Back to Index

Electoral issues
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2004-31
Monday August 2nd - Sunday August 9th 2004

Debate over government's contentious electoral reform proposals was re-ignited in the week following a two-day Zimbabwe Election Support Network and Election Institute of Southern Africa-organised conference on regional initiatives on electoral reforms held in Victoria Falls recently.

Typically, the government-controlled media passively reported on the matter and failed to interrogate the mechanics of the proposed electoral changes in relation to the current repressive laws such as AIPPA and POSA that observers contend militate against the holding of free and fair elections in the country.

Rather, they focused on presenting the ZANU PF-crafted electoral reforms as standard while ignoring government's attacks on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Western countries who they accused of sponsoring the opposition MDC. The private media, however, fared better. They, for example, attempted to reconcile the deliberations and observations made at the SADC election conference with the reality on the ground.

In their initial coverage of the conference, Power FM (2/8, 1pm & 8pm), The Herald and Chronicle (3/8), ZTV (3/8, 6pm & 8pm) and Radio Zimbabwe (3/8, 8pm) merely regurgitated Speaker of Parliament Emmerson Mnangagwa reiterating government's stance to bar international monitors from supervising next year's poll on the grounds that they favoured the opposition. The Herald and Chronicle quoted Mnangagwa saying that the government's stance stemmed from "a well-founded suspicion in Zimbabwe in particular, and Southern Africa as a whole, against anything that smacks of superior wisdom from outside".

However, besides allowing Mnangagwa to criticise the "intrusive behaviour" of the West and NGOs in the running of local elections, none of these media questioned the current set-up that empowers ZANU PF to run the elections. Neither did they ask him why government should feel unsettled by the presence of international monitors during elections if the country indeed subscribed to generally accepted democratic electoral standards, a point raised by political analyst Ernest Mudzengi on Studio 7 (4/8).

This was especially so in light of comments made in The Herald (4/8) by ZANU PF secretary for Information Nathan Shamuyarira that "Zimbabwe has always had a working democracy as witnessed by the successful holding of several parliamentary and presidential elections since independence . . . "

In fact, the paper's article, 'Electoral reforms a welcome process' glossed over the sharp differences that emerged at the Victoria Falls summit between government and its opponents over the proposed electoral law by giving the impression that both the MDC and civic society were happy with the development. Sanitised comments by the Zimbabwe Election Support Network chairman Reginald Matchaba-Hove and MDC secretary-general Welshman Ncube were then used to project this notion.

But private media reports exposed this fallacy.

The Zimbabwe Independent (6/8) reported that the ruling party and the MDC were actually on a collision course over government's anticipated electoral reforms following the failure by ZANU PF's secretary for legal affairs Patrick Chinamasa to persuade the MDC to "rubber-stamp" the ZANU PF-drafted reforms.

The paper as well as SW Radio Africa (4/8) revealed that the proposed reforms had certainly provided the MDC with greater bargaining power because for ZANU PF to be able to amend the constitution and accommodate the reforms, it needed a two-thirds majority in parliament, achievable only with the support of MDC legislators.

This seemed to partly explain the Independent's observations of a "conciliatory" Shamuyarira as having told delegates at the Victoria Falls conference that there was "need for dialogue with the MDC". And the paper quoted Shamuyarira confirming they needed "four votes from the opposition to form a majority and then make constitutional amendments to enable us to implement the electoral reforms".

However, despite ZANU PF's seemingly conciliatory gesture, the Independent revealed that on the contrary the MDC remained suspicious, complaining the reforms were a "smokescreen behind which rigging and violence would persist". According to Studio 7 (4/8) the opposition was also concerned by the way ZANU PF preached "reconciliation and democratic electoral reforms" while "pushing for oppressive laws through Parliament".

Similarly, SW Radio Africa (4/8) quoted civic group leaders questioning ZANU PF's sincerity in calling for engagement with the MDC over the reforms. National Constitutional Assembly's Douglas Mwonzora was quoted by the station as saying it was hypocritical for the ruling party "to choose to co-operate with the MDC at one time and choose not to co-operate with it other times". He said the MDC should, among other demands, ask government to denounce violence and recognise the MDC as a legitimate opposition party. MDC's Morgan Tsvangirai, David Coltart and Ncube agreed. They told the Independent that the opposition party would not endorse electoral reforms that are "suitable to ZANU PF only". Said Tsvangirai: "For us to have a free and fair election there is need for a profound rethink on political restrictions imposed by POSA and AIPPA otherwise we are wasting time."

The MDC and civic society's scepticism over ZANU PF's seriousness in resolving the country's uneven electoral environment seemed to find relevance in The Sunday Mirror (8/8), which quoted Shamuyarira feigning "ignorance of MDC's concerns over POSA and AIPPA". However, as the paper noted, government - under regional pressure - had promised to repeal sections of the repressive POSA and AIPPA since January 2002 but nothing had yet materialised. In fact, political commentator Heneri Dzinotyiwei told the paper that though government had the power to enact laws regardless of SADC demands, it was in Zimbabwe's "interest to embrace SADC guidelines" as this would go down well with the international community.

The government media ignored these issues.

Meanwhile, Studio 7 (2/8) reported that civic groups were concerned about government's move to change constituency boundaries and accommodate newly-resettled farmers in peri-urban centres of Harare ahead of the 2005 elections. The areas are perceived to be ZANU PF strongholds.

Lawyer and Harare Residents Association spokesperson Dewa Mavhinga told the station that the development was "a clear attempt to try and tilt the votes in favour of Zanu PF because former peri-urban areas will now be completely urban and polling stations will be increased in those areas". Again the government media censored such reports.

Rather, The Sunday Mail (8/8) led with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory claiming that Britain, "which recently admitted to working towards regime change in Zimbabwe with some African countries", had promised to channel $200 million through Nigeria "to fund the MDC's election campaign for 2005".

The allegation, based on unnamed sources, never sought comments from the accused. Instead, it was largely used as a springboard to subjectively vilify Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo of being on a mission to " attempt regime change in Zimbabwe" in cahoots with the US and Britain.

The report then tried to 'expose' indicators that make Nigeria's "real intentions" in mediating over the so-called Zimbabwean question, dubious. These included the fact that "at every visit by . . . Obasanjo to Harare he would demand to meet the MDC".

Visit the MMPZ 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