Back to Index

Analysis - The SADC protocol and the observers: Does this contribute to regional solidarity for liberation ideals and agenda?
Zimbabwe Solidarity
Extracted from the Zimbabwe Solidarity Newsletter Issue 02
February 27, 2005

Much hope has been placed on the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. Clearly the hope has been that Zimbabwe's voluntary acceptance of African standards would lead to a situation in which Zimbabwe would create the internal conditions for a poll that could be accepted by its regional allies.

However, SADC now finds itself in a serious dilemma. Ever since the disputed election in 2000, SADC has been fighting a series of rear-guard actions to maintain its credibility over Zimbabwe. At the UN Human Rights Commission, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit, the EU-ACP Parliamentary Forum, and in other international fora, SADC member states have fought to prevent Zimbabwe's further isolation, and, in so doing, have tried to portray the Zimbabwe crisis as minimal. This has meant that the more odious features of the crisis - the gross human rights violations, the burgeoning food shortages, and the general economic collapse - have all had to be down-played in an effort to ensure that Zimbabwe's problems are managed continentally. In the final analysis, the problems of Zimbabwe will have to be managed regionally.

So SADC has set itself up to be the final arbiter of the forthcoming poll, and would seem to have walked neatly into yet another trap set by Robert Mugabe. In essence, the trap is very simple: you can only judge on what you see. So the Zimbabwe Government plays the SADC Principles and Guidelines with a very fine sense of judgement, leaving SADC reeling in its wake.

On the one hand, the Government states baldly that these are only guidelines and principles, and not a legally binding instrument: every sovereign state will apply the principles and guidelines within the context of its own constitution and political situation. Hence observers must judge not in some absolute manner, but relatively according to these constraints. For example, Zimbabwe has constituencies and a first-past-the-post model, not proportional representation, and thus postal votes are very difficult to incorporate in this model.

But, on the other hand, the Zimbabwe Government applies the Principles and Guidelines very legalistically over the matter of observers. According to these principles, a government shall invite observers if it sees fit, and such observers need only be present 2 weeks before the poll. It is desirable that they be present 90 days before the poll, but the minimum requirement is 2 weeks, and the Zimbabwe Government looks like making this minimum stick.

So it seems that SADC will be forced into giving this poll the thumbs up, if only because they will not be present in the country long enough to satisfactorily observe the pre-election process. Furthermore, since they have studiously refrained from commenting on all the many adverse aspects of Zimbabwean political life in the past, they will be unable to draw on their own previous knowledge if they want to maintain face. SADC will be unable to comment on the effects of sustained political violence on an electorate if it has not previously admitted their existence. Indeed, the President of Tanzania has already denied that violence has been a problem, and this notwithstanding the report of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights now adopted by the AU.

As the introduction to the SADC Principles and Guidelines puts it: the SADC region has made significant strides in the consolidation of the citizens' participation in the decision-making processes and consolidation of democratic practice and institutions. It was the denial of citizen participation that led to the many struggles in Southern Africa, and to the liberation of all Southern African countries from colonial and racist regimes. Zimbabwe now provides an important test of the commitment expressed above, and all are watching to see whether SADC will expand this commitment to ensure full participation of Zimbabweans in their choice of government. Or will SADC founder on the rock of narrow interpretations of national sovereignty, and another bright new African start be dulled by misplaced solidarity with an elite out of step with its people?

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