While high-ranking MDC officials were allowed to campaign – in a limited manner – the opposition’s foot soldiers are subjected to repeated threats and harassment, the report states. ‘Visits and questions from Zanu PF supporters, war veterans and Zanu PF youth serve to intimidate both ordinary citizens and political activists. ...[T]he effects of such intense questioning should be seen in the context of Zimbabwe’s past experiences, especially during the 2000 and 2002 elections. [Such] incidents [...] remind Zimbabweans of the potential consequences of supporting the opposition or being perceived to be an opposition member or supporter,’ according to the report.

As Kasambala put it, this background raises ‘the spectre of post-election violence’. ‘The government is determined that these elections be seen as peaceful. It’s almost a tactic on the part of the government. They know there was widespread violence in 2000 and 2002, therefore they only need to threaten people. Intimidation is more than enough to get people to stay home or vote for Zanu,’ she said.

Similarly, Brian Kagoro, chairperson of the Zimbabwe Crisis Coalition, was quoted in a South African newspaper as saying: ‘If your house has been burnt on several occasions, it is not necessary for it to be burnt again. All that is necessary is the presence of those who have the capacity to do so. Where a government has used the past four years to create a climate of political intimidation, killing and trauma, free and fair elections are simply not possible.’ Kasambala said that the Zimbabwean government had not made enough of an effort to stem the violence and halt the intimidation. ‘Not enough is being done to encourage peaceful elections,’ she said.

While changes have been effected in an apparent effort to adhere to the South African Development Community’s guidelines and principles on democratic elections, some of these changes also need to be seen in a broader context. For instance, the ballot boxes will be translucent in these elections, in accordance with recommendations on democratic elections. However, Kasambala said some rural chiefs are telling people that the see-through boxes will allow officials to know for whom voters are casting their ballot. ‘Some of the changes are seen as positive but now they seem to have a negative twist to them,’ Kasambala said, adding that because of the virtually negligible amount of voter education, many Zimbabweans are still not aware that their vote is secret.

Joseph James, president of the Zimbabwe Law Society, agrees with HRW’s assessment but does not believe that the Zimbabwean government has, in essence, made any real effort to comply with the SADC standards. ‘The essence of these guidelines is that there should be fairness to all the parties taking part in the elections, and that people should be able to exercise their democratic right to vote in an atmosphere which is free and fair,’ James says. However, ‘the situation has not really changed compared to 2000 or 2002 in terms of fair and free elections being held: political violence continues and the police continue to arrest both MDC and ZANU-PF members who allegedly indulge in political violence.’ He also points to the continuing ‘selective application of the law’, including repressive laws like the Public Order and Security Act and the notorious media laws. ‘Foreign observers need to see how the laws of this country are applied by the Executive in order to appreciate the issues,’ James says.

HRW’s Advocacy Director for Africa, Michael Clough, was quick to state at the media launch of the report in Johannesburg that the international NGO was not preempting whether or not the elections would be free and fair. It was fair to say that the elections shouldn’t be prejudged, he said, but when election observers write their reports they should consider the full context and at least the six-month period leading up to the elections. This is one of the key recommendations in the report. Clough said the credibility of SADC and South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki were ‘on the line’ in these elections – the observer missions‘ reports will be an important indicator of the degree to which the observers considered all the factors leading up to 31 March.

Arnold Tsunga, Executive Director of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, agrees that these elections will show whether SADC and South Africa are commited to the standards which they have set themselves or whether these guidelines and principles merely reflect ‘what the rest of the world wants to hear’. While it was unrealistic to hope that the HRW’s report would lead to any change on the part of the Zimbabwean government, with less than two weeks left to the elections, Tsunga argued that the report provides the observers with a well-researched document from a respected human rights organisation and could thus ‘inform their perceptions’ and prompt them to see behind ‘the appearance of quietness and the appearance of falling levels of violence’.

This column is provided by the International Bar Association - An organisation that represents the Law Societies and Bar Associations around the world, and works to uphold the rule of law. For further information, visit the website www.ibanet.org

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