Zanu PF swept to victory in the March 31 Zimbabwe elections, consolidating the power of long-term president Robert Mugabe with a two-thirds majority that will enable him to change the constitution. Amidst allegations of vote-rigging and debates over the free and fair nature of the poll, Patrick Bond and David Moore explain what happened and why it matters, while at the same time spelling out the terrain for future solidarity efforts.

The official results of Zimbabwe's March 31 parliamentary elections, announced on 2 April, give the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) 78 seats, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) 41 (down from 57 seats in 2000), and 1 to an independent (Mugabe's notorious former information officer, Jonathan Moyo). What happened? Why does it matter for progressives across Africa and elsewhere?

What happened? Simply this: the urban poor and working-class were cheated. The rural poor were intimidated into supporting a government whose costs to them now far outweigh the limited benefits (for 130 000 households) of the ineffectual land redistribution strategy that began in 2000. And the regional super-power collaborated to the full.

It's easy to substantiate this conclusion. Consider the past quarter century of political repression meted out to opponents of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF. During the 1980s, an initial round of strikes and land invasions was suppressed by the new government; approximately 20,000 Matabeleland residents were killed in horrendous massacres; single women were rounded up in urban raids; students were regularly beat up when they objected to declining living standards and corruption; workers were targeted from the late 1980s when Mugabe lost control of the trade unions; and the urban poor suffered police shootings during mid/late-1990s IMF Riots.

Who was winning, then? Mainly Mugabe's cronies, a several thousand strong mini-class of high-ranking bureaucrats and business elites; but most whites too, who until farm invasions began in earnest in February 2000, lived the high life. The 4000 commercial farmers controlling the vast bulk of productive rain-fed land until 2000 benefited outlandishly from 1990s economic liberalisation. Race and class inequality worsened. World Bank and IMF policies - ably implemented by Zanu PF's ascendant neoliberal technocrats - deindustrialised the economy and savaged once-admirable social policies. Aspirants for 'indigenous bourgeois' status jumped to the queue too, based on financial speculation and military deals with the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Laurent Kabila, fighting a war against rebels, Rwandans, and Ugandans.

Who was fighting back? Grassroots efforts for change reached a new stage in February 1999 with the Working People's Convention, birthing the MDC and producing a progressive manifesto. However, funding from and alliances with white farmers and imperialists, including US state agencies, led to moderation. Mugabe quickly labeled the MDC's leader Morgan Tsvangirai, former head of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, as "Tsvangison" the "boy" serving tea to the Blair/Bush global regime.

In addition, the aftermath of a shocking February 2000 defeat of Mugabe's constitutional referendum saw a revamping of Zanu-Pf's electoral machinery. The parliamentary elections in June 2000 and March 2002's presidential contest were characterised by high levels of violence and blatant thievery. Last week's parliamentary vote saw less coercion, which necessitated more craftiness on the count..

How did they 'win' this time? A few days after the count, the MDC's Eddie Cross reported that "A message passed on to Tsvangirai from a state security agent said the MDC had in fact 'won' in 94 of the 120 seats." Whatever the genuine will of the people added up to, Mugabe ensured it was suppressed. In Pretoria, his ally South African president Thabo Mbeki ensured carefully censored 'observer teams' declared the result 'the will of the people.'

Veteran Johannesburg liberal journalist, Alistair Sparks, summarises the terrain quite accurately: "The playing field was skewed from the beginning. The constitution enabled Mugabe to handpick 30 MPs, which meant the opposition MDC needed 76 of the 120 contested seats to win a majority of one while the ruling Zanu PF needed only 71 for a two-thirds majority. Add to that the years of intimidation of opposition voters, practically no access for the opposition to the state-controlled media, the closure of the country's only independent daily newspaper, the shutting out of foreign observers and correspondents, the redrawing of constituency boundaries to eliminate several safe MDC seats and make others marginal, a hopelessly outdated voters roll which opened the way for nearly two million 'ghost' votes to be cast, and you begin to get the picture. Ghost voters aside, more than 133 000 living voters were turned away from the polls because of the defective roll. But it was the count which proved decisive - something which was also widely predicted but which the friendly observer teams appear not to have observed."

Simply, Zanu-PF captured the vote processing procedure. Zimbabwean analysts say the theft worked in 2000 and 2002 when Zanu PF counted trucked-in ballots centrally. Results were faxed to Mugabe's home, where they were altered and sent back. This time, things were more difficult because counting was done at voting stations, from where the numbers were sent to the constituency centres.

The Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network - a reputable NGO alliance with observers in 6,000 of the approximately 8,000 polling stations - pointed to the confusion late March 31. They were not certain whether or not the results were to be posted immediately on the station doors. Initially Zanu PF endorsed this approach. It changed tack later, so they could be released in aggregate from the constituency centres.

Polling agents were forced to sign affidavits swearing secrecy to station procedures. This indicates the importance of the ghost voters - the MDC claims 2.7 million - appearing on a terribly inaccurate voter's roll of 5.7 million. Says Cross, "These were manipulated and used to pad out areas where Zanu PF felt they could dominate the election campaign and control the electoral process. [Thus] the delimitation exercise was gerrymandered to further tilt the electoral process against the MDC."

The most visible manifestation of the theft was the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission's sudden halt in their announcements of aggregate voters per constituency on the night of March 31, so that the total votes cast would not conflict so baldly with the altered numbers. In some cases there was a smoking gun. In Manyame, a half-hour drive south-west of Harare, Mugabe's nephew ran. The Commission announced that 14,812 people had voted in the constituency. The next day the total was changed to 24,000, resulting in a 15,000 win for Zanu PF. There were many similar incidents, amounting to at least 200,000 extra votes.

Under these circumstances, should the MDC have played the electoral game? The party and civil society supporters knew the playing field was badly skewed and that the vote counting would be monopolised by Mugabe's agents (the shadowy Electoral Directorate - not even in the Electoral Act - is completely controlled by the military).

Last August the MDC announced a 'suspension' of participation on grounds that the minimum conditions set by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), including freedom of association, access to mass media, and a truly independent electoral commission, were not implemented. Matters improved noticeably after the MDC's January announcement that it would indeed participate. SADC guidelines were flouted systematically, but not nearly as badly as in 2000 or 2002, or subsequent parliamentary by-elections.

Some sources say Tsvangirai himself was not keen to participate, but others in the MDC prevailed. Parliamentarians with no other income wanted to stay in parliament, the trade unions wanted the MDC to contest given the failure of both elite negotiations and intermittent mass action strategies, and people in rural and urban Matabeleland saw no sense in giving their MDC seats to the other tiny opposition parties. Once Tsvangirai was cleared of a frame-up treason charge last September, he toured Africa and Europe, and pressure was undoubtedly applied there. Long-time Mugabe supporter Mbeki - who announced on March 1 that this election would be free and fair - put heavy pressure on Tsvangirai to participate.

Mbeki will continue suffering ridicule, especially as he tours the world proclaiming that the New Partnership for Africa's Development signals the continental elites' democratic commitment. Cross conceded, "What was very disappointing was the appalling lack of integrity (or simply stupidity) in the SA and the SADC observer missions. But we were told by almost everyone before this whole farce began that we were wasting our time and money - the election would be rigged (the Zanu PF cannot get off the Tiger without being eaten hypothesis) and that the African observer missions would whitewash the result. Our detractors were spot on, but it was worth the effort."

Was it? Time will tell whether the post-election despondency across much of Zimbabwe will lift. The immediate reaction of progressives we talked to was extreme frustration. SMS messages on Harare's cellphones advised people to 'defend their vote' A flying demonstration of 400 was organised in the city centre, with most people dispersing as the police arrived. MDC youth begged the leadership to foment protest, but more conservative voices in the national executive prevailed over the weekend. By mid-week, reports were emerging of Zanu PF's revenge campaigns against known MDC voters especially in rural areas.

Will there result, now, an upsurge of urban protest against both electoral and socio-economic grievances? In October 2000 a rise in basic goods' prices ignited a fire. This time, many commodities - including petrol and the staple food, maize - will likely become scarce and prices will soar. The effective South African fuel price is two and a half times as much as Zimbabwe's controlled price. As the Zimbabwe dollar devalues, the last six months' artificially-constructed economic revival based upon strategic state spending and lower interest rates will quickly degenerate.

Nevertheless, Zanu PF leaders hope that the election will convince the region to forget about Zimbabwe, that their two-thirds control of parliament will allow constitutional changes and reinforce Mugabe's rule perhaps until 2010, and that Mbeki will bring the World Bank and IMF back to the party (Mugabe has been defaulting on loans since 1999 simply because Zimbabwe ran out of foreign currency for repayment).

According to a young Bulawayo socialist, Briggs Bomba: Zanu PF "is doing everything to regain the confidence of international capital, and to re-integrate with the 'international community'. Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono is leading efforts to liberalise not just the monetary system but the whole economy and to re-engage international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank." The MDC has a faction always open to elite deal-making with Mbeki, but is not likely to persuade the masses.

If people in the cities can get evidence that rural people did not let them down, contrary to popular urban wisdom, they may see some way out of this. Mugabe's careful construction of a peasant/worker divide since the late 1990s may come apart. Even land-invading war veterans who who tried to get into Zanu PF during the party primaries, but were shunted aside in favour of the political class, are as angry as the city folks.

Wilfred Mhanda, one of the most serious of war veterans and Mugabe critics, founded the Zimbabwe Liberator's Platform. Knowing Mugabe would not 'lose,' he advocated boycotting the election and using other means of struggle. But even if winning was impossible, perhaps this election fray allowed the MDC to at least unveil the most manipulative political regime in a region full of venal state elites. Their challenge is to prove this decisively to the rest of society.

The challenge for us living elsewhere, not suffering the daily degradation associated with Mugabe's tyranny, is to offer solidarity. Here, the prior months and weeks were partially encouraging. The Congress of SA Trade Unions (COSATU) attempted several times to enter Zimbabwe to strategise with the ZCTU. Several other activist groups worked hard to raise consciousness, albeit under carefully controlled conditions. The union, however, disappointed activists - especially in the impressive community-labour Zimbabwe Social Forum - by pulling back from pre-election threats to blockade the SA-Zimbabwe border, after severe pressure from Mbeki and his officials.

And yet, a February 25 statement by South African civil society's Zimbabwe Solidarity and Consultation Forum still sees a role for Mbeki: "We say confidently that we have contributed to a much greater understanding of the crisis and challenges in Zimbabwe within our organizations and within the broader South African debate... We commend efforts made by the South African government and by SADC to foster talks between the major political forces in Zimbabwe to arrive at a negotiated road-map for a democratic transition."

More militant South Africans reject such a role, based upon Mbeki's appalling performance to date. Leftist activists in the Anti-Privatisation Forum and Jubilee movement engaged in a joint fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe in February, although colleagues from the Landless People's Movement disputed criticisms of Mugabe's messy land redistribution.

But the real solidarity action ahead may revolve around COSATU and broader civil society forces. They must shake free of Mbeki's influence and establish a strategy for longer-term support. This would more forcefully and surgically target Mugabe and his cronies, and nurture the unpredictable resurgence of Zimbabwean protests, which certainly still lie ahead.

Bond and Moore teach at University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, and, respectively, coauthored and coedited books for the university press: *Zimbabwe's Plunge: Exhausted Nationalism, Neoliberalism and the Search for Social Justice* (2003) and *Zimbabwe: Crisis and Transition* (2005):

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Available by clicking the weblink below, you can find the following
1. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights report on the elections
2. Idasa statement on the elections
3. Zimbabwe Election Support Network statement on the elections
4. Sokwanele comment: What happened on Thursday?
5. A petition for Lovemore Madhuku & Lovemore Matombo
6. Sokwanele comment: Military crackdown
7. Links to websites on Zimbabwe

Pambazuka News has received a number of responses to recent articles that we have carried about Zimbabwe. Two of these are reproduced here and below them are responses from two of the authors of recent articles.

Anti-Mugabe, pro-white supremacy
Simon Hinds, London

Why did so many liberals forge an alliance with imperialists when faced with black self-determination in Zimbabwe? Even liberal 'ownership' of human rights was a weapon of attack when black people said 'we want our land back from the descendants of white imperialists'.

According to a list of African-American groups, Zanu-PF has carried out one of the biggest land transfers in history. In the 2002 elections, most observer groups reported that the election represented the will of the people. In February, the Daily Telegraph reported that Tanzania's leader Mkapa exonerated Mugabe of blame for political violence, economic crisis and food shortages.

The Zimbabwe government finally rejected the IMF in the late Nineties after its policies caused unemployment and de-industrialisation. It finally succumbed to pressure for land reform. When regional governments decided militarily intervention was necessary in Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe alongside other countries went in. In areas held by Western-backed armies, diamonds were grabbed and hundreds of thousands were killed.

There was a clear neo-colonial response to this that included funding the Movement for Democratic Change and other opposition groups. The Commonwealth split on Zimbabwe along racial lines, when African regional states rejected the Western demonisation, when Mugabe was hailed as a hero by black South Africans. Amara Essy, secretary-general of the African Union, formerly the Organisation of African Unity, endorsed Mugabe's initial rejection of foreign election observer teams, and the Union has endorsed the recent elections. Yet still, liberals sided with neo-colonialists.

What was liberal opinion? New York Times opinion page editor Anthony Lewis in 5 May 2001, summed it up. He stated: 'The title of worst government on Earth, the most brutal, destructive, lawless...can probably be claimed by Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe'. But this ridiculous exaggeration was echoed by The Guardian, The Independent, Amnesty International and other liberal organizations.

Black people were susceptible to this propaganda, but not entirely. In 2003, the UK black newspaper, The Voice reported that 40 per cent of the black people they questioned regarded Mugabe as a dictator. Yet, 30 per cent regarded him as a strong leader. The majority thought Western interest in Zimbabwe was motivated by racism.

Not all liberal organizations signed up for racist propaganda. On the media web site, Spiked, Barrie Collins, a researcher in African international relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, wrote:

"Since the end of the Cold War, the USA and the UK have got used to a high degree of compliance on the part of African governments - and they are no longer prepared to tolerate those that insist doing things their own way… It is Western meddling in Zimbabwe that is undermining the accountability of the government to its electorate, since it has forced the contestants to respond to an external agenda. This is a far bigger threat to democracy than any of Zanu-PF's bullying tactics." (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D428.htm)

Pressure for land reform in other parts of southern Africa will occur. Will liberals continue to support white supremacy? Around the world, black people have worked with white liberals. Perhaps, black Africans can no longer afford to do this uncritically.

Mugabe, the social justice champ
Kuthula Matshazi, Canada

What kind of social justice do you advocate for in Africa when you denigrate the very man who wants to achieve social justice for the Black people through the land reform? Now are you going to tell us that the election was rigged? Are you sure that you not trying to confuse African people - and the world opinion indeed - that you are neo-colonialists in the making of missionaries of the 18th century colonisation?

MARY NDLOVU replies: Mugabe is a very shrewd and clever man, and it is sad that he has been able to dupe well-intentioned people into thinking that because he is black and because he has undertaken a large land transfer everyone that criticises him is a white racist. Perhaps it is easy for those who have run away from Zimbabwe to Canada or are sitting in London to theorise about the great revolution for social justice that has taken place. In Zimbabwe, one has to face the hard realities. Seizing land from productive farmers to correct an historical injustice may seem just to some. But it does not constitute a successful social revolution unless it is used to redistribute productive capacity to the dispossessed. While some disadvantaged individuals have received land and been able to farm it productively, the vast majority of recipients have been civil servants, members of the armed forces and ZANU PF hacks with other jobs; the award of land has been a means to reward party loyalists and compromise and silence potential critics. The effect of the transfers and the violence which accompanied it has been the complete collapse of commercial agricultural production, the disappearance of tourists, the decline of manufacturing, the disintegration of public services, the spread of hunger and starvation and the impoverishment of all Zimbabweans except the few. These few have established themselves as an exceedingly corrupt parasite class which produces nothing, but lives, through state revenues, off the taxes of the small minority who do work. Hardly the redistribution of wealth and the advent of justice about which so many of us dream.

Surely Zimbabweans would have to be the stupidest people on earth to choose to support a government which turns a once thriving society into chaos and desperation. Even those who received land have voted in large numbers for the MDC, because they are unable to use their land, and only hold it at the pleasure of the local ZANU PF bosses. Why should I vote for someone who is responsible for my unemployment, for my inability to access health care or my children’s education, and promises to get rid of Blair who I have never seen and never heard of and restore something called sovereignty which I cannot eat? Why can some people not accept that when African governments fail to deliver what the people want, opposition parties will gain the support of the people? Yes, most certainly the election was grandly rigged, and the facts and figures are now emerging to prove it.

The fact that Southern African regional governments choose to ignore the agony of ordinary Zimbabweans and endorse failed policies and gross human rights abuses does not mean that it is only whites who condemn elections which are not free and fair, or take a stand against injustice. It was President Obasanjo of Nigeria who blocked Zimbabwe’s return to full membership of the Commonwealth, and the African Union in January 2005 adopted the report of its own African Commission on Human and People’s Rights which roundly condemned human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. This gives us hope that before too long we may be able to move beyond black and white lenses and see reality in its full range of colours. Then we should be in a position to build democracy and create social justice simultaneously.

STEVE KIBBLE responds: Is it really so difficult to move beyond the simple binaries of black/white, imperialist/ anti-colonialist, (neo)liberal/ revolutionary nationalist etc? My article was precisely an attempt to situate the fight for social justice beyond these confining modes of thought into a genuine people-based politics. Furthermore it was based on a genuine solidarity between North and South, expressing the views of those in Zimbabwe who have consistently opposed the structural adjustment programmes instituted by ZANU-PF in the 1990s, the turn to authoritarian nationalism from 2000 as well as the ‘shock and awe’; of a resurgent US seeking to impose its view on the rest of the world. The sad aspect is not only that certain ‘anti-imperialists’ do not recognise this, but how similar authoritarian nationalism and neo-liberalism are in their stunted view of the world, their resort to demonisation, and their lack of engagement with the lives of people as actually lived on this planet.

What are the sources of 700,000 dead in AIDS yearly in Zimbabwe? I´m referring to article by N. Reynolds (Pambazuka News 200, Letters)

Norman Reynolds responds: The death figure is correct for that year. It comes from an MDC paper written by Eddie Cross in July 2002. He, in fact, predicted that in 2003 one million would die of AIDS given the sharp turn down of the economy, hunger and the already high infection rate. Of these, 750,000 deaths were easily prevented in a normal country. The background data is that, from 1984 to 2001, one million Zimbabweans died from Aids. Since the collapse of the economy, 2001 to 2004, the rate was 170,000 rising sharply each year with poverty and the growing lack of or inability to buy food to around 700,000. That has added another 1.5 million to the total deaths from AIDS. This rising number is awful but has been held back by migration.

Zimbabwean prosecutors have refused to release two British journalists, using special powers to override a magistrate's order granting them bail. At a 4 April 2005 hearing, Magistrate Never Diza had set bail of one million Zimbabwe dollars (approx. US$165) each for Toby Harnden, chief foreign correspondent for the "Sunday Telegraph", and his photographer colleague Julian Simmonds. Harnden and Simmonds were arrested in Norton, 40 km outside Harare, on 31 March, the day Zimbabwe held parliamentary elections. The pair were charged with covering the election without state accreditation, as required under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).

The African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) will hear an application against the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) at its 37th Ordinary Session in Gambia next month. The session runs from April 27 to May 11. Applicants in the case are the Independent Journalists Association of Zimbabwe (IJAZ), Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), and the Zimbabwe chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) while the respondent is cited as the Republic of Zimbabwe.

An estimated 70,000 illegal abortions take place in Zimbabwe every year, says a new report by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN agency called for a national education drive to raise awareness of sexual and reproductive health.

Fourteen African countries have abandoned planned negotiations for a new trade partnership with the European Union (EU). The move has effectively left Kenya and Zimbabwe to negotiate for the controversy-ridden Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAS). "The countries, all regarded as very poor and heavily indebted, have been unwilling to negotiate because they enjoy preferential treatment under 'everything but arms' clause' said Bernard Kagira, a trade consultant with the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Zimbabweans are at the polls. Millions are hoping that Thursday 31 March will go down in history as a day when the will of the people is truly heard, where the voice of change is heard loud and clear. Indications in the run up to the elections indicate that it might not be so simple, with numerous factors contributing towards a situation where the polls are far from free and fair. Below is a summary of some of the events over the last seven days.

Thursday, 24 March

Allegations from civil society and the opposition are that the elections will not be free and fair and that Southern Africa Development Community guidelines on democratic elections have not been followed.

On this day, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) says it is not happy with the slow accreditation of election monitors from civil society organisations.

Opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) spokesman Paul Themba-Nyathi expresses worry at the higher amount of polling stations in ZANU-PF rural strongholds.

The Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe reports that SW Radio broadcasts are still being deliberately jammed. The MMPZ reports that news coverage of the parties' campaigns continued to favour ZANU PF. For example, of 120 stories ZBH carried on campaigns, 99 (83%) were on ZANU- PF and 19 (16%) were on the MDC.

But Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa says elections are on track.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=4629
http://www.mmpz.org.zw

Friday, 25 March

The National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO) issues a statement saying there have been reports of increased surveillance of NGOs by people believed to be state agents and warns NGOs to improve their security awareness and take measures to minimise their exposure to being isolated and subjected to danger.

Robert Mugabe targets former king of spin Jonathan Moyo, one time ZANU-PF darling relegated to standing as an independent candidate after being kicked out of the party, by accusing him of plotting a military coup. Moyo, Mugabe claims, broke down and cried when confronted with the allegations.

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/mar25b_2005.html#link8

Saturday, 26 March

Subtle intimidation and a history of brutality would prevent the elections from being free and fair, even though the run-up to the polls had been the most peaceful in years, says the MDC's Morgan Tsvangirai.

News reports allege that food is being used as a political weapon. The UKs independent newspaper alleges that four million people are starving in Zimbabwe and that opponents of Robert Mugabe are being turned away from emergency food rations.

Sunday, 27 March

Civil society network Sokwanele announces the launch of a specialist blog (http://www.sokwanele.com/blog/blog.html). The bloggers are based all around Zimbabwe and come from all walks of life. They will share their feelings on life in Zimbabwe in the run-up to Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections.

The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition launches an election information centre. The purpose of the centre is to provide information on the election, monitoring the electoral process through documentation and regular visits to polling stations. For further information please get in touch on the following numbers: 091 288 605, 091 907 235, 011 612 860, 011 603 439, 011 755 600, 091 956 570, 091 266 430, 011 862 269, 011 862 804, 04 793 263

Meanwhile, Roy Bennett, who holds a seat in parliament but is serving a one year jail sentence for shoving the justice minister during a parliamentary debate, receives a boost when the electoral commission reverses a previous decision that banned him from running in the elections. Bennett's wife, Heather, will run for the elections in her husband's place.

Morgan Tsvangirai tells 25 000 supporters that he will jail Mugabe's inner circle.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=qw1111823821…
http://www.iol.co.zaindex.phpset_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=vn200503261035… http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=qw1111928760…

Monday, 28 March

Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Reverend Pius Ncube, enters the election fray by saying that the elections will not be free and fair and calling for a peaceful popular mass uprising against Robert Mugabe's government.

The MMPZ in its daily report says the Herald newspaper is continuing its partisan coverage of political parties' campaigns by reporting only on ZANU PF activities while ignoring those of the main opposition MDC, smaller opposition parties and independent candidates. "This resulted in the paper even ignoring a major MDC rally held at the Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfield, whose attendance many observers estimated at around 20,000," said the MMPZ.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=624261
http://www.mmpz.org.zw

Tuesday, 29 March

Mugabe hits back at Ncube, calling him a "halfwit". Mugabe said: "I don't know to which God he prays. His prayers are not as pious as his name suggests apparently. He is ... a halfwit. I don't know why the Vatican tolerates prayers of that nature."

Sokwanele (http://www.sokwanele.com) issues an edition of its regular 'Mauritius Watch' newsletter, concluding that "the elections are deeply flawed, in no way satisfy the SADC principles and guidelines, and cannot possibly be considered free and fair. The conclusion is based on systematic documentation of election violations according to the SADC adoption of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections in Mauritius on 17 August 2004.

Zvakwane (www.zvakwana.org) issues the latest edition of its highly-acclaimed activist newsletter, advocating for peaceful change in Zimbabwe.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=624462

Wednesday, 30 March

The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum issues its political violence report for the month of January, saying that the month saw a number of assaults on people who were exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. "The Human Rights Forum is deeply concerned that the trend to violate the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly, especially as the Parliamentary elections approach, will lead to the violation of the right to participate freely in the governance of one's country as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21." Contact [email protected] for the full report.

Robert Mugabe dismisses the MDC as a British 'puppy' and expresses confidence that ZANU-PF will not only win the election, but increase its majority.

Complaints from the MDC about up to one million 'ghost voters' resurface, but the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission denies that the voters roll is flawed.

Old tensions over election monitoring teams –teams have in some cases been granted or denied accreditation according to their political affiliations - also come to the fore as the African National Congress (ANC) dominated South African team tells an opposition Democratic Alliance member of the team not to speak his mind.

www.kubatana.net, the homepage of the Zimbabwe NGO Network Alliance Project, updates its website with useful information about the polls and links to further news and information. Over the next few days www.kubatana.net will have photographs of the elections as well as election results and breaking news.

The Zimbabwe NGO Human Rights Forum issues a pre-election report saying that notwithstanding the reduction in violence, the current electoral conditions fall well short of the regional standards for elections introduced by the "SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections" adopted in Mauritius in 2004. Write to [email protected] for a copy of the report. Sokwanele also issues a summary of its Mauritius Watch newsletter.

http:/www.iol.co.zaindex.phpset_id=1&click_idh&art_id=vn20050330064037852C398… http://www.iol.co.zaindex.phpset_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=vn200503300802… http://www.iol.co.zaindex.phpset_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn200503300644…

The latest reports from Zimbabwe indicate a strong turn out on voting day. The MDC reported that one of its candidates in a southern Matabeleland stronghold had disappeared after an attack by ZANU-PF members. Results are expected within the next two days.

* Compiled by Pambazuka News.

Zimbabwe's elections pose serious challenges for Africa's media, faced with reporting a story which splits African public and political opinion in a country with a history of media repression. Media analysts say many African media companies will simply not have the cash to send teams to cover the March 31 parliamentary polls, while others may not get accreditation under the government's strict media laws.

I have enjoyed reading the Zimbabwe issue of Pambazuka. Below, you will find a short paper that I dashed off on Mugabe which is up on my blogsite. (Readers can visit for this article)

South Africa deports between 600 and 6 000 Zimbabweans every week from a repatriation centre aptly called Lindela - which means "wait here" in Zulu and Xhosa - a sprawling compound of dormitories and other buildings tucked behind high walls in a field outside Krugersdorp. And President Mbeki's government openly admits that it is fighting a losing battle against the influx of Zimbabweans fleeing poverty and repression in their homeland, with many deportees returning to South Africa within weeks.

Thank you for your work. Congratulations especially for sharing the most recent pieces on Zimbabwe. They make us think, not just react ideologically. Congratulations to the writers and also to those who make Pambazuka News possible.

We must work harder still. We are slowly getting to the proper framework, one which encompasses all the rupture points from 1492. It is not only in Zimbabwe that people are trying to think and practice emancipatory politics. It has been done from as far back as 1492, not only in Africa, but in all the parts of the world which came under conquest in the name of THE system. When the slaves in Haiti said enough is enough, they kept at it from 1791 through 1804, without human rights organizations, with only their conviction that slavery was inhuman. What sustained them is that conviction: fidelity to humanity. Can one revive that connection? Why not? Why should all African peoples stand by and allow the next summit of the francophone take place in Port Au Prince in solidarity with the current regime in place.

Is it possible to stand up and say NO. Is it possible, today, to practice what the slaves did back then: fidelity to humanity. If Africa has been accepted, the cradle of humanity, then, it seems to me, one should do everything one can do to make sure that it does not become part and parcel of turning the Planet into a grave. How? It is a challenge for us all.

I would like to thank you for publishing our statements and background about Breaking The Wall of Silence. I am sure that you add value and have expanded our hand of information disemination throughout africa and the world. BWS will continue to inform and will send articles as they come to Pambazuka News. Thank you.

As for the Zimbabwean crisis, which is not Zimbabweas' alone but affects us all, I wouldnt agree more with Mary (Ndlovu) on her analysis of what Zimbabwe may look like after the elections. My take on Zimbabwe is that our leadership in SADC and in Africa has failed Zimbabwe. Our leaders seemingly have no intention to live up to the standards they set for themselves. Unfortunately there are no mechanisms in place to hold the misbehaving governments accountable.

Time is up for SADC and African leadership, there will be no rescue mission from our leaders for Zimbabwe. It is also evident that Zimbabweans alone cannot help themselves out of the misery. It is a challenge for citizens of Africa to help their brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe. To give them refuge in my opinion is not enough, Zimbabweans have to live in their country and deserve a better life. Solidarity alone is not enough, civil society has a role to play and I appreciate the efforts thus far. We need to encourage our governments to talk to President Mugabe, we need to confront our governments on their role and position on the Zimbabwe crisis. We need to protest visits of the Zimbabwean government to our countries, we cannot receive Mugabe on a red carpet and claim to be in solidarity with Zimbabweans. Thank you.

We, the undersigned, wish to express to you our grave concern about the continuing abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. We are asking all members of the African Union (AU) to call publicly on the Government of Zimbabwe to implement in full the recommendations made by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in the report of its 2002 Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe.

The African Commission Fact-Finding Mission visited Zimbabwe in June 2002 and the AU adopted the Commission's findings and recommendations in January 2005. The Fact-Finding Mission took place in the context of Zimbabwe's obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, to which it is party. In its report, the African Commission concluded that "human rights violations occurred in Zimbabwe". The Commission made several substantive recommendations for action by the Government of Zimbabwe. The majority of the human rights concerns documented by the African Commission Fact-Finding Mission in 2002 remain serious problems today.

Zimbabwe’s recent history has fascinated the pundits, academics and analysts who study the stunted development of democracy in a post-liberation state. On the ground it has not been so engaging, as one round of voting after another comes and goes, and every aspect of life – economic, political, moral, social, even spiritual – loses quality.

Democratic elections are supposed to give a nation an opportunity to reflect and choose – to continue with the current policies and leadership or to give others a chance. When an economy falters and people’s lives become more difficult, sitting governments normally pay the price, whether or not they are responsible for the problems. But in Zimbabwe, when a government wilfully destroys an entire economy, and leads the whole nation into catastrophic collapse, misery and even starvation, elections have failed to provide opportunities to punish those responsible by removing them from power. As far as their democratic role is concerned – to hold governments responsible and bring them to account – elections have been exercises in futility. Will the 2005 Parliamentary elections be any different?

In February 2000, ZANU PF discovered, in a rare moment of truth, that they were unpopular enough to be defeated at the polls, in spite of all the advantages they had in controlling most of the media, the electoral machinery and all the state security apparatus. They immediately began the process of ensuring that no matter what the people wanted, never again would ZANU PF lose a vote. The electoral process would be turned into a stage-managed spectacle.

Within a few weeks of their unexpected defeat, ZANU PF had begun to put in place a new strategy. They pulled out their trump card of land seizures, accompanied by violence and intimidation. They added to it a manipulation of the electoral process which went just far enough to secure them a continued lien on state power. However, the legitimacy of the process was already under question. The legal challenges mounted against the results were never allowed to reach their conclusion, but the evidence is convincing that the declared results of the June 2000 parliamentary elections did not reflect the people’s will.

By 2002 when Presidential elections were held, ZANU PF had added more weapons to their arsenal: subversion of an independent judiciary, strangulation of the media and the withdrawal of civil liberties. With these essential underpinnings of any democracy gone, it is hardly surprising that the “democratic” elections produced a result similar to that in 2000: a disputed outcome, condemned by most of the observers who had not pre-judged it, but with ZANU PF remaining in control. Since then, they have perfected their manipulation to such an extent that they are now not afraid to reduce the level of overt violence and claim to the world that they have put in place a fair system. But the proof is in the guest list – only those who are friends of ZANU PF and gave previously disputed elections a clean bill of health will be allowed to observe in 2005.

Faced with this clearly biased situation, the opposition MDC appealed to the international community to save themselves and Zimbabwe from another charade. Europe and North America had already condemned the electoral process as fatally flawed and had begun to withhold aid; Zimbabwe had quit the Commonwealth when her suspension was upheld. What remained was Africa, and specifically the Southern African regional grouping of SADC, where all eyes fell on President Mbeki to offer a solution. In 2004, the SADC nations signed a Protocol which set election standards for the members, holding out a promise that the region might indeed insist on fair elections in Zimbabwe. Doubting Mugabe’s commitment, the MDC suspended participation in any elections until ZANU PF adhered to these standards. ZANU PF felt obligated to make a few changes – some meaningful and others quite prejudicial, and the debate raged about whether or not the SADC standards were being met. Mugabe obviously believes he will be able to get away with cosmetic changes, reducing the overt violence while keeping the essential mechanics of control in place.

The MDC recognised the uneven playing field when they suspended their participation in elections last August. The pressures on ZANU PF which they hoped to provoke did not materialise. The new electoral legislation is worse than what went before. Overt violence has decreased, but is no longer needed as the intimidation remains. So why is the MDC contesting? Have they learned nothing in the past five years? Don’t they know that ZANU PF will not give up power through the ballot? Haven’t they understood that the international community will not save them from a faulty election?

It was a difficult decision. International players, friendly and otherwise, put on the pressure to contest. The majority within the party structures wanted to contest, so how could a democratic party do otherwise than fulfil the wishes of the membership? Underlying the decision to participate was a deeper reality: MDC was formed as a political party with a mandate to remove ZANU PF through elections. Not to contest would have implied they had another plan, which they didn’t, and would have almost certainly led to a split in the party. Tsvangirai’s “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” is true in many senses – suicide or murder – which would you choose?

Until a few weeks ago, with Mbeki insisting that the role of SADC was to help Zimbabwe produce a fair election, there was still a hope that he pressurise President Mugabe to postpone the election until an independent electoral machinery could be put in place, the voters roll up dated, and repressive legislation repealed. But no positive steps were taken. In the final weeks before the election, Mbeki exposed his commitment to Mugabe by announcing that he saw no reason why the election should not be free and fair. Then President Mwanawasa of Zambia said he would never intervene in Zimbabwe.

The observer factor turned into something of a circus as ZANU PF changed the rules at will, making up excuses why they shouldn’t invite anyone who disagreed with them, excluding the SADC Parliamentary Forum, EISA, and even shortening the visas of individual members of South African delegations. As the observers arrive it has become even worse: the head of the South African Government delegation announced on arrival that the election would be free and fair. MDC then refused to talk to them and said they would deal with the ANC delegation only. Some opposition members of the South African Parliamentary delegation have already left for home. It appears that the lion has gobbled up his tamer, but the show goes on, a complete farce, with no credibility whatsoever. Too bad about the lion tamer. But has anyone noticed?

Zimbabwe and the whole region desperately need a resolution of the current multi-faceted crisis. But since it is essentially one of legitimacy, the election must produce a result which is accepted as genuine by the Zimbabwean people, the region and the international community as a whole. The chance for this has now been pre-empted by ZANU PF’s tightening rather than loosening of undemocratic controls, and the region’s apparent endorsements. What is the likely outcome?

ZANU PF has very little to offer Zimbabweans which would attract voters. In the five years since the last Parliamentary election, the country has lurched from one disaster to another; even the President has admitted that the land redistribution has largely failed, and the country can no longer feed itself; agricultural exports have collapsed, industry has shrunk, mining is under threat, and the human development index has dropped below what it was in 1975.

Just how all these problems will end if we vote “against Blair” is not revealed. A frenzy of election teasers has been showered on the doubtful – huge salary increases for civil servants, vehicles and electricity for chiefs, pensions for pre-independence ex-detainees previously ignored, fiats from on high prohibiting price increases on critical commodities. But few are fooled. Elections are Christmases in Zimbabwe; Father Christmas visits with his bag of goodies and then retreats to the North Pole to play with his elves. Why should Zimbabweans be any different from people around the world, who recognize when their governments have failed and show them the door? It is clear that, given a free choice, Zimbabweans would not wish to continue with leaders who appropriate to themselves the little remaining wealth and resources and ruthlessly crush those who would dare to complain.

There will of course be some who willingly vote for ZANU PF. Those who benefit from the plunder; those whose crimes are ignored by a police and judiciary partial to the ruling party; those whose lives have been intertwined with a political party of liberation, and like their leader, do not wish to face the reality that the past is history; the misguided who have fallen for the propaganda bait; and most significantly those who are afraid, who want to ensure a food supply, who do not want the “trouble” which would ensue if their communities were to be seen to be voting against a powerful establishment.

But there is disunity within the party. In previous elections, when disputes rocked the ruling party, they papered over the cracks and pulled together against a common enemy. But can the spectacular eruption which blew apart the party congress in December be overcome? Will the losers in the succession stakes be content to bide their time, and support the winners through the election? Is Jonathan Moyo now an irrelevant maverick, or do he and ZANU PF still have a hidden agenda? Observers have been surprised by the lack of energy in the ZANU PF campaign, the uninspiring campaign materials. Is it possible that the open rift has affected their capacity? Or is there a lack of funds, with known funders expelled, bankers on the run and enormous amounts of money required to pay reluctant campaigners?

The MDC, on the other hand, seems confident. ZANU PF’s desire to make this seem like a fair campaign means that the violence is reduced, and it has been necessary to allow opposition campaign meetings. Violence and fear are still factors, of course, especially in Mashonaland, with many already targeted while others are threatened; but meetings are being held, some of them huge. The mood is exuberant, joyous, relaxed, in contrast to ZANU PF’s threatening diatribes addressed to obviously bemused school children and resentful adults.

Given the decision to participate, what has MDC to offer the electorate? They promise to free the country from the oppressive rule of ZANU PF, restore the rule of law, rebuild the economy, provide jobs, make agriculture productive again, make primary education free and health care available. Some MDC operatives are convinced that in spite of the tilted playing field, there is such disaffection in the country that they can still win the election. They are right about the disaffection - the people are seething with anger - but whether they can translate that into MDC ballots in the box is another question. Already many hundreds of thousands, especially of young people, have not bothered to register as voters. Many of the most committed party activists from 2000 and 2002 are no longer around, having fled from violence or simply concluded that Zimbabwe is not a good place to make a life any more. Some are disgruntled over the results of primary elections, and there is a lack of money for campaigning. Yet, in spite of the bleak realities, the mood is up-beat, optimistic, reinforced daily as reports of successful rallies and ZANU PF defections flood in from rural areas. Many of the rank and file are euphoric, convinced that this time they will march to victory.

But the number of people who actually vote for ZANU PF is only part of the equation. Can MDC win the count as well as the vote? As members of MDC become aware that a solitary election agent in each polling station will bear the responsibility for ensuring that no cheating takes place, they are realising how unreliable the process is, even if they do manage to attract a huge majority of the voters. Transforming a majority of ballots in the boxes into counted and recorded opposition votes is another challenge altogether. Even the official monitor whose task is to ensure that procedures are followed fairly, will be government appointed. And the foreign observers upon whom some were counting, will all be friends of ZANU PF. The faulty voters roll, and the manipulation of the voting process as well as the counting should provide success for the ZANU PF plan.
.
But there are other imponderables. The rigging depends on compliant electoral officials. To make sure that a discontented civil service does not upset the plan, the new Electoral Act provides for uniformed and non-uniformed services to man the polling stations and the entire electoral machinery. Uniformed personnel act under orders, and we have ample sworn testimony from previous elections that even when voting they were instructed to display their votes for ZANU PF. Can the party rely on these soldiers to do the job? Just in case they can’t, the brainwashed, mbanje-smoking National Youth Service, otherwise known as militia or green bombers have also been drafted in. While this time it will be more difficult to stuff ballot boxes or replace genuine boxes with fake ones, the system still allows ample opportunity for falsification of results by those who are so inclined.

What is the likely scenario? The election is held. Most people vote for MDC. The results are announced declaring a win for ZANU PF – with an increased majority. It will not be exactly a replay of 2000 or 2002, because this time there will probably be protests. Civic groups and some MDC members mount street demonstrations. Militia backed up by riot police and soldiers break them up, with casualties. Many are arrested. It’s over. After a week or two, compromised observer groups make mild criticisms of some aspects of the election, but endorse the result and call for restraint on all sides. ZANU PF is still in power; we have expended enormous amounts of time, energy and money, and we have achieved nothing.

Civil society organisations in South Africa and elsewhere will protest, but in the short term they are not likely to have a decisive effect. What will be the future of a government with a lukewarm endorsement from its friendly neighbours and the cold shoulder from much of the rest of the world? The economic problems, unemployment, collapsed services, will still be there, shouting for attention. Instead of economic recovery; government will move more rapidly towards a completely controlled, command economy. “New farmers” who have no title to their land may be instructed what to grow, will have prices fixed by the state and inputs erratically and preferentially supplied. War veterans, now joined by ex-detainees, will remain a huge drain on the economy, drawing a pension larger than the majority of those who work for a living. With a government considered illegitimate by most of those who have the means to invest, and policies becoming ever more irrational, the government will not attract investment from anywhere. Inflation will take off again due to the effects of stalled production and massive borrowing to finance expenditure.

Suggestions that at that point both ZANU PF and MDC will be persuaded to “talk” are surely misplaced. Why would ZANU PF want to talk in 2005 when they have not been willing to talk for the past three years? They have shown no sign whatsoever that they understand or care about the dire situation of the majority of Zimbabweans. Repression against civil society groups is more likely to be intensified. As the succession battle resumes, ZANU PF itself may continue with further infighting, which could even involve different factions of the army. The suggestion of a peaceful transition to a new-look ZANU PF which will restore the economy is surely fanciful, and any such government would have to eventually face the electorate, no more willing to hand over the reins of power than the present leadership is. The future looks bleak and dangerous.

But could it be different? Could street protests be strong enough to face down the police of army? Not likely. Could an MDC win actually be announced? Possibly. It will depend on the effectiveness of the rigging, the competence of the MDC election agents, and the commitment of ZANU PF to announce a win at all costs, whatever the results reported. Here’s another scenario: As the counting proceeds, and some results are announced, it becomes clear that ZANU PF has lost; a delay might occur as they argue about what to do. In the meantime, the people begin to demand a genuine result. MDC announces their own count, which gives them a win. Government calls in the army and riot police, dispersing any groups which have gathered. Arrests are made, and we arrive at the same point at which we reached in the first scenario, but this time no official results have yet been announced; government quickly announces their victory, observers dilly dally and the repression begins. Would regional governments then act? Why should they? If they weren’t prepared to talk tough up to now, why should they in 2005?

Then we could look at another scenario, less likely perhaps, but in some views not impossible. As results are announced, MDC seats tally more than last time, reaching 65, or even an outright majority. This would certainly expose ZANU PF’s legitimacy and Robert Mugabe’s right to rule as President; but the constitution gives him the Presidency until 2008, no matter what happens in Parliament. Unless MDC wins 75 seats, he will still have a majority in Parliament by virtue of his right to appoint 20 MPs outright, and the chiefs’ right to elect 10, generally government supporters. He can appoint a Cabinet from among the ZANU PF members of Parliament. But if MDC has 75 seats, the ability to pass legislation would be strangled; this might lead him to dissolve Parliament and try for another more congenial result. Gaining less than half of the elected seats in a clearly flawed poll would put ZANU PF’s mandate to govern in serious question, even for friendly neighbouring governments. ZANU PF would doubtless attempt to soldier on, perhaps literally, with support from the army, but would it finally turn Mbeki’s loyalty? Not likely, unless South African civil society continued to pressurise effectively, and desperate Zimbabweans poured in ever greater numbers across the borders.

We cannot today see through the dark glass; what Zimbabwe will look like even one month from now cannot be known by anyone. But several issues have become clear:

- The people of Zimbabwe are palpably angry and unwilling to tolerate ZANU PF’s continued rule.

- Their ability to translate their wishes into a valid election result are seriously hampered by the prejudicial electoral legislation and machinery, but they have found no alternative course.

- If ZANU PF seizes another victory against the will of Zimbabweans, disaster in many forms lies ahead, including total economic collapse and possibly even civil conflict or war, with dire consequences for the region.

- SADC governments’ unwillingness to insist on the electoral standards they themselves agreed in Mauritius appears to signal that they are not prepared to implement them for their own countries either.

- Democrats in the whole region should now be awake to the reality that whether Independence or the end of apartheid was won through armed struggle or otherwise, governments cannot be trusted with the task of defending democracy, in their own countries or anywhere else.

- Whatever occurs in Zimbabwe in the next few weeks, there is a long road ahead for the building of democracy in Southern Africa, from the bottom up, with much struggle to claim rights against the autocratic tendencies of all the governments and ruling parties of the region.

“March 31st, Freedom Day” shout the enthusiasts of the MDC. Even in the unlikely event that they celebrate on April 1, the lesson for the whole region should be clear: freedom and democracy remain the first item on the agenda for the next generation. The struggle continues.

* Mary Ndlovu is a Zimbabwean human rights activist.

* Please send comments to

* Previous editorials from Mary Ndlovu in Pambazuka News:
- Zimbabwe in March 2004: Four years from the beginning of the plunge

105
- March, Zimbabwe’s month of destiny: Pambazuka News 55, 2002

- Amnesty International report on the run-up to elections
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/zimbabwe0305/
- Essential news and events on the elections from Kubatana
www.kubatana.net
- No solution to the Zimbabwe crisis by Brian Raftopoulos
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/news/2005/March/Friday18/1892.html
- Pre-election analysis from the South African Institute of
International Affairs (SAIIA)
http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001143/index.php
- Labour and union issues in the Zimbabwean agriculture sector
http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001159/index.php
- Zvakwana - Enough is Enough: A must visit website for activists
http://www.zvakwana.org/
- Report by social movement observer delegation to Zimbabwe

- Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe, according to Chris Alden, faces multiple crises - legitimacy as the postcolonial consensus crumbles, expectations stemming from the failure of the economy and polity, and confidence in the impartiality of the institutions of the state. All of these aspects can be seen as a crisis of security. The state is increasingly repressive as it is centralised but undermined to defend the elite and its clients/ supporters simultaneously. Many see this as illogical, but it marks the ultimate if narrow realpolitik form of security where the state re-defines itself as the only element of society that needs security. It parallels the transition of the state from settler forms to the immediate (and popular) post colonial nationalist path to the incorporation of neo-patrimonial elements as an emerging economic and power bloc uses naked power as its only form of survival.

Traditionally the idea of ‘security’ has been associated with the national state, agreements between different militaries and different politicians - and it has been a male arena. What are the implications for security and identity when weak nation states are increasingly unable to make policy as power shifts to global social formations and policy is formulated through global networks and markets led by transnational corporations, multilateral financial and trading institutions, and (to some extent the ‘Aid’ and NGO community) rather than territorially-based states?

Whilst there have been sometimes successful resistance and democratisation struggles within southern Africa, this has been halting and liable to reversal. Often it has been formalistic with little empowerment of the population. Recent resistance has arisen to stabilisation programmes in which Southern regimes under pressure from Northern financial institutions and growing balance of payments constraints introduced policies abandoning service provider functions that led to breakdown of social services. Priorities moved from fulfilling popular demands to the removal of market barriers. The upshot of states losing their distributive capacity means state-society relations become highly confrontational. ‘Good governance’ breaks down under the effects of neo-liberalism leading to the disappearance of consensus, political centralisation, peripheralisation of certain groups and generalised repression.

One form of resistance is regionalisation. It is however, contradictory, as both part of and a reaction to globalisation. As the Cold War world system of two antagonistic blocs ended, security has certainly become regionalised. Economically this is reflected by TNCs dominating regional economies as the new basis of international relations.

The President of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Committee (linking 480 NGOs), Brian Raftopoulos, sees the fight for democracy as part of the struggle for an alternative political dispensation in Africa between two uninviting positions. ‘On the one hand there is a global superpower, espousing liberal democratic values, but policing an economic agenda producing widespread global impoverishment; on the other hand this system of global inequalities is breeding an authoritarian nationalism in countries like Zimbabwe, that demands uncritical solidarity, and in which there is no place for national state accountability. Solidarity seems to mean little more than a defensive reaction to broader geo-political concerns. While it may provide some short- term solace to regimes facing a national crisis of legitimacy, it is a grossly inadequate basis for imagining alternative futures. The real need to build up co-ordinated African positions on global inequalities has also to be based on the democratic accountability of African nation states themselves’.

There are other relevant polarities. There is a gap in perception between how Northerners/Westerners perceive their own models and practice of development, human rights etc and how others in the world perceive it - one might call this a subset of perceptions of globalisation. Western oil and strategic interests find greater stability in backing corrupt and oligarchic regimes, than in pursuing human rights. This gap is probably most advanced in the Muslim/ Arab world and has ready-made foci in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute - and now the Iraq post-conflict impacts on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. But it provides anywhere a breeding ground for the authoritarian nationalism alluded to by Raftopoulos.

Other polarities include: a polarity of 'recent history versus recent amnesia'. For many Zimbabweans alive today, the colonial and settler periods are very much part of their life experience and the forcible conquest of their lands is only three generations back - very recent in most understandings of history. By contrast, most British and other European peoples have only a sketchy idea of what went on under colonial rule and its implications today in terms of 'failed' or collapsing states, skewed and inappropriate economies and state structures, manipulation of ethnic identities and authoritarian nationalism.

Within the structures of colonialism there is/was a specific intensity amongst regions/ areas/ countries that involuntarily received large numbers of settlers, especially when combined with systems of land expropriation, racial domination and imposed division - apartheid being the supreme example. But as happened in South Africa and Zimbabwe there were also the creation of diversified economies geared to settler needs, but capable of being operated by newly- decolonising (black) elites. Such elites inherited powerful centralised state apparatuses, although little political or economic power. The parallels between the way Smith and Mugabe have used this kind of state – similar to the apartheid ‘national security state’ - are oft remarked on.

The ‘national security’ strategy of the ZANU-PF elite has led to economic collapse, severe repression, flight and severe economic consequences for the region, but as yet there has been no concerted regional reaction to this in terms of security. This in turn relates to national elites being unable to formulate a path directed to human security, and largely because of their lack of engagement with and mistrust of new social forces (which of course are not themselves necessarily united or coherent).

The other states in the region, particularly South Africa, hesitate between a closed form of regional security and of opening up to world economic forces for increased and supposedly more effective linkages with the global economy. South Africa pushes a process where integrated manufacturing becomes the basis for a regional industrial strategy - an integral part of supply chains for globally competitive manufacturing processes. South Africa knows that for this to occur outside investment is crucial and highly dependent on improvements in governance which the NEPAD programme (an uneasy mix of pan-African idealism and neo-liberalism) seeks to bring about. However this whole process is marked by contradiction which does nothing to lessen conflict and insecurity in Zimbabwe and the region.

South Africa insists on 'quiet diplomacy' for regional solidarity reasons, not wishing to jump at the behest of former colonial masters. It also points to misconceptions about the extent of its power as the 'regional hegemon' saying it cannot unilaterally reorder the region. Rather it vaunts a united regional approach based on avoiding confrontation and promoting multilateralism.

Historically, divisions inside SADC had to be overcome as well as in Pretoria’s internal foreign policy discussions. Additionally, in Pretoria’s view while South Africa has necessary leverage over Zimbabwe in areas of finance, energy and oil to effect change, the economies are too closely linked to impose sanctions. It at least initially believed that its model of negotiated settlement and compromise was transferable to Zimbabwe. It also knows that it is vulnerable on the land question. Both the ANC and ZANU-PF see themselves as the legitimate inheritors of the anti-colonial struggle with any other parties being seen as tainted by association with the previous regime(s). For this reason it and other southern Africa states have been only too ready to accept ZANU-PF’s policies in some way as a Pan Africanist and anti-imperialist position in the face of global inequalities and British neo-colonialism.

Strangely, and contrary to the support given to the ANC in exile, Pretoria foreign policy has never provided support for human rights groups and other opposition forces within societies whose governments are undemocratic and/or human rights violators. This suggests reliance on notions of the legitimacy of heads of state and of sovereignty, both of which are formalistic concepts even if they are key AU positions. Taken with the support for ‘a just world order’ which means equity amongst nations there is no concern for more far-reaching restructuring of power to embrace human security concerns.

Mugabe’s charge is that the UK is attempting to recolonise Zimbabwe acts to disguise structural rather than conspiratorial processes in the world economy. It does this on behalf of a new power bloc inside Zimbabwe clinging on to power in the face of global inequalities, popular pressure from new and old social movements, but using a Cold War rhetoric that has similar although different resonances with both African and Third World elites and with landless and frustrated African and other third world populations. The contradiction of the policy of this power bloc is that it is unable to create resistance to globalisation precisely because it does not engage with its own population. Some in the Zimbabwe nationalist spectrum might well disagree given that some allege that the ‘war veterans’ are a popular social movement.

How do we shift the monopoly on security from the military, and build a framework of human security addressing the concerns of those without power, the oppressed, and those adversely affected by the current disorder, poverty, environmental degradation and human rights abuse?

How does an alternative perspective able to suggest regional, national and local policies - based on globalisation from below in order to transform the South and overcome the global organisation of inequality - get constructed? Increasingly, world and regional social fora have attempted to come up with answers involving global civil society and non-governmental organisations (not to confuse the two) stressing international humanitarian values and citizenship to counter nationhood, ‘civilisation blocs’ or geo-economic units.

Such values would include peace, promotion of human rights, and concepts of the common good as the building blocks for security, reciprocity and multilateral power centres. It would also demand that domestic security concerns need to pay greater attention to violence against women and children ignored by state agencies. It may not seem obvious when there seem more immediate concerns, but the fight against repression in Zimbabwe illustrates much of this, and involves what values postcolonial states and regions should have, their road to development, democracy and overcoming of colonial and apartheid structures, all of which pose human security dilemmas.

* Steve Kibble is Africa/ Yemen Advocacy Coordinator at the Catholic Institute of International Relations (CIIR)

* Please send comments to

There is much anxiety that is gripping Zimbabweans concerning the upcoming general elections at the end of March this year. In 2000 and 2002 the country’s voting population was clearly divided into those who vote for the MDC and ZANU PF. Any attempts by the smaller political parties or independent candidates to have an impact on the political process was immaterial. Those who cast their votes for the MDC did so because of the hope and change they anticipated for the greater Zimbabwe democracy project but indeed more importantly how this change would translate to their being more secure, better fed, housed, clothed and being employed.

Many of those who cast their votes for ZANU PF were intimidated into doing so and of course as I have said before, there are still those who have clung to it for the ideals that ZANU PF used to stand for and represent. Yet others have remained committed to it because of the benefits to their pockets and stomachs it has brought them.

Because the political climate in Zimbabwe today is much different from both 2000 and 2002, it is highly likely that the voting patterns and trends of the electorate will change and give a completely different picture to what we saw happen in the last general election. My greatest concern is that this election will see a very low and poor voter turnout. This would be ominous for MDC and is probably what ZANU PF hopes for. If the 2003 urban local government elections are anything to go by, then my suspicions will materialise to actuality. The highest average voter turnout in those elections was 37% in Redcliff and the lowest average was 12% in Chitungwiza and Bulawayo, the rest were between 25 and 34%. Considering that previous trends show the MDC’s strongholds to be urban locations, this does not look good for them. However, if the figures for ZANU PF’s primaries are to be used as a gauge, they too should be just as worried as they will rely on their staunch membership for votes as compared to the ordinary voter who is not involved in party politics, this time, both in the rural and urban areas.

There are many reasons that can be given for a likely poor turnout. The extent of the desecration of Zimbabwe’s socio economic state has sucked joy from most of Zimbabwe’s hardworking people and instead impregnated them with despair, hopelessness and disillusionment in the political process as a means to solve the country and everyday individual problems. People are suffering. Most can not afford to feed themselves and their families, they can not afford to pay their bills such as rent, water and electricity, they can not afford to send their children to clinics or hospitals neither can they find or afford doctors and medicines. Reserve Bank Governor Gono can brag all he wants about how much better our economy is doing, it means nothing to those who know that each day is more expensive for them to meet their basic needs. The quality of life for the greater majority of Zimbabweans has been amazingly eroded as basic necessities such as transport to work, lunch at work and recreational activities have become luxuries that are out of reach.

Other factors include the violence and intimidation people have been living with for the past 5 years. The senselessness with which ZANU PF unleashed its terror armies and used state organs such as the police and army to sustain its assault on civic society, the MDC, activists and the general public has indeed left a dent on many who suffered for sins they did not even commit. Others will be too afraid to vote and yet others will not care to vote as that particular action will not emit a different experience for them; you will get harassed whether you vote or not, so why bother.

Because of the closure of the Daily News, which had enabled news that was not ZANU PF and voices that were not ZANU PF to be regularly heard, the MDC lost a spot were it could continually visibilise itself, defend itself and send out its own messages. This did generate a perception to the general public that they are not active, are not doing anything or saying anything. People would complain that the MDC had gone silent and they would not realise that the MDC had been denied a platform by the ZANU PF to go about its business of engaging the public. Even though it’s a matter not of its own doing, it will dent the MDC. If people keep on hearing the same message over and over again they will eventually believe what they hear or will use what they hear as a basis to measure truth, especially in the absence of a different message. The consistent propaganda people have been listening to over the past three years without a counter voice has formulated in people’s minds as a basis of some-version-of-truth.

While I have always paid tribute to the MDC for being a David that challenges a Goliath (much stronger, bigger, older, more resourced and fierce looking) it is truth that it has made many blunders with its internal politics, which were heralded, to the public by their enemy’s mouth pieces. What people heard about the MDC, they heard from ZANU PF mouthpieces and so their image to the average Zimbabwean who is not in its structures is a bit disfigured by ZANU PF’s sinister exaggerations. ZANU PF on the other hand is also seriously fractured right now due to its own internal conflicts centred around the much loathed professor Jonathan Moyo and his Tsholotsho bandwagon, to add to this, they are still recovering from cheating, beating and stealing from each other at the primary elections.

Yes, ZANU PF was in power and could still pass the legislation it wanted since they had the majority in Parliament and as government were in the driving seat. It may look like there isn’t much that was benefited from having an opposition like the MDC in Parliament as unconstitutional and regressive laws that assault our rights kept on coming out of Parliament. What needs to be observed as well is that for the first time in a long time ZANU PF was continuously being challenged every time Parliament was in session. This time it was not a lone Margaret Dongo but there were over 20 MPs relentlessly debating, questioning, challenging, calling to account and speaking down at ZANU PF. This in itself is a score particularly in such restrictive and limited space. For every unconstitutional bill ZANU PF voted for, they had to work for it, some MPs actually had to be mobilised to attend Parliament so they could succeed in their endeavours. With as much contempt the ruling party has shown to the ordinary person of Zimbabwe in the past 5 years, I shudder to think what this period would have been like without the fierce opposition and pressure they got from MDC. If anything at all, more alternative voices must be increased.

This election, like in 2000, will be fought on the strength of the political parties and not on the individuals running the race. However, minimal performance and delivery by some individuals in the last parliament particularly in constituencies with strong independent candidates is a possibility. I will use my own constituency Harare Central to illustrate my point. In this case, the incumbent MP Hon. Zwizwai must not assume he will be voted back in as voters may be persuaded that having a strong independent candidate like Margaret Dongo may actually be more beneficial for them compared to having an MP whom they know little about, have seen little performance if any; have never read about him in the paper (or the Hansard for that matter) to have said anything in parliament, have never seen their constituency profiled through him at any platform. In the case of Hon. Zwizwai, it’s exacerbated by the fact that he took over from a more visible and vocal MP, Hon. Mike Auret. Hon. Zwizwai won the election with around 3,000 votes in August 2003 about the same figure (less) as votes ZANU PF received in 2000 (3, 600 votes). In 2000 Mike Auret got over 14, 000 votes. Margaret Dongo may actually make it back to Parliament in her own steam and not that of a party.

My point is, this election is not that easily predictable. Any party, any candidate, may get the biggest surprise of their life and thus must do what they need to, to show people they are the best candidate. Due to the context of the country as I have highlighted, I believe those who will vote already know how they will vote. However, I believe a lot of those we witnessed vote in 2000 and 2002 may need to be persuaded to exercise their responsibility to vote.

ZANU PF must refrain from using violence before or after the polls and must stop using delay tactics as it did in 2002 during the presidential elections and Harare local government elections. This disenfranchised Zimbabweans their right to vote. I witnessed in horror women and men being tear gassed and chased like dogs from the voting queues by riot police in Glen Norah. Such obscenities must not be repeated and must not insult the lives of the comrades who died in the liberation struggle so that all Zimbabweans could exercise the right to vote.

* Please send comments to

Zimbabwean expatriates living in the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa are an untapped development resource, says a study by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The organisation conducted a survey of 1,000 Zimbabwean expatriates in South Africa and the UK last year and found that, apart from economic remittances to Zimbabwe, "nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of respondents wanted to participate in a skills transfer programme and ... 77 percent wanted to contribute to the development of Zimbabwe".

The largest genocide for many years, some 700,000 people a year for the last three years, is being carried out by Robert Mugabe’s government against its citizens. It continues to remain unnamed and thus ignored by the international community.

The ravage of a 40% plus HIV/AIDS infection rate exploits the enormous difficulties most Zimbabweans already face in that ‘failed state’. At the 60th anniversary of Auschwitz, Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, called for an end to genocide. “It is, above all, a day to remember not only the victims of past horrors, whom the world abandoned, but also the potential victims of present and future ones. A day to look them in the eye, and say: “you, at least, we must not fail”.

Not a word about Zimbabwe. Not by any authority. Not by South Africa, SADC, the African Union or the UN. Yet, Kofi Annan quoted the old chestnut, “ Truly it has been said: “all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing”.

In Zimbabwe, HIV/AIDS has turned to a form of genocide as economic, political and electoral policies have devastated the economy and made it hard for people to care for their families and to find and to buy food. In 2002, it is estimated that some 700,000 Zimbabweans, all recently infected with HIV/AIDS, died rapidly as they could not look after themselves. Their normal life expectancy should have been for another ten to fifteen productive years. That is, 700,000 of the 1 million who died that year died of HIV/AIDS related illnesses in the early years of HIV infection.

The same pattern continues in Zimbabwe except that more Zimbabweans now live outside that county and so, together with the massive death rates internally, there are fewer to kill by official neglect of economy and of human rights. Nonetheless, it remains the largest genocide for decades worldwide.