http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/384/48995electionlinezim.jpgSA… and other African countries need to recognise that the fate of Zimbabwe is in their hands. We are not seeking the west to rescue our country, we are calling on our brothers and sisters to help us at our most dire need. The Heads of State in the SADC region now need to stand with the people of Zimbabwe and not its political leaders, writes Janah Ncube.
====

Morgan Tsvangirai dropped a bombshell by his withdrawal as a candidate from the Presidential runoff elections scheduled to be held on June 27, 2008. This certainly cannot have been an easy decision for Mr. Tsvangirai who recently got the majority vote of 48% over President Mugabe’s 43%. The first time he contested as a candidate in 2002, the elections were marked with significant irregularities and he lost. This time, he does know for a fact that the majority of voters wanted him to be the next President but due to a recently introduced Constitutional clause, the next President of Zimbabwe must have 51% of the votes.

His decision has caused much chaos and confusion and a lot of people have been left perplexed and some feel betrayed by this move. Mr. Tsvangirai in his statement states his reasons for withdrawing as being state sponsored violence, his crippled campaign, the decimation of his party’s structures, the partisanship of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, MDC media blackout, the threats of war by the ZANU PF candidate and the backing they have received from the leaders of the army and the police and the planned rigging by ZANU PF.

The whole world has been following events in Zimbabwe since March 29 2008 when Zimbabwe held its harmonized elections whose results took over 2 weeks to be released. The situation has continuously deteriorated to become grim, tense and unbearable for Zimbabweans. The escalated levels of violence have seen the continuous brutal murder of ordinary Zimbabweans, their being mutilated, defaced, and having some of their body parts dismembered. There is a lot of blood being spilt in Zimbabwe right now in name of patriotism and change. As said by the [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/384/48993hunger.jpgCIDSE, APRODEV and the Ecumenical Zimbabwe Network (EZN) welcome the UN Security Council statement condemning the campaign of violence against Zimbabwe’s opposition party. However, diplomatic efforts are clearly failing to provide adequate protection to the people of Zimbabwe or to guarantee a democratic electoral process. CIDSE, APRODEV, and EZN reiterate their call for the United Nations (UN) to conform with its own Security Council resolution 1674, which confirms the “Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity” as a fundamental international norm.

With no possibility for a legitimate Presidential election on 27 June, the international community should act immediately to ensure that ballots are not replaced by bullets. “What is needed” said John Stewart, Director of NOVASC, a Zimbabwean human rights NGO “is international intervention. The direct intervention of an international, African led presence to guarantee security and the protection and safety of the people is necessary. Militias have to be disarmed, disbanded, demobilised; the state security agencies must be reined in and kept under scrutiny, to prevent them continuing with their campaign of violence and terror, and to prepare the processes of a return to the rule of law and extensive security sector reform”. Concerted international action is needed to encourage and accompany a determined process to protect and assist the Zimbabwean people, while creating the conditions for legitimate elections in as short a time as possible.

Ahead of the first round of elections in Zimbabwe, CIDSE, APRODEV, EZN and partners in Zimbabwe cautioned that the elections could not be free or fair. “We fear that the government will ruthlessly use fraud and intimidation to steal the elections,” said John Stewart at the time. These fears were unfortunately well founded. .Since 29 March, the world has watched the electoral process unravel, the situation deteriorate, and the people suffer. Across the country instances of political killings, violence and torture have been well documented, with over a hundred deaths reported, thousands tortured and beaten and tens of thousands displaced[1]. The June 21st withdrawal of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) from the second round of the Presidential election must finally end the pretence of a democratic process.

In a country where more than one in four children is orphaned and an estimated four million people are vulnerable and in need of aid, the population is being intimated and lives put at risk by government restrictions on humanitarian aid distribution. Since the government’s decision of 4 June to ban humanitarian organizations from distributing aid international and local aid agencies, including CIDSE, APRODEV and EZN members, have been forced to suspend vital support to the Zimbabwean people. The poorest and most vulnerable communities are being hit hardest.

As a joint statement on May 28th from the Archbishops of Canterbury and Cape Town pointed out the violence has extended to attacks inside Anglican churches. The Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference has called “for an immediate cessation of violence and all provocative statements and actions” and warns that “electoral processes and outcomes are not an excuse for breaching God’s commandments”[2] Churches worldwide joined in a day of prayer for the people of Zimbabwe on 22 June.

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Zimra has refused to release the consignment of 60,000 copies of the june 19 issue of The Zimbabwe, flown into Harare by a commercial carrier last week for distribution on Thursday. Despite the punitive duty of 40% plus a surcharge of a further 20% levied on "luxury times such as foreign newspapers" having been paid in foreign currency - the authorities in Harare have refused to release the papers.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/383/48972africanleaders.jpgTo: President Kikwete, Chairperson of the African Union
To: President Yar’Adua, Chairperson of the Peace and Security Council, AU
To: President Mwanawasa, Chairperson of the Southern African Development Community
To: Dr Jean Ping, Chairperson of the African Union Commission
To: Members of the UN Security Council

Your Excellencies,

As you know, Zimbabwe is in the throes of a devastating political, economic, and humanitarian crisis. A presidential run-off election was scheduled for June 27th but the widespread political violence inflicted on the population has overshadowed the poll to the point where the opposition feels it cannot participate. Indeed President Mugabe insists he would remain in office regardless of the results, mocking the courage of those voters still willing to go to the polls. Meanwhile men, women and children are daily bludgeoned, medical care is scarce, homesteads burned, food is exhausted and the thousands displaced are on the move. The depth of the crisis has moved the governments of Tanzania, Angola, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, Senegal, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Botswana to express their concern and to criticise the government of President Robert Mugabe.

African leadership is desperately needed at this time; we urge you to launch an urgent program of action to accomplish the following goals:

- Cessation of the violence and repression through deployment of a protection force and monitors, and containment of perpetrators;

- Restoration of aid flows and urgent increase of humanitarian assistance;

- Convening of a process to secure a political solution establishing effective governance, restoration of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, along with necessary steps to allow economic recovery and a rapid return to democratic rule.

- Prevention of any further destabilizing spillover into the wider region.

THE DEPTH OF THE CRISIS

ZANU-PF responded to President Mugabe’s loss in the first round of elections on March 29, 2008, with violent retaliation against the population, characterized by brutal beatings, burning of homes and villages, harassment, arrests, and torture. The violence is largely one-sided, perpetrated by agents of the government and ruling party and the impact has been devastating; indeed, what Zimbabwe is now experiencing is more akin to conflict, than an election. In such conditions, while we salute the determination of the voters to be heard, any election result must lack credibility.

The Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights states that it has documented so many cases of systematic violent assault and torture that at times its members have been overwhelmed by the numbers. In May alone ZADHR members saw 1007 patients suffering from extensive injuries sustained during these violent attacks. A hospital in Harare says it has seen almost 2000 victims of violence and torture since the first round poll. The opposition MDC states that at least 70 of its supporters have now been killed and 25,000 forced from their homes as a result of the state’s campaign of violence.

A CONFLICT SITUATION

As observed by President Kagame of Rwanda, there is no reason to hold a vote if you do not intend to abide by the outcome. Yet President Mugabe declared that he would refuse to cede power, regardless of the result. He thereby confirms that an election cannot resolve Zimbabwe’s crisis. President Mugabe even threatened more violence, warning of “war” if the vote goes against him. Continental leaders and regional neighbours can have no clearer indication of the threat to regional peace and security and the impending and increased danger to civilians, a threat that is even greater if the election is not completed. We call on you to find solutions for Zimbabwe that go beyond merely salvaging the election.

NEIGHBOURS AT RISK

Regional governments bear a significant burden as a result of the economic and political crisis. Approximately 25% of the people of Zimbabwe have left. Millions of them are now in neighbouring countries and their needs impose a strain on already stretched domestic social services and intensify tensions between the host population and immigrant communities. This flow of people across borders contributes to active instability and conflict in the region as evidenced by the recent xenophobic attacks against immigrant populations in South Africa. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has recognized the threat that the situation in Zimbabwe poses to peace and security in its region by mandating President Thabo Mbeki’s efforts to mediate a resolution to the crisis between the ruling party and the opposition. It is time to make resolution of Zimbabwe’s problems a priority for the continent.

AFRICA’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ZIMBABWE’S CITIZENS

Although SADC must be commended for its attempts so far to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe, its effort has not been repaid. The ruling party is effectively refusing to subject itself to a democratic contest, and waging a violent conflict against its citizens, aggravating a humanitarian crisis. As such it has lost legitimacy, triggering a necessary shift in Africa’s stance. Under the Constitutive Act of the African Union, member states are enjoined to “promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights” and the African Union has an obligation “to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” There is extensive documentation in Zimbabwe today of torture and killing of named individuals by agents of the ruling party and government who have been described and/or identified. African Union engagement, particularly by the Peace and Security Council, is fully mandated by conditions on the ground and is urgently needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

To SADC: Convene an emergency summit to:

- Recognize the failure of the Government of Zimbabwe towards its citizens and the need for an urgent regional, continental, and international response;

- Request the AU to assume leadership of a mediation process with support from SADC and the UN;

- Authorize and initiate a discussion with international partners about funding humanitarian needs and a recovery plan for Zimbabwe.

To the AU Peace and Security Council: Convene an emergency session to:

- Establish the responsibility of Zimbabwe’s authorities for the situation, confirm AU responsibility to protect civilians and prevent further destabilization of the region;

- Authorize deployment of a protection force and additional monitors;

- Plan discussions with the United Nations about support, resourcing and deployment of a protection force;

- Send a fact-finding mission to determine the level of responsibility of the different branches of the State in the current human rights violations and humanitarian crisis.

To the AU Commission:

- Include, as an urgent matter, the current situation of Zimbabwe in the agenda of the Sharm El Sheikh Summit and ask the Assembly for a mandate to intervene in the crisis and protect citizens;

- Appoint a Special Envoy on Zimbabwe;

- Authorise him/her to initiate dialogue with key players and the international community with the objective of establishing a mediation process aimed at achieving a political settlement and associated plan of work for achieving long lasting peace and timetable for return to democracy.

The UN Security Council: - Urgently adopt the crisis in Zimbabwe as an official item on the UNSC agenda recognizing the threat it poses to international peace and security and requiring regular political and humanitarian briefings to the Council;

- Issue a clear statement indicating GoZ responsibility for the current violence, deploring the tactics used against the population by the GoZ and demanding the facilitation of adequate humanitarian assistance;

- Provide support for an AU-led mediation effort and protection force.

Respectfully,

1. Action des Chrétiens Activistes des Droits de l'Homme à Shabunda (ACADHOSHA), DRC
2. Aids Law Project, South Africa
3. Botswana Civil Society Solidarity Coalition on Zimbabwe (BOCISCOZ), Botswana
4. Centre for Excellent on Aid Effectiveness, Ghana
5. Centre for Peace and Conflict Management (CAFSO), Nigeria
6. Coalition for Peace In Africa (COPA), Southern Africa
7. Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, Zimbabwe
8. East African Law Society (EALS), East Africa
9. Economic Justice Network of FOCCISA, Southern Africa
10. Environnement, Ressources Naturelles et Développement (ERND), DRC
11. Foster National Cohesion (FONACON), Kenya
12. Global Zimbabwean Forum, Switzerland
13. Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), South Africa
14. Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA), South Africa
15. Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Kenya
16. le Centre de Recherche sur l'Environnement, la Démocratie et les Droits de l'Homme (CREDDHO), DRC

For full list of signatories, please follow this link:

Reporters Without Borders condemns the six-month prison sentences that a court in the southwestern city of Bulawayo passed on three South African drivers on 2 June for “unauthorised possession of TV broadcast equipment” and urges the judicial authorities to release them.

Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is considering whether to pull out of the June 27 presidential run-off election due to fears it will be a charade, a spokesman said on Friday. A growing number of African nations, the United States and former colonial power Britain have said they do not believe the poll would be free and fair because of violence that the opposition blames on veteran President Robert Mugabe.

After a protracted silence and a non-interference stance on Zimbabwe, the Kenyan government has finally broken its silence, calling on president Robert Mugabe to respect the tenets of democracy ahead of the June 27 presidential run-off elections.

The South African government should recognize that political repression and economic deprivation have forced Zimbabweans to flee their country and immediately stop deporting them, Human Rights Watch has said in a new report. Human Rights Watch called on the government to grant Zimbabweans in South Africa temporary status and work rights.

This 119-page report examines South Africa’s decision to treat Zimbabweans merely as voluntary economic migrants and its failure to respond effectively to stop the human rights abuses and economic deprivation in Zimbabwe that cause their flight and to address their needs in South Africa. Human Rights Watch spoke to almost 100 Zimbabweans in South Africa about their plight.

There is dispute over whether the violence of the past nine years in Zimbabwe is a reflection of political violence, or crimes against humanity. This paper examines aspects of this debate in the wake of the 29 March 2008 election results and the ensuing violence that has left thousands displaced and many activists dead and injured. The paper also discusses the role of the international community in the current debacle.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/382/48924zimviolence.jpgRather than deflect and defeat the likelihood of political violence, the construct of a Government of National Unity would formally integrate it into the lifeblood of the Zimbabwean democratic dispensation. For South Africans, this situation recalls the kind of power sharing arrangements that former South African President F W De Klerk had in mind at the start of the 1990s negotiation process, where the share of actual voter support would not determine power arrangements. This proposal was not acceptable in the new South Africa then, and it is not acceptable in the new Zimbabwe now, writes Grace Kwinjeh examining the upcoming Zimbabwe presidential elections rerun.
===

In March 2008 Zimbabweans voted in the most peaceful election since independence, resulting in an unambiguous victory for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Three months later, the country is hemorrhaging from a massive and rising tide of political violence not seen since the state sponsored terror of the early 1980s. The ruling party and its supporters are responsible for the vast majority of the current attacks [1]. As if to underscore his party’s public embrace of violence, President Mugabe now openly threatens to “wage war” beyond the June 27 Presidential run-off election, if his candidacy should be rejected by the people for a second time. Meanwhile the MDC government-elect, MDC party structures and much of the party’s leadership have been forced into hiding as they seek to convince voters of their right to select – and see installed in place – a president of their choice.

For SADC, the Zimbabwe conflagration has become the most comprehensive diplomatic failure in the region since the resumption of the Angolan war in the 1990s. But unlike Angola, the Zimbabwe crisis is one for which SADC, President Mbeki and the international community bear a central contributing responsibility. By pushing for secretly brokered power-sharing arrangements leading to a “government of national unity” (GNU), the international intervention in Zimbabwe has relegated hopes for a new democratic dispensation built on the foundations of the expressed popular will of Zimbabweans. By refusing to actively acknowledge the MDC’s electoral victory and insist on its recognition and acceptance by ZANU PF, regional leaders and the international community effectively ignored and silenced the democratic voice of the people. As a consequence, the MDC’s hard-won legitimate authority has been erased, and the way has been opened for ZANU PF to recover by the bullet the authority it had lost at the ballot box.

This violent outcome of a proposed GNU strategy should not have been unexpected. ZANU PF’s violent riposte is reminiscent of the period immediately prior to Independence around the Lancaster House Conference, and even more so of the party’s violent campaign before the 1987 “Unity Accord” with the ZAPU opposition: indeed, it is a tried and tested tactic of ZANU PF to threaten and deploy intense violence as a strategic bargaining tool. Since independence the party has singularly distinguished itself among Zimbabwean political parties by demonstrating a capacity for – and indeed claiming the right to wage – mass violence in defense of its “national” interests. No longer heading the majority party, Robert Mugabe now cynically portrays violence as a means for defending the people from their mistaken choice.

This deeply cynical pathology is echoed more subtly in the GNU concept. Despite a clear rejection of ZANU PF under electoral conditions heavily tilted in that party’s favour, unity talks have been promoted as a means of bringing the former ruling party back into the centre of decision-making. Even though neither voters nor the MDC demanded this arrangement in March, the new government in waiting has come under enormous pressure to fall in line accordingly. Its leaders have repeatedly said that such an arrangement would deny the popular voice and reward anti-democratic, flagrantly illegal and often murderous behaviour – while only deferring, and certainly not solving, the problem of organising the transition to a new political order. It is indeed difficult to understand why those who previously promoted engagement with ZANU PF as a means of strengthening a deeply flawed electoral process, should now effectively reject that improved process and insist on power sharing terms with the author of electoral fraud and intimidation.

In contrast, it is clear that the promotion of a GNU is integral to the facilitation of an elite transfer of power which would vitiate the popular will of the electorate. This is why the idea of a GNU has been explicitly rejected by the leading membership-based civil society organisations in Zimbabwe, from the trade unions to human rights networks. These groups challenge the credibility and viability of a compromise that according to its proponents, would bring about some sort of “normalisation” of the political space without addressing the growing democratic deficit in Zimbabwe. For the Zimbabwean democratic movement, political normalisation requires before all else, recognition and acceptance of the expressed will of dominant social interests – not its circumvention through brokered elite ‘pacting’ carried out under the threat of violence.

In Zimbabwe, there is abiding consternation over why ZANU PF and its militia were given the opportunity by SADC and the international community to ignore the electoral results in the first place. What would have happened if the election results – deemed legitimate by observers – had been recognised and enforced? And what would happen if a similarly free and fair process were enforced in the current second round, by insisting on the disarming of ZANU PF and its militia, and the confinement of the security forces to base? Have those mediating and promoting mediation raised these issues – the clearest and most profound obstacles to democratic practice in Zimbabwe in the current moment?

It is widely acknowledged that demilitarisation is a central precondition needed to advance a democratic outcome and ensure its consolidation in the medium term. Yet, the perpetration of violence has been treated as a negotiable right – not as an act which invalidates claims to the process of a democratic transition. Remarkably, it took 10 weeks of deteriorating conditions for SADC’s official mediator Thabo Mbeki to publicly raise his concerns about the spiralling violence. But even then he avoided commentary on responsibility, despite ample documented evidence heavily implicating ZANU PF and state security forces in commanding the terror. His spokesperson claims he is precluded from doing so by virtue of his position as mediator. However this is a hollow rationale in the face of open and mounting ZANU PF belligerence.

For ZANU PF, with few political repercussions arising from the deployment of its violent supporters, there seems little incentive for abandoning this approach– and perhaps much to be gained from pursuing it. Robert Mugabe’s public declaration earlier this week that his party would go to war in the event of his defeat in the second round of voting was met with paralysing silence by Thabo Mbeki. The deployment of weapons and violence may be logistically difficult to confront: the deployment of words and threats is not.

THE ELECTION FIX: BACK TO THE FUTURE

By focusing on the GNU, rather than the actual election results, the SADC mediation has effectively allowed ZANU PF to return to the brokerage scenario it had anticipated in the post election period. This scenario, broadly shared by ZANU PF reformers, SA, some EU governments and others before the election, was premised on the belief that the MDC-Tsvangirai party’s support would be diminished by support for MDC-Mutambara and for Simba Makoni, the former Finance Minister and ZANU PF reformer who was a candidate for President. A split opposition vote would enable victory in the Presidential election and at least a plurality in Parliament. Moreover, the dispersion of opposition representation across three groupings would present options for developing a ‘Kenyan-style’ negotiation that could lead to a ZANU PF dominated GNU. Makoni – the “modernising” reform face of ZANU PF - could be parachuted in under Mugabe, to soon replace him as the consensus politician. And ZANU PF could argue that, if this kind of arrangement was acceptable for Kenya, why not in Zimbabwe? There was a lot of this kind of talk amongst MDC-M and Makoni supporters in advance of the election.

For ZANU PF this scenario both enabled the departure of Mugabe, a political liability whose presence would continue to block the party’s return to legitimacy and the resumption of desperately needed, stabilizing financial assistance for the world’s fastest-collapsing economy; and the retention and renewed consolidation of power by the ruling party. Confident of a mediated victory and needing a “legitimate” result to back its claims to rehabilitation, ZANU PF significantly loosened control over the electoral process in the first round of voting in March.

As it turned out, the party’s electoral assumptions were wildly naïve. At the election support for the MDC-M collapsed – and notably for its leadership, which was roundly defeated. Makoni was overwhelmingly rejected by voters, gaining perhaps just 10 percent of the vote. At the same time, ZANU PF’s traditional voters deserted the party by voting for the opposition or by boycotting the poll, as they had done in the benchmark defeat of the party in the 2000 Constitutional Referendum. In contrast, the MDC Tsvangirai party surged across the country, including in former rural strongholds of ZANU PF that for the first time ever had been rendered easily accessible to opposition campaigners – and to opposition polling agents and officials. This combination of factors meant there were too few votes to rig with, and that the conditions allowing the playing off of opposition forces within a prospective GNU did not materialize [2].

The shock of the election result and the resulting conundrum for the ruling party were quite literally written on its face. The headline of The Sunday Mail, the most slavishly loyal of the state-controlled newspapers, screamed the day after the election, “Anxiety Grips Zim.” Many other state media, including the country’s only radio and television broadcaster, ZBC, effectively fell silent, bewildered. No party leader of note addressed the nation for several days.

It was apparent that ZANU PF was reassessing its game plan. Over the next month it developed and then rolled this plan out, as SADC first patiently accommodated repeated inexplicable delays in the processing and announcement of results by ZEC, and then sat motionless as ZESN, the key civic election monitoring network, and MDC itself were raided by state officials in search of independently collected polling data that could be used to disprove manipulated official figures. Even after the long delay, only limited details of the presidential poll were eventually released [3].

Meanwhile, reports surfaced of remobilised war veterans and youth militias, and of the first violent penetrations by state security forces of “turncoat” former ruling party strongholds. ZANU PF aimed to create conditions that would make the run-off so difficult and dreaded that prospects of averting violence through some form of GNU and power sharing arrangement would be welcomed: a replay of the ZANU-ZAPU Unity Pact of 1987. ZANU PF’s transparently obvious “spin” on the violence –which has often been taken up by SADC leaders, and swallowed whole by much of the regional media as well – has been doubly damaging for Zimbabwean democrats. One the one hand, substantial evidence that the violence is disproportionately organised against the MDC has drawn muted criticism from SA, SADC and the GNU advocates like Makoni; on the other, the small amount of retaliatory violence attributed to the MDC is deemed to suggest a “crisis” and raise possibilities of “civil war” – reinforcing the need to avoid a run-off and the urgency for a negotiated solution [4].

African leaders have thus far studiously avoided apportioning responsibility for violence, in most instances couching reactions in terms of cautioning both sides and invoking dialogue. Widespread violations of SADC’s election ‘norms and standards’ have failed to elicit coherent responses from them. Neither has SADC cautioned or castigated the ZANU PF government for failing to ensure its constitutional responsibility for safety and security, despite overwhelming empirical evidence that the primary perpetrator is ZANU PF and its proxies.

Rather than address the issue of destabilizing violence and impose political censure for its deployment in this period of uncertainty, the SA government, SADC, some EU diplomats and the Makoni grouping actively talked up the need for a GNU – ostensibly as way to avert the threat of violence coming from ZANU PF. Indeed, independent and MDC reports demonstrated that increasing numbers from the MDC’s ranks were being beaten, tortured, abducted and murdered, the rationale for a GNU – and a political counter-attack to the wave of violence – was publicly reinforced by SA and SADC.

While mediation does not preclude processes of accountability, this approach appears to have been absent from the Mbeki initiative. As a result the SADC intervention has directly facilitated ZANU PF’s unfolding strategy for manipulating the conditions and issues that would have to be negotiated. SADC’s tentative response to the March vote allowed space and time for ZANU PF to regroup and ramp up the violence and threats of more of the same – both fuelling a defensive “demand for GNU”, and reasserting ZANU PF’s leading place in the setting of terms for any negotiations. The latter now focus on ending violence and averting civil war, rather than implementing the results of the peaceful election or ensuring that the next round of elections are conducted in a free and fair atmosphere – something that it appears can no longer be ensured.

THE GNU PROBLEM

If the GNU is primarily being proposed as a means to avoid a violent tragedy, rather than as a basis for a establishing a new inclusive democratic politics, skeptics are right to question the idea’s aims, objectives and predictable outcomes. Just as importantly, we need to pose a question for those advocating a non-democratic negotiated resolution to Zimbabwe’s election crisis: by what principle can the rights of the popular democratic will as expressed by voters be equated with, or rendered secondary to, the rights of discredited elites and perpetrators of violence? For this is precisely what the idea of a GNU proposes, in the name of an elusive, highly unstable and temporary peace.

Even if the MDC were able to extract considerable concessions from ZANU PF, it is highly unlikely that Robert Mugabe’s party would cede its effective control over its levers in the bureaucracy and particularly, in the security forces. Why would it: these are the instruments of war and obstruction that have enabled ZANU PF to climb out of the hole of electoral defeat on more than one occasion, to protect its networks of power. To suggest that these determinants of power would be given up willingly is to accept the notion that ZANU PF would be willing to abdicate. The last two months have exposed this view as profoundly delusional. Those who have put stock in the GNU have failed to assess their model of peace-making in light of ZANU PF’s strategic understanding that violence is a political asset and an effective substitute for popular legitimacy, which will not be negotiated away.

Rather than deflect and defeat the likelihood of political violence, the construct of a GNU would formally integrate it into the lifeblood of the Zimbabwean democratic dispensation. This is a remarkable solution to put before a political party that has just won an election based on its abiding commitment to non-violent democratic participation – and to the voting majority who supported it. For South Africans, this situation recalls the kind of power sharing arrangements that former South African President F W De Klerk had in mind at the start of the 1990s negotiation process, where the share of actual voter support would not determine power arrangements [5]. This proposal was not acceptable in the new South Africa then, and it is not acceptable in the new Zimbabwe now.
to the March election has facilitated a strong and violent response by ZANU PF.

For the time being, it seems increasingly likely that the GNU route will be not followed. This is not due to any lack of effort by the likes of Mbeki and many in SADC, or the distasteful posturing of the rejected Makoni, who cites rising violence as the need for inclusive negotiations without naming and condemning those – his erstwhile colleagues – who have created the unstable terrain on which he hopes to re-launch his ambitions. Rather, both the MDC and its supporters are wary of legitimizing the political role of those holding the gun to their heads and the torch to their homes. War is not something to be prevented: it is here already. And the only non-violent way to confront and defeat it is the ballot box, even if that option too is flawed.

If the current pressures for a GNU do indeed fail, all is not lost for ZANU PF: Makoni or another ZANU PF senior reformer could return to the forefront if Mugabe were to win the run-off, further destabilize the MDC and civil society, and then retire on his own terms – handing over power to a reformer to negotiate a new GNU from a position of regained legitimacy and strength. But this first requires another successfully manipulated election result, and a frontal assault on MDC and civil society resistance. The arrest on treason charges this past week of MDC Secretary General Tendai Biti does not bode well; neither does the relative weakness of the SADC response to this latest development. And is there any reason to think that additional ZANU PF manipulations during and after the second round of voting will not take place, given the success of such interventions in the first?

ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, ACTING RESPONSIBLY

The options chosen by SADC and the international community for dealing with the March 2008 election have directly contributed to the options chosen by ZANU PF. It was a choice not to recognise the MDC victory and to allow the illegal charade over the recount to occur [6]. It is enough here to point out that the MDC won the Parliamentary elections, that Morgan Tsvangirai won the Presidential election, that nearly 3 million Zimbabweans did not vote, and consequently it is very clear that Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF do not enjoy the support of the vast majority of the population.

This set of circumstances allowed for an alternative political response; a recognition of and call for an MDC government to be accepted by ZANU PF. However, the failure to support this option has contributed directly to the current confusion between promoting conditions for a free and fair re-run and negotiations for a GNU. Despite a widespread acceptance that conditions cannot be free and fair for the June 27 poll, and calls for a GNU, the MDC is sticking to the electoral path and holding out prospects for an inclusive government of national healing in which it would play a lead role after the elections. This position, openly supported by SADC, will promote an elitist management of transitional arrangements under the auspices of a power sharing arrangement that will effectively insulate and protect those responsible for perpetrating violence and gross human rights abuses –as happened with previous election amnesties for party violence, and most seriously with the Unity Accord in 1987.

As regards the re-run, although it is no longer possible to create the conditions for a free and fair poll, with less than 10 days before the poll, there could and should be certain steps taken to remedy the most egregious violations and potential for destabilisation. This should include: deploying adequate numbers of election monitors, especially in areas where violence and intimidation has been reported, and playing a more active role in monitoring the activities and decision-making processes of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission; promoting an agenda of disarming ZANU PF and its militia/war veteran proxies hands; censuring the role of the security forces, censuring hate speech and talk of war by any political parties; commenting on access of candidates to state media; question and establishing a strategy with rewards and penalties for compliance/non-compliance with SADC election guidelines.

Thabo Mbeki did state ahead of the 2005 elections that there would be consequences if the SADC Principles and Guidelines were seriously violated, but this was said against the background of woefully inadequate provisions for monitoring on the ground [7]. Meanwhile, in June 2008, the corpses of MDC officials and suspected opposition supporters are accumulating, thousands have been displaced by the political violence, likely thousands more beaten and brutalised, hate speech fills the airwaves, and a discredited President threatens the majority with war – and still, there is no sign of serious electoral censure in the air.

It is time for fresh thinking and fresh action. In advance of the second round of presidential voting, problems need to be anticipated and prevented before they arise. Several critical questions emerge:

What would have happened if SA, SADC and the international community rejected the delays by ZEC and ZANU PF, demanded the transparent compilation and immediate release of results - and ensured that all parties abided by them?

What would have happened if all civil society organisations and democratic parties and politicians had stood firmly behind the MDC government-elect, rather than soliciting for all-inclusive extra-electoral GNU? If more support for the winning party MDC had been expressed, what options then would have remained for elite transitions?

Who, then, really enabled ZANU PF’s violent election strategy sending the defeated party, its leaders and violent supporters inside and outside the state all of the wrong signals in the immediate post-election period?

And consequently, whose responsibility is it now to end the violence by terminating discussions about an all-inclusive GNU, and insisting on a government of transition and renewal headed unambiguously by the party elected by the people: the MDC Tsvangirai.

* Grace Kwinjeh is an NEC member of the MDC and the Chairperson of the Global Zimbabwe Forum.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

* For further notes, see below

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/382/48923zimfree.jpgProminent African leaders from across civil society have issued a public call for an end to violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe ahead of the presidential run-off elections at the end of the month. In an open letter signed by former heads of state, business leaders, academics and leading campaigners, the group calls for appropriate conditions to be met so that the second round of the presidential election is conducted in a peaceful and transparent manner that allows the citizens of Zimbabwe to express freely their political will.
====

It is crucial for the interests of both Zimbabwe and Africa that the upcoming elections are free and fair.

Zimbabweans fought for liberation in order to be able to determine their own future. Great sacrifices were made during the liberation struggle. To live up to the aspirations of those who sacrificed, it is vital that nothing is done to deny the legitimate expression of the will of the people of Zimbabwe.

As Africans we consider the forthcoming elections to be critical. We are aware of the attention of the world. More significantly we are conscious of the huge number of Africans who want to see a stable, democratic and peaceful Zimbabwe.

Consequently, we are deeply troubled by the current reports of intimidation, harassment and violence. It is vital that the appropriate conditions are created so that the Presidential run-off is conducted in a peaceful, free and fair manner. Only then can the political parties conduct their election campaigning in a way that enables the citizens to express freely their political will.

In this context, we call for an end to the violence and intimidation, and the restoration of full access for humanitarian and aid agencies.

To this end it will be necessary to have an adequate number of independent electoral observers, both during the election process and to verify the results.

Whatever the outcome of the election, it will be vital for all Zimbabweans to come together in a spirit of reconciliation to secure Zimbabwe's future.

We further call upon African leaders at all levels - pan-African, regional and national - and their institutions to ensure the achievement of these objectives.

* Civil society groups and individual citizens are invited to counter-sign the letter by clicking

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

*For the full list of signatories, please follow this link:

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/382/48919joinmdc.jpgExperiences in Guyana, in Kenya and in Zimbabwe have taught us that it is a mistake to adopt western standards of victory as our own, write Horace Campbell and Eusi Kwayana. Victory for us must mean reconciliation of divided populations. Reconciliation will fail utterly if it is imposed; or allows free rein to corruption, militarism or if it ignores the choices of the people in valid elections. We have responsibility as progressives and Pan-Africanists to Zimbabwe.
====

Zimbabwe, a week before the run off elections for the Presidency, presents many progressive Pan Africanists with a conflict, be it in analysis or action.

There are four main competing interests in Zimbabwe, as it is today. First, but not in order of importance are the interests of the ruling party and its supporters. These are followed by those of the Opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and its supporters. Next are the vested interests of the white minority settlers supported heavily by the United Kingdom and the neo-conservatives of the Bush Administration in the United States. Finally, but first in rating, there are the interests of all the producers (workers, poor peasants, farm workers, traditional healers, cultural workers, students, traders, hawkers etc.) in Zimbabwe. This last group has been rendered poor and powerless by the present government of Robert Mugabe and the ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union, Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).

In the past weeks the state-run daily, The Herald, reported that President Mugabe has warned that he will take the country to war to keep the ruling party in power. The Herald quoted Mr. Mugabe as saying he will not let the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) take power. Mr. Mugabe on many occasions said that an opposition victory would be tantamount to giving the country back to its former colonial master. The president has repeatedly accused the MDC of being sponsored by Britain. Mugabe declared in a speech that:

“We fought for this country, and a lot of blood was shed…We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?”

This kind of talk is dangerous and should be condemned by pan Africanists and decent persons everywhere.

ZIMBABWE AND THE QUESTION OF IMPERIALISM

First, there should be an attempt to clear the landscape of certain obstacles. Zimbabwe was in growing trouble before the sanctions imposed by the governments of Britain and the United States. Still, the attempt to bully a small country’s ruler who was in turn bullying his compatriots draped Robert Mugabe in the role of a hero against imperialism. The attempt encouraged a blundering ruler to stay on course. The ZANU-PF forces and sympathizers have blamed the disastrous economic situation on the sanctions. Yet, the political leaders have accumulated wealth in such a conspicuous manner that their consumption of luxury goods stands out in a country where more than 80 per cent of the eligible workers are unemployed. Millions more Zimbabweans have been rendered as economic refugees in Africa and beyond.

Zimbabwe‘s situation has some striking parallels with that of the recent history of Guyana in the Caribbean, where rivalry between anti-colonial forces started long before independence and was only draped in flags at the moment of Uhuru, without serious attempts at a deep resolution of the difficulties. Once in power the Burnham regime did nothing to resolve the ethnic conflict but superimposed on it a parliamentary dictatorship. Forbes Burnham consolidated this dictatorship while brandishing non-alignment and support for African Liberation. Yet, Walter Rodney was assassinated by the regime of the Peoples National Congress in 1980 because he was part of a movement that wanted to transcend the politics of division and exploitation. It is this kind of anti imperialism that has been used by many dictators to cover up the repression of their own citizens.

In Africa, the home of Ubuntu, there was no thought of employing indigenous mechanism of conflict resolution. Instead the Zimbabwe maximum leader adopted methods of control patterned on the deformed systems of Eastern Europe. He ignored the option of applying Ubuntu (or its national expression - in Zimbabwe as hunhu) as a way of healing. As in Guyana there was a reliance on external forms and vanguardism. We did not learn, whether in Zimbabwe or Guyana, to surround universal science with our own ethos.

MANIPULATING ETHNIC AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES

In 1987 the fusion of ZANU with the Patriotic Front led by Joshua Nkomo was done in such a way that the post-colonial world knew little about it, except that it led to the virtual silencing of the section of the liberation front that had been led by Joshua Nkomo. In the merger of the two wings of the national liberation movement there was also too much reliance placed on foreign tutelage, much of it from trusted allies of African liberation. This fusion had been orchestrated to end the divisions within the political leadership of Zimbabwe. One of the tragedies of the post liberation Zimbabwean society was the massacre of thousands of citizens of the Southwestern region of the country. Progressive Pan Africanists were silent when these massacres of the Ndebele took place in the early eighties. We, by and large, ignored these atrocities in the interests of solidarity with the dominant force in the country, and the need to not to make too much of small skirmishes, lest we “play into the hands of imperialism”

The best way for us (as African, Asian or Caribbean peoples) to keep the enemy at bay is to have a praxis of respect for all national forces and apply the highest principles of our culture as an indigenous method for the resolution of conflict.

Of late the western media and certain forces within the United Nations have been reporting the possibility of talks of power sharing, and the arrangement of some form of a transitional authority. While the spirit of these discussions may be guided by the search for social peace, it is urgent that these discussions between the various elements are not carried out behind the backs of the people and do nothing to undermine the political will of the people. But above all there must be an engagement by all to ensure that the elections and its aftermath does not deteriorate into the kind of violence and destruction that was witnessed in Kenya after the elections of December 27, 2007. At all costs, war must be avoided. The present leadership cannot expect to be supported when it terrorizes its own people and unleashes the very same Rhodesian military apparatus (the Joint Operation Command) against the opposition and unarmed civilians.

The present situation in Zimbabwe is confused by the circumstance that President Robert Mugabe has been a heroic figure in the continent of Africa, the Diaspora, among African observers and well-wishers. And he would have remained so, if the Pan African world had assisted Zimbabweans with friendly criticism of the government when the flaws began to show. Instead, the whole movement and the international left, including us, remained silent, some longer than others, hoping that such a well-resourced government would correct its own shortcomings. Earlier we had special cause to be partisan to Robert Mugabe, who had extended solidarity to our colleague Walter Rodney when he was being persecuted by the Guyana government.

It does not worry those who would defend the Zimbabwe government absolutely and in all circumstances that the imperialists have their embassies and observation posts and espionage networks in all of these places and are fully posted on developments in Zimbabwe. In this they have an advantage over those in the diaspora whose leaders think it is good policy to hide the truth from their constituencies about what is really going on in Zimbabwe. Those in the Global Pan African world who continue to defend Mugabe have in effect kept their constituencies in ignorance of information essential for human development in the name of solidarity. This is not the way to help the millions of working people learn how to govern.

ZIMBABWE AND LAND

Even in the ranks of those who feel compelled to defend Mr. Mugabe against British and US imperialists we feel bound to point out that it took twenty years after independence for the Zimbabwean government to heed the call of the peasantry for the reclamation of the land. Those who refuse to be critical of the Mugabe government repeat the claim that the Lancaster agreement had imposed constitutional constraints that prevented the redistribution of the land to the people. However, in 1992 the Parliament of Zimbabwe had unanimously passed the Land Acquisition Act that gave the government the power to redistribute the land. Instead, the government of Mugabe dithered and hedged seeking to conciliate international capital and the commercial farmers.

It was only after the massive opposition from the working people in 1997 and after the loss of the referendum of February 2000 that the ZANU leadership opportunistically launched the Fast Track Land reform process. This opportunism has only been surmounted by the fact that the best land went to the political elite who was not real farmers. Opportunism and cronyism exposed the reality that for land reform to be beneficial for the mass of the population, reform must involve the political empowerment of the poor, especially farm workers. The new black landowners did not treat the farm workers any better than the previous settlers. If anything, this experience exposed the reality that the issues of the health and safety of farm workers and their children are just as important as the question of land ownership. Farm workers whether working on farms owned by blacks or whites must be paid a living wage and must have adequate protection from pesticides. They must be accorded full political and economical rights instead of being forced to live in a semi-slavery state.

The experiences of land acquisition in Zimbabwe pointed to the reality that land reclamation by itself could not solve the problems of the Zimbabwean society. There had to be transformation of the credit, transportation, agricultural marketing, seed production, distribution of fertilizers, water management and all of the aspects of economic relations associated with agriculture. Workers and poor peasants in all parts of Southern Africa must strengthen their organizations so that land reform is not carried out in their names yet leave them in greater impoverishment.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

We want to go on record in saying that neither the government of Britain nor the government of the United States has the moral authority to oppose the present government of Zimbabwe. Imperialists and neo- conservatives have their own agenda when imposing sanctions and we are against sanctions in Zimbabwe. Progressive Pan Africanists must remain vigilant so that brutal oppression of the Zimbabwean peoples is not countenanced in the name of anti-imperialism.

These sanctions have not prevented the rulers of Zimbabwe from looting the Treasury and participating in the very same forms of speculative capitalism that is lauded by neo-liberals. Under the ZANU-PF leadership the Zimbabwe Stocks Exchange {ZSE} has ballooned to phenomenal levels as a result of the speculative activities of the rulers in Zimbabwe. In a country where the economic crisis has meant increased poverty for two years the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange offered investors the highest returns in Africa. For two years in a row, 2005 and 2006, the Africa Stock Exchanges Association (ASEA) reported that the ZSE was the best performing Stock Market in Africa.

Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF may be against imperialism but this group is not against capitalism or the looting of the assets of the society. The government of Cuba has been blockaded by the United States for more than forty years. Yet this government did not support a small class that looted and got rich while the majority of the population remained poor and terrorized.

Those who support the working peoples of Zimbabwe must insist on transparency in dealing with transnational corporations and the integrity of the ruling personnel in their day-to-day activities. This call for accountability is especially important in so far as though we are opposed to the threat of war coming from ZANU PF we are not encouraged by the policies and posture of the leadership of the MDC. These elements have displayed an amazing level of intellectual subservience to the West and to the ideas of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Zimbabwe needs leaders who place the interest of the working people first. It is proper that all progressives support the Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative of the United Nations so that corrupt leaders cannot stash away funds when the people suffer.

ENDING THE SILENCE OF PROGRESSIVE PAN AFRICANISTS

We should not remain silent when thousands of Zimbabwean women are arrested and disgraced as prostitutes, when, as elsewhere, virgins are despoiled by men in search of cures.

We should not be silent when homosexuals are subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, student movements repressed, and when unarmed people are subject to a level of police and militia brutality none of us would ignore in our countries of residence.

One of the most despicable acts of the Mugabe regime was the forced removal of more than 700,000 poor people from the urban areas in 2005. When the apartheid regime used the same coercive forces to carry out forced removals we went up in arms against it. This brutal act by the ZANU-PF went without condemnation from the Pan African movement.

When we ponder the considerable diplomatic and political resources of the African continent, we find it is not impossible for a dual policy of conditional opposition to the sanctions to be combined with a policy of respect for all Zimbabweans, and their equal entitlement to human rights (regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religious or political opinion).

Experiences in Guyana, in Kenya and in Zimbabwe have taught us that it is a mistake to adopt western standards of victory as our own. Victory for us must mean reconciliation of divided populations. This in each case may best be approached through widespread national conversation spelling out its purpose. Reconciliation will fail utterly if it is imposed; or allows free rein to corruption, militarism or if it ignores the choices of the people in valid elections.

The Republic of South Africa has one of the world’s most advanced constitutions, because after the experience of Apartheid, the people resolved to hold their democracy to the highest human standards. These aspirations are now being undermined by a political leadership that provides cover for the repression in Zimbabwe while remaining virtually silent in the face of xenophobic violence against Africans who believed in Pan Africanism.

In the USA millions of African American and Latino students are held back because too many educators implicitly believe in a Bell Curve and have low expectations of black and Latino students. We are aware of the embedded anti- people challenges imposed on African countries from outside affecting their competitiveness and ability to transform their societies. However, we recognize no Bell Curve regarding the leaders’ potential for setting examples of conduct and governance which rank among the best available.

In a few days Zimbabwe will hold a run -off election between the Zanu PF and the MDC. The first, the ruling party, has discredited itself. The challengers do not seem to be a party of Reconstruction, but it reflects popular discontent. Any thuggery and strong arm methods, arrest and harassment of opposition candidates, intimidation and other forms of bullying and repression must be seen as a deliberate attempt to once and for all disable Zimbabwe’s popular will. It will make the work of healing ten times more difficult.

* Horace Campbell is a Professor of African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University. He is the author of the well-known book, Rasta and Resistance: From Marcus Garvey to Walter Rodney. He is also the author of Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The Exhaustion of the Patriarchal Model of Liberation.

* Eusi Kwayana is the veteran Pan African activist of Guyana and the Caribbean. His most recent book, the Morning After is a call for an end to the manipulation of racial insecurity in Guyana by those who promote inter ethnic violence in the name of liberation. His other books include, No Guilty Race and Scars of Bondage.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

FAMEDEV is deeply concerned by the situation in Zimbabwe. As a result of this concern, FAMEDEV dedicated 35 minutes in their online radio to Zimbabwe and its current social, economic and political events. On this programme which was aired under our Assignment programme, they engaged John Masuku, veteran Zimbabwean broadcaster and Lucy Makaza, a renowned Zimbabwean Civil Rights Activist, on the current issues in the country.

On March 29th 2008 Zimbabweans went to the polls and changed history. For the first time since Independence in 1980, the Zanu PF party lost its majority in parliament and Robert Mugabe lost the Presidential vote. The regime immediately embarked on a campaign of violence and reprisal attacks against the civilian population. This map aims to convey some sense of the scale of the violence and it also tries to locate responsibility in relation to key perpetrator groups.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/382/48880zimfeminists.jpgThe Feminist Political Education Project (FePEP) calls upon all political leaders to stop the 27th of June 2008 Presidential election run-off.

We refer to our position as Zimbabwean feminists, articulated through our previous statements that elections will not solve the crisis that faces Zimbabwe today. We have learnt from other countries that have experienced conflict that elections, alone, do not solve political governance crises. What Zimbabwe needs, is a negotiated settlement.

We are alarmed by the escalated levels of political violence, destabilisation, displacement of people and the continued deterioration of socio-economic conditions that the Zimbabwean people, especially women are subjected to.

It is clear, that the prevailing environment in Zimbabwe completely discredits any electoral process.

We therefore call for the cessation of the Presidential elections runoff and the immediate resumption of dialogue involving all political players.

We call upon both presidential candidates to step up to their responsibilities, take up humane political leadership and commit to dialogue that leads to long lasting solutions for Zimbabwe.

All Zimbabweans have an obligation to work towards the development of lasting solutions for our country. We thus urge all leaders to support this call.

We appeal to SADC, AU leaders and the international community, to use their influence to support political dialogue that resolves the Zimbabwean conflict.

Our position as FePEP reflects and amplifies the voices of many women from across the political divide and from all parts of the country.

The Presidential elections runoff must be called off!

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Prominent African leaders from across civil society as if 12th June 2008 issued a public call for an end to violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe ahead of the presidential run-off elections at the end of the month.

In an open letter signed by former heads of state, business leaders, academics and leading campaigners, the group calls for appropriate conditions to be met so that the second round of the presidential election is conducted in a peaceful and transparent manner that allows the citizens of Zimbabwe to express freely their political will.

Civil society groups and individual citizens are invited to counter-sign the letter by clicking .

The full text of the letter says:

It is crucial for the interests of both Zimbabwe and Africa that the upcoming elections are free and fair.

Zimbabweans fought for liberation in order to be able to determine their own future. Great sacrifices were made during the liberation struggle. To live up to the aspirations of those who sacrificed, it is vital that nothing is done to deny the legitimate expression of the will of the people of Zimbabwe.

As Africans we consider the forthcoming elections to be critical. We are aware of the attention of the world. More significantly we are conscious of the huge number of Africans who want to see a stable, democratic and peaceful Zimbabwe. Consequently, we are deeply troubled by the current reports of intimidation, harassment and violence. It is vital that the appropriate conditions are created so that the Presidential run-off is conducted in a peaceful, free and fair manner. Only then can the political parties conduct their election campaigning in a way that enables the citizens to express freely their political will. In this context, we call for an end to the violence and intimidation, and the restoration of full access for humanitarian and aid agencies.

To this end it will be necessary to have an adequate number of independent electoral observers, both during the election process and to verify the results. Whatever the outcome of the election, it will be vital for all Zimbabweans to come together in a spirit of reconciliation to secure Zimbabwe's future. We further call upon African leaders at all levels - pan-African, regional and national - and their institutions to ensure the achievement of these objectives.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

To see the list of the signatories, please follow this link:

From June 8 to13 a Mission made up of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ Africa Office based in Senegal), Southern Africa Editors’ Forum (SAEF), Southern Africa Journalists Association (SAJA), the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Regional Office and the Network of African Freedom of Expression Organisations (NAFEO) visited Zimbabwe on a fact finding mission to ascertain the conditions of media and freedom of expression in Zimbabwe in the light of the arrests of journalists, both local and foreign and the deteriorating freedom of expression environment.

President Robert Mugabe has warned that veterans of Zimbabwe's 1970s liberation war are prepared to take up arms again rather than see the opposition win a June 27 election, state media said Friday. "They came to my office after the (first round of) elections and asked me: 'Can we take up arms?'," Mugabe was quoted by the Herald newspaper as telling a rally in Murehwa, to the northeast of Harare on Thursday.

Fourteen former presidents and African dignitaries including former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have called for Zimbabwean authorities to allow a free and fair vote on June 27 overseen by independent observers. Zimbabweans will go to the polls to decide the second round of a hard-fought presidential contest later this month after opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai beat incumbent Robert Mugabe in the first round in March