FOLLOWING July 31 harmonised polls, it has become apparently clear that once again, Zimbabwe conducted a disputed poll which failed to attract acceptability from a significant percentage of citizens and interested electoral stakeholders.
Election Resource Centre
Resultantly, the contestation of the election outcomes remains in full swing on three fronts:
Legal — The leader of the MDC-T sought to have the constitutional court nullify the presidential poll and then withdrew the court application having reportedly failed to access the necessary evidence to contest the poll outcome.
The MDC-T has also disputed electoral outcomes in 39 national assembly constituencies and accordingly filed petitions to have the poll results nullified.
Diplomatic — Pro-democracy forces in Zimbabwe sought Sadc support in highlighting the challenges with July 31 poll through engagement with Sadc and other regional bodies.
Political — Supporters of the MDC-T entertained the idea of engaging in street protests demanding a rerun of the poll.
During the pre-electoral period, the Election Resource Centre (ERC) expressed its disquiet that Zimbabwe was clearly ill-prepared for the polls and that any attempt to stampede the country into a premature election would definitely lead to an inconclusive outcome that would be disputed. Events following the July 2013 polls confirm the ERC concerns.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
While almost all observer missions accredited for the July 2013 polls have declared the poll free and peaceful, it is rather disturbing that the same election monitoring groups did not give their assessments on the “fairness” of the electoral process leading to the election.
The fact that all that the regional bodies have not fully explored the absence of fairness in this poll, but are still prepared to accept it, suggests that standards for elections in Zimbabwe have been lowered, unfortunately not by Zimbabweans, but by the region itself.
This is a tragedy not only for the country, but also for the region and the continent considering that seven of the Sadc-member countries that have endorsed the election are heading for general elections in their respective countries by the end of 2014.
The ERC remains worried that the regional body erroneously accepted the poll outcome without making comprehensive assessments of the entire electoral process.
Granted, the Zimbabwe July 2013 polls could have happened in an atmosphere of relative calm and peace, any verdict of elections which selfishly focuses on freeness without due recognition to the fairness relating to such an election can justifiably be dismissed for its lack of comprehensiveness.
For elections to be deemed credible they have to meet the basic standards of both inalienable principles of fairness and freeness.
The ERC therefore contends that Sadc and AU assessments of the elections in Zimbabwe remain incomplete and therefore illegitimate in so far as such bodies are yet to give their verdict on the “fairness” of the polls.
Had Sadc remained faithful to the established Sadc principles and guidelines governing the conduct of democratic elections in making their assessment of the harmonised elections, the regional body could have found it difficult to accept the July 2013 polls as credible, let alone being a reflection of the will of Zimbabweans.
A measure of the election processes that obtained towards the July 2013 polls against agreed Sadc standards for the conduct of democratic elections reveals vivid inadequacies which inevitably undermined the prospects of the polls passing the “fairness” yardstick.
According to the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission, 304 890 potential voters, (8,7% of the total number of the votes cast) were turned away from voting during July 31 poll for various reasons, some of which would have been avoided had Zimbabwe complied with other provisions of the Sadc principles and guidelines governing the conduct of democratic elections.
A further 206 901 (5,9% of votes cast) voters were assisted to vote, an occurrence that was most likely to compromise full participation of citizens in the political process given the manner in which the assistance was provided. It was reported by observers that scores of literate individuals like teachers, nurses and youth were assisted to vote.
There can be reasonable suspicion that the assistance of voters could have greatly undermined the secrecy of the ballot, an occurrence which also could have benefitted a single political formation.
These figures alone should raise concern for countries like Swaziland whose published numbers of eligible voters stands at 600 000 or that of Botswana which in 2009 stood at 892 339. By comparison, the compromised vote in Zimbabwe is nearly the size of the voting population in two Sadc countries.
Sadc has also become a victim of Zimbabwe’s electoral debacles in being blinded to a point that the regional bloc is prepared to accept the minimum, in this case, mediocrity in exchange for some semblance of progression.
The fact that Sadc has not only accepted and endorsed July 31 poll results, but also congratulated itself for handling the Zimbabwean situation.
This should spell doom for all other countries in the region faced with an election in the next coming months.
Zimbabwe’s electoral fiasco scourge will no doubt go viral, with Sadc now greatly compromised to enforce credibility of democratic elections having lowered standards on electoral conduct in clear deviation of the regional body’s own set principles and guidelines.
