|
Back to Index
No
hope for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe
Freeman Chari
March 16, 2011
Recent events in Tunisia,
Egypt and Libya elicited calls for a non-military and mass-based
revolution in Zimbabwe. These calls were largely by Zimbabweans
living outside of the country. The Movement For Democratic Change
(MDC) despite calls for its participation did not call for nor support
the action then called for the 1st March 2011, rather the party
said it remained committed to the Government of National Unity willing
to pursue a yet-to-be-announced Zuma roadmap to free and fair elections.
It is this stance that drew this article. What are chances of a
peaceful, free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Given the history
of violence and intimidation in past elections, what are the chances
that this will not recur?
State
Security vs The People
In March
2008 elections MDC made significant parliamentary gains. On
paper they became the ruling party. Mr Mugabe lost to Mr Tsvangirai
in the presidential elections. Reports indicate that Mr Mugabe had
lost by a margin that allowed Mr Tsvangirai to become the president
of the country; however after a long delay official results showed
that although Mr Tsvangirai had won, the margin warranted a run-off
election. The election was set for June 2008 but what followed was
a horrific
run of terror by all state security organs and ZANU PF supporters.
183 MDC supporters were killed during that time. None of the perpetrators
were brought to book; rather Robert Mugabe in Clemency Order No.
1 of 2008, issued in June 2008 offered amnesty to perpetrators.
It is important to analyse
the civil-military relationship in Zimbabwe. Civil-Military Relations
broadly describes the relationship between the general population
and the military authority of the country. The civil population
is usually represented by a given civil authority preferably chosen
through an election. In an ideal democracy, the military although
autonomous in function is largely under the control of civilian
authority. In this state, the civilian authority recognizes the
supremacy of the military in the use of force whilst the military
willingly submits itself to civilian authority. What this means
is that; the military, even though it knows that it has the ability
to forcibly rule over defenseless civilians agrees to be controlled
by them. Core to this is professionalism and neutralism.
In Zimbabwe, there is
a military structure that was derived from partisan entities that
include liberation forces like ZANLA and ZIPRA. These were armed
forces that had strong allegiances to political parties ZANU and
ZAPU respectively. Today, the top structure of the Zimbabwe Defence
Forces is dominated by former combatants of these liberation forces.
The same applies to the police, intelligence and prisons. General
Constantine Chiwenga, Lt General Phillip Valerio Sibanda, Air Marshall
Perrance Shiri are all former ZANLA/ZIPRA veterans. Commissioner
General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Augustine Chihuri is a
former ZANLA combatant. Happyton Bonyongwe, the Director General
of CIO and Rt Major General Paradzayi Zimondi, Head of Prison Services
are both former ZANLA combatants. Commanders of all the Brigades
of ZNA are former ZIPRA/ZANLA combatants.
This scenario serves
the interests of ZANU PF best. The relationship between ZANU PF
authority and the security apparatus is amicable. The trend seems
to show that after retirement most of the senior members of the
security system enter mainstream politics on the ticket of ZANU
PF. Examples that come to mind are Air Chief Marshal Josiah Tungamirai
and Rtd Lt General Vitalis Zvinavashe who are both late. They were
both in the ZANLA High Command before independence.
Given this blatant partisanship
of the security apparatus will any future election win by MDC be
recognized by the security system of the country? To help us understand
the skewed civil-miltary relationship let us revisit the statement
by Rtd Lt General Zvinavashe on the eve of the presidential election
in 2002.
"Let it be known
that the highest office in the land is a 'straightjacket' whose
occupant is expected to observe the objectives of the liberation
struggle. . . . We (the military) will, therefore, not accept,
let alone support or salute, anyone with a different agenda that
threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and
our people."
The constitution
of Zimbabwe states clearly the qualification of a President.
Nowhere are the expectations as pointed out by the Generals written
in the constitution. The statement clearly showed that the military
had become larger than the people. Any choice that did not fit the
description by the generals wouldn-t have been accepted regardless
of the support by the people.
This was a testimony
of the partisanship of the security forces in Zimbabwe. It did not
come as a surprise then when Mr Tsvangirai won elections in March
2008 that the security forces were not amused.
ZANU PF has always labeled
MDC as a puppet of the west with no ability to maintain the sovereignty
of the country. The army seems to believe the same to be true. Is
this belief genuine or it is just an excuse to continue hanging
on to power? What are the chances that former ZANLA combatants would
ditch their fellow pre-independence leaders for a man of little
anti-colonial struggle credentials like Morgan Tsvangirai?
It is known that all
commanders of the army are appointed by the president. Logically
the president appoints people who will be loyal to him. The constitution
is clear on these appointments, what is critical however is that
even though the commanders are loyal to the president, they have
a moral obligation to respect the citizens of the country. In this
regard, despite individual political beliefs, they are expected
to execute their duties professionally without discriminating anyone
of different political beliefs. This is where the security services
are lacking.
The
new ZANU PF State
It is also important
to evaluate the structure and composition of the state and government
for us to predict whether ZANU PF will be able to accede to free
and fair elections. Firstly, it is important again to differentiate
the State and the Government. In short the State is the people,
the systems, the laws, the resources, the territory and the intangibles
like sovereignty. The Government is the set of individuals who run,
manage and execute the programs and policies of the State.
The State in Zimbabwe
owns the military, police, judiciary, jails, hospitals, schools,
companies etcetera. The government of the day is supposed to run
and manage these. The logic here is that; the state comprises of
people and the government is chosen by the same people to administer
their interests.
We have situation in
Zimbabwe where the State and the government are hard to differentiate.
The people in the government have become more powerful than the
people. In other words, we now have a new State that recognizes
only a few privileged people and serves only the interests of those
privileged few. The laws of the country are being applied selectively
depending on preferences of people in the government. The people
are unable to remove offending representatives.
This State has the ability
to exploit national resources without prior approval of the people
as long as the ZANU PF politiburo agrees to it. For example, a finite
national resource like land is being used to pay musicians for singing
praises to the government. We have a minister like Ignatious Chombo
who has amassed wealth through illegal exploitation of finite natural
resources. When the people demand his investigation, the police
is unwilling to because it is owned and run by the kith and kin
of Chombo.
What then is the probability
that someone who is not willing to protect the interests of the
new owners of the State would be allowed to take over the government?
Critics will point out
that already MDC is part of the government. Reality however shows
that MDC is not part of the government that runs the new State,
rather it is being allowed to run the remnants of the old State.
For example, the police that is usually under the minister of Home
Affairs is now reporting directly to the President bypassing Theresa
Makone who is an MDC minister. She does not have power to direct
the police to investigate the owners of the new state. The nominal
power she wields is only for purposes related to the old State.
Tendai Biti runs the
ministry of finance. He administers only that part of government
that controls the proceeds of the old State. The financial muscle
of the new State is controlled by Gideon Gono. That is why Gono
sits in the JOC and not Biti.
Given this scenario it
is clear that ZANU PF will not accept a free and fair election in
Zimbabwe because it would accelerate the disintegration of the State
that it is building. Given the vast wealth they have amassed so
far, the ZANU PF stalwarts are willing to sacrifice unimportant
people in the old State for them to cling on to power.
The
Zuma Roadmap
MDC is banking on a roadmap
that is being prepared by the South African President Jacob Zuma.
What are the chances that ZANU PF will abide by the recommendations?
In 2002 a Commonwealth
troika comprising of Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo and Tim Howard
announced the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth due to
the violence and human rights abuses in the run-up to the 2002 elections.
In 2003 Mugabe pulled Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth.
In 2004 SADC Adopted
the Mauritian Protocol on Elections. Zimbabwe held its Parliamentary
elections in 2005. These were supposed to be held in line with the
SADC guidelines but a lot of irregularities were noted. South Africa
however declared the process free and fair despite glaring flaws.
When 79 white
commercial farmers approached the SADC
Tribunal in a bid to stop compulsory acquisition of land by
the Zimbabwe government and the tribunal ruled in their favor, the
Zimbabwe government responded by pulling out of the Tribunal.
These examples show how
arrogant the ZANU PF government is. Whenever the government comes
under international scrutiny it responds by unilaterally ending
any relationship that could have given credence to such scrutiny.
Secondly, the South African government has an amicable see-no-evil
relationship with ZANU PF as shown by their "silent diplomacy"
even in the presence of compelling human rights abuses.
Given the demonstrated
arrogance of ZANU PF and its biased relationship with the South
African government, what are the chances that any roadmap will be
followed when it seeks to limit the intransigencies of ZANU PF?
A glimpse of
the current GPA
might give us insight. ZANU PF has maintained its dominance over
MDC by dictating what is and is not implemented. The issue of the
governors, issue of Roy Bennet, appointment of permanent secretaries,
issue of Gono and the issue of Tomana are evidence of clear ZANU
PF supremacy over MDC in government. What has been the response
of South Africa- the supposed guarantors of the GPA?
The
Election Commission
Elections in 2000, 2002
and 2005 were presided over by Tobaiwa Mudede who many allege to
have played a part in rigging all of the elections. He remains the
Registrar General even up to today as an affirmation of ZANU PF-s
supremacy.
Robert Mugabe
appointed Justice George Chiweshe as chairman of the Zimbabwe Election
Commission. He presided over the 2008
elections and declared them free and fair despite the atrocities.
What more did Zimbabweans expect from a former ZANLA combatant,
ZANU political commissar and a former Brigadier General of the partisan
Zimbabwe National Army?
His loyalty
to Mugabe was unquestionable and he was rewarded in August 2008
when he was promoted by Mugabe to the rank of Rt major general.
He was further promoted by Mugabe to be the Judge President of the
High Court despite protestations by MDC.
The current Zimbabwe
Election Commission retained Joyce Kazembe and Theophilus Gambe
from the previous commission that dubiously allowed the re-election
of Mugabe. The loyalty of the current chairman Simpson Mutambanengwe
is hazy. All we know is that he was a member of ZANU-s Dare
Rechimurenga before he fled for his life to Malawi after supporting
the Nhari rebellion in 1974. He later joined the UANC and became
a member of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government. He was part of the
Zimbabwe-Rhodesia delegation to Lancaster House Conference in 1979.
After independence he was appointed by Mugabe to the bench. He was
later seconded to Namibia by Mugabe. When Justice Paradza was arraigned
before the courts in 2006, Mugabe called on Mutambanengwe who had
already retired to come and preside over the case.
Without insinuating that
Simpson may be loyal to Mugabe, we know that rarely does Mugabe
allow the appointment of a person of questionable political loyalty
to such an important commission. It remains to be seen if the commission
will be able to resist political manipulation.
In conclusion, the stance that MDC has taken to commit itself to
upcoming elections is tantamount to political suicide. The structures
that have retained Mugabe to power over the past decade are still
intact. The army, police, intelligence and prisons are still in
total control of ZANU PF. A few individuals in ZANU PF still maintain
a firm grip of the State. There are doubts on the impartiality of
the Election Commission. It is safe therefore to say that until
such a time when Zimbabwe opposition has the power to dismantle
the structures of power built on ZANU PF loyalty; there won-t
be any free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.
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
|
