Zimbabwe’s ‘stolen’ polls
The initial shock that followed the release of the unprecedented Southern Acrica Development Community (SADC) Elections Observer Mission (SEOM) preliminary report that shredded the now much-derided Zimbabwe general elections of August 23/24, has now subsi
The outcome of the much-publicised visit to Zimbabwe by the SADC Panel of Elders is being kept under wraps. The panel was headed by Charles Tibone, former Labour Minister and Tati West legislator, who replaced the panel leader and former Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete at the last minute.
Unconfirmed reports indicate that SADC has mandated South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to lead the dialogue with Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa. The only certainty is the submission of the SOEM report to the chairperson of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Troika President Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia. This act may trigger the convening of a SADC Extra-Ordinary Summit to address the Zimbabwean elections; a move the regime would try to thwart by all means.
While these silent diplomatic manoeuvres are playing out, sceptics are reminded of Zimbabwe’s long record of outfoxing SADC and clinging to power and continue lining their unpatriotic pockets with ill-gotten loot. Despite the damning reports by different election observer missions that have variously described the August 23/24 general election as a sham, Mnangagwa’s regime is confident the SADC will do nothing.
Lack of unity of purpose among SADC leaders is, once again, likely to condemn the long-suffering Zimbabwean populace into the indignity of having to live under an illegitimate government. The skewed poll gave Mnangagwa of ZANU-PF 52.6% of the votes while his rival Nelson Chamisa of Citizen Coalition for Change (CCC) got 44%.
In an uncharacteristically damning move, the regional and continental elections observer missions have pronounced the Zimbabwean elections as having failed to meet a threshold of regional and international democratic elections standards. Significantly, the SOEM and African Union observer mission ruled the electoral exercise did not meet set standards.
The ruling ZANU-Patriotic Front has been at this impunity since 2000 and each election has been a dubiously “win-win” situation for them. Zimbabwe’s intransigence is not only confined to electoral fraud but the regime has also upended the regional body itself. Will the regime now try to dehorn and kill-off the SOEM as it has previously done with another SADC institution?
Notably, the Zimbabwean regime literally killed-off a SADC institution after it had ruled against Zimbabwe in a tribunal case. An inter-regional court, the SADC Tribunal was inaugurated and its members sworn in on November 18, 2005 in Windhoek (Namibia), though it was rendered inoperable by fire that gutted the building in January 2007.
After its restoration in one of its first cases, Mike Campbell (Pty) Ltd and Others V Republic of Zimbabwe in 2007/8, the SADC Tribunal ruled that the Zimbabwean government could not evict the farmer Campbell from his land and that farm evictions were unconstitutional as they were discriminatory against the whites. The Mugabe regime initially reacted by withdrawing from the Tribunal before embarking on a concerted campaign to close down the court absolutely. The 2012 SADC Summit Heads of State and Government resolved to limit the court’s jurisdiction to “disputes between Member States.” The tribunal was subsequently killed-off.
This has denied the region’s individuals, companies and other interest groups an alternative avenue to seek justice, outside their suspected tainted judiciary systems – as is the case in Zimbabwe. For instance, Chamisa and the CCC maintain that there are no domestic legal remedies to overturn the stolen election.
The state of Zimbabwe’s judiciary is such that it would have had answers before the complainant (Chamisa) even knew the questions to ask!
Similarly, the other SADC institution the Zimbabwean authorities have contempt for is the SADC Parliamentary Forum. Its independent streak became evident in the run-up to the Angolan parliamentary and presidential elections of 2008 and 2009 respectively. The 21-person SADCPF team that was led by then Shoshong legislator Duke Lefhoko was highly critical of the Angolan preparatory process. The Zimbabwean authorities denied the group elections observer status in 2002 and 2008 general elections. And Lefhoko was vice-chairperson of the 2008 team that was denied direct role in that country’s elections and instead advised to come under SOEM. There are numerous instances where members of the otherwise “tame” SOEM were verbally and physically assaulted in full glare of the media in Zimbabwe.
Therefore, by embarking on their brazen election fraud, the ZANU-PF are comfortable in the knowledge that the worst kind of censure that could be imposed is to be politely asked to share the power with those they have stolen it from. After stealing the 2008 election under the late president Robert Mugabe, the ZANUPF was given a lease of life after former South African president Thabo Mbeki negotiated a “Government of National Unity” (GNU).
Even then, the Zimbabwean government only succumbed to the compromise due to unrelenting pressure from its neighbours and the international community.
At the time, Botswana’s former Foreign Minister and later Vice President Mompati Merafhe openly called for the exclusion of Zimbabwe from SADC and the African Union meetings over the disputed 2008 election. “In our considered view, it therefore, follows that the representatives of the current government in Zimbabwe should be excluded from attending SADC and African Union meetings,” the then Vice President Mompati Merafhe had reasoned. The ensuing Mbeki deal ensured the defeated ZANU-PF still retained power and the victor, Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was relegated to a junior partner status.
The tumultuous power-sharing arrangement of the 2009-2013 period only benefited the ZANU-PF by legitimising the regime and affording it the breather to regroup for another violent onslaught on democracy. And most importantly, it greatly improved the country’s economic fortunes as investors (both internal and external) thought the regime has come to appreciate the benefits of a politically and economically stable state. Soon the power-sharing period had elapsed, Mugabe‘s regime returned to its brutality as witnessed by yet another stolen election in 2013. A now retired Merafhe led a 20-person strong Botswana Observer Mission to the 2013 poll and he dismissed the process as a “circus”. Botswana once again called on SADC to investigate, albeit unsuccessfully, the general election after opposition groups had rejected the vote’s outcome. Down the line, Mugabe’s repressive machine turned on his domestic allies, specifically his then Vice President Mnangagwa and his army chief Constantino Chiwenga. A military coup of November 2017 saved the duo from imminent and certain death by the Grace Mugabe-led ZANU-PF faction.
When the coup installed Mnangagwa and Chiwenga as president and vice president respectively, there was misplaced euphoria that long-suffering Zimbabwe has finally entered a new dawn. The “new” government in fact promoted such a perception. However, the 2018 and subsequently last month’s general elections proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mnangagwa and his ZANU-PF lot had never left the Hall of Infamy they had helped craft under Mugabe. In an unprecedented development, the SOEM released a preliminary report that torched the ZANU-PF’s electoral shenanigans. The SOEM team was headed by Dr Nevers Mumba, who had been appointed by President Hichilema in his capacity as chair of the SADC Troika.
The report said the elections fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. The AU, Commonwealth, European Union (EU), and Carter Centre were among those who criticised the Zimbabwean electoral process. The AU mission was led by former Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan.
The SOEM and AU missions were accused of serving their “imperialist masters’ regime change agenda in Zimbabwe.”
Instead of insulting President Hichilema, Mumba and his SADC team, the Zimbabwean authorities have failed to address the clearly articulated concerns raised over the August 23/24 poll. The SOEM preliminary report has specifically identified problem areas that cover delimitation of constituencies; the voters’ roll; late opening of polling stations in opposition strongholds; freedom of assembly; freedom of expression; nomination of candidates and nomination fees and participation of women.
The incendiary statements being made by senior Zimbabwean government and party officials point to a shocking arrogance and misplaced entitlement. Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi has declared: “There is no reason for President Mnangagwa and ZANU-PF to give away their win. Zimbabwe as a sovereign state cannot be pressured to change its constitution or domestic laws by a regional or international observer mission or SADC itself of the European Union.” The Information ministry permanent secretary, Nick Mnangagwa reportedly said, “there is some treacherous lobbying going on by one SADC member state to have an Extra-Ordinary Summit on Zimbabwe…. And it’s not going to happen.” But these authorities should be wary of the diplomatic posture from SADC itself, and the continent. Tellingly Mnangagwa’s inauguration was attended by only three SADC presidents: Ramaphosa of South Africa, Felix Tshesekedi of DRC, and Fillipe Nyusi of Mozambique. Thirteen other SADC presidents did not attend in person.
Conspicuous by their absence were the current chairman of SADC, President Joao Lourenco of Angola and SADC Troika chair Hichilema. Outside of the three SADC heads, none from AU’s 50-odd members bothered to pitch up for Mnangagwa’s party. Beyond the African shores, the clouds of punitive censure could be gathering against the regime. A high ranking member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jim Risch in a statement said: “We must re-evaluate all facets of our relationship with a Zimbabwean government that ignores its people’s will and flouts its laws through acts of violence, looting and impunity.” The US already has in place travel ban and asset freeze for President Mnangagwa and other top government and party officials. Despite protestations from the regime of “crippling economic sanctions”, the US has always maintained that, together with the EU, they remain the major funders of Zimbabwe’s social programmes.
Unfortunately, some SADC leaders that include President Mokgweetsi Masisi of Botswana have bought into the sanctions lies and never miss an opportunity to pitch for Harare. But a sisterly advice from the South African Foreign Affairs minister, Naledi Pandor could assist Masisi navigate the Zimbabwean sanctions quagmire. “It seems clear that even as we support the call for an end to economic sanctions, the political dynamics that we observe are inextricably linked to the economic solutions and thus the politics and the economic as well as the social need to be confronted simultaneously,” Pandor had noted in 2019.
This line of thinking had undoubtedly informed Botswana’s position on Zimbabwe right from the Festus Mogae presidency (when the Zimbabwean meltdown began in earnest) right through the Ian Khama era with its megaphone or rooftop diplomacy. By returning to this policy on Zimbabwe, Botswana would effectively be siding with the long-suffering ordinary Zimbabweans and not the forces of their repression.