Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Political violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe's 2005 parliamentary elections
Grant Masterson, with Maureen Moloi, Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA)
Extracted from Election Talk No. 20
May 10, 2005

Introduction
Democratic practice is substantively undermined by political violence and intimidation. Political violence negatively impacts on voters' right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom from intimidation and freedom of choice amongst others, which are all vital to the practice of free and fair elections. An absence of politically motivated violence and intimidation are therefore necessary in order to conduct democratic, free and fair elections.¹

Election Conflict Management
The very nature of elections is to contest political power in a country, and therefore, it is naïve to expect conflict of some nature to be entirely excluded from an election.

One of the biggest challenges facing a government and its electoral administration during an election is establishing mechanisms, checks and balances to ensure that the contestation of power between different parties does not turn to violent means. Ensuring that credible means of dealing with conflicts that may arise are put in place is an essential requirement for the success of any election. Where such means are absent, or where they are not considered credible by all parties, the potential exists for the fermentation of political violence and intimidation.

According to the Zimbabwe Electoral Act 2004, any person who uses "undue influence"², including: the use or threat of force; inflicting injury, damage or harm on any person (including him/herself); or does or threatens to do anything to the disadvantage of another person "in order to induce or compel that person…to vote or refrain from voting"³ is guilty of undue influence and is subject to fines and possible imprisonment terms as well as other punishments described under penalties later in the act.⁴ These punishments are subject to a conviction in the Zimbabwe High Court.

The very nature of elections is to contest political power in a country, and therefore, it is naïve to expect conflict of some nature to be entirely excluded from an election. One of the biggest challenges facing a government and its electoral administration during an election is establishing mechanisms, checks and balances to ensure that the contestation of power between different parties does not turn to violent means. Ensuring that credible means of dealing with conflicts that may arise are put in place is an essential requirement for the success of any election. Where such means are absent, or where they are not considered credible by all parties, the potential exists for the fermentation of political violence and intimidation.

According to the Zimbabwe Electoral Act 2004, any person who uses "undue influence"⁵, including: the use or threat of force; inflicting injury, damage or harm on any person (including him/herself); or does or threatens to do anything to the disadvantage of another person "in order to induce or compel that person…to vote or refrain from voting"⁶ is guilty of undue influence and is subject to fines and possible imprisonment terms as well as other punishments described under penalties later in the act.⁷ These punishments are subject to a conviction in the Zimbabwe High Court.

Political Violence and Intimidation in the Build-up to the 2005 Parliamentary Elections
The political climate prior to the 2005 parliamentary election has produced less overt incidences of political violence than were apparent in previous elections in 2000 and 2002. The security forces were clearly visible in maintaining tight security and the rule of law despite allegations of isolated incidents of intimidation.⁸ Some observers have suggested that this reduction in levels of political violence and intimidation reflects a desire in the ruling ZANU-PF party to clean up the country's international image.⁹ However, many observers are sceptical that the reduced levels of political violence reflect a substantively freer political campaign environment for opposition parties than it did in the past. Legislation such as the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) continues to restrict opposition campaign movements. POSA Section 24 requires notice of intention to hold public gathering, Section 25 regulates the public gatherings & Section 26 has power to ban any public gathering.¹⁰ This severely restricts the rights to freedom of assembly, movement and association and has been consistently used by the police to arbitrarily arrest those perceived to be critical of the government. The application of the POSA has appeared inconsistent; whilst the ruling party campaigns unhindered, opposition parties have been denied permission to campaign and hold rallies in public venues, casting doubts on the substance of the reduced levels of political violence that are being observed.

However, although levels of violence have come down since 2002, reports of violence remain at levels which are undesirable in an ideal election. In a report released in September 2004, the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum took a sample of reported cases of violence in Mvurwi, in the Mazowe West Constituency during July 2004, 8 months prior to the March 2005 election date.¹¹ The report details various allegations and statements made to the police, and sought to verify these reports through independent means. The report categorised the apparent/alleged motivations of incidences of violence in the district and concluded that by far, the greatest number of reported incidents appeared motivated by a desire to deny individuals the right to freedom of expression/assembly/speech or political discrimination/ intimidation/violence. Other significant motivations listed in the report included assaults and torture, and a number of incidences of vandalism to property were also reported.

Conclusion
Compared to the elections in 2000 and 2002, the pre-election conditions for Zimbabwe's 2005 Parliamentary elections were characterised by less incidents of overt political violence and intimidation than in previous elections. Opposition parties continue to make allegations of political violence and intimidation by ruling party in the build-up to the 2005 elections, whilst ZANU-PF claims that the pre-election conditions in Zimbabwe were conducive to free and fair elections and comply with the SADC Principles and Guidelines for Election Monitoring and Observation. Although political violence appears to have been reduced since 2002, the election preconditions would unlikely satisfy the criteria for a peaceful campaign process, and thus allows for further improvements in future elections.

1. Principles for Election Management, Monitoring and Observation in the SADC Region. EISA Electoral
Handbook 13. EISA/ECF. 2003. p.19-20.
2. The Zimbabwe Electoral Act 2004. 2004. Part XIX. 134 - Undue influence.
3. Ibid. 2004.
4. Ibid. 2004.
5. The Zimbabwe Electoral Act 2004. 2004. Part XIX. 134 - Undue influence.
6. Ibid. 2004.
7. Ibid. 2004.
8. Zimbabwe Election Support Network, March 2005 Parliamentary Elections Preliminary Report No 1
9. Kagwanja, P. Rethinking Zimbabwe's Election: A conflict prevention agenda. Paper presented at EISA, Johannesburg. 17 March 2005.
10. POSA: Public Order and Security Act (No1 of 2002)
11. Zimbabwe Human Right's NGO Forum. Political Violence Report, July 2004. 22 September 2004.

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