Reading a report by the Research and advocacy unit this morning I came across an interesting fact, the most commonly reported perpetrators of political violence are non state actors. It’s not the first time I’ve read or seen this. A mini-documentary about political violence during the 2008 harmonised elections last year featured eminent political scientists stating the same fact.

Considering the long and emotional debates I’ve had with the war vet I am vexed that it’s taken such a long time to hit home. If the most commonly reported perpetrators are non state actors, why do we equate political violence to state sponsored violence? Clearly these are not the same thing. Knowing this, it is not then possible to consider that the State itself has assumed this indictment and so refuses to prosecute rather than risk the appearance of tacit acknowledgement. The fact of who is perpetrating the violence has been conflated with the state’s complicity by not acting to prevent and deter it. In the public and international mind it is the state, or rather the Mugabe regime half of the state, that perpetrates violence, leaving the actual perpetrators, who exploit political tensions to mask their activities, blameless. How do we deal with violence if at the outset we place the entire burden of responsibility on the wrong party?

ZZICOMP (ZESN, ZPP and ZLHR Independent Constitution Monitoring Project), a collaborative project between ZESN, ZLHR and ZPP, launched their ‘Final Report: Shadowing the Constitution Outreach Process’. ZZICOMP’s goal is to monitor, observe and report on the work of the Constitution Parliamentary Select Committee (COPAC), the public outreach programme, the work of the Thematic Committees and the Drafting Committee, and the final document produced in order to adjudge how democratic and the transparent the constitution making process is and if it accurately reflects the input of broad and diverse popular participation.

420 mobile monitors who were accredited by COPAC observed 4 533 outreach meetings in the 210 constituencies of the country. The monitors and recorded the proceedings including the atmosphere, pre-meeting events and the view expressed by citizens. The observers reported the efforts made by COPAC teams to remain impartial in the process; however they also observed coaching of the public by political parties. The mobile monitors also reported incidence of violence and intimidation especially in the Mashonaland provinces.

Among the findings in the report:
-There was equal participation in the constitution making process by both men and women
-By the end of the programme a cumulative total of 716 340 participants had been recorded with monthly attendances of 7% in June, 21% in July, 28% in August, 42% in September and 2% in October
-Adults accounted for 79% of the total number of participants
-There was a disturbing dearth of information about the outreach programme in most rural communities. The lack of information was worsened by COPACs tendency to rely on urban-based media to communicate to the public
-Political interference in the COPAC process was omnipresent accounting for 28% of the total number of violations. Observers noted the most common techniques being: chanting of political slogans, singing of political songs, bussing in of participants, organising participants along party lines, using opening prayers to express party positions on the constitution.
-State media coverage on the outreach consultations remained heavily partisan and skewed towards one political party, ZANU PF.

In the report’s conclusion ZZICOMP noted that:

the operational framework for constitutional outreach consultations was inhospitable to open debate. At most meetings in both rural and urban areas, debate was generally subdued, with the outreach process under the control of various political parties. Although MDC-T presence was visible at most venues, overall, ZANU PF appeared to be more dominant and even dictated the content of most proposals.

Article 21 section 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that; ” The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”  This is of one of the international instruments used as the basis for the conduct of free and fair elections in a country. The major challenge with many countries is on how to guarantee the conduct of free and fair elections and to ensure equal suffrage.

The Mass Public Opinion Institute (MPOI) and The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) foundation co-hosted a conference in Harare under the theme ” Pathway to Popular Legitimacy”. The purpose of the conference was to engage and promote reflective dialogue amongst Zimbabweans. The conference touched on various issues covering content of road map to free and fair elections and its challenges and opportunities and legislative reforms and imperatives of security sector reform.

In his presentation Mr Dieudonne N Tshiyoyo the Programme Manager of Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA) highlighted that under the three phases of an electoral process, which are Pre-Election, Voting and Post-Election, the constitution of the country should guarantee a free and fair election. Freedom of movement, speech and assembly are some of the characteristics of free and fair elections. An Electoral Act and system that grants no special privileges to any political party or social group should to be put in place to ensure and guarantee the contact of a transparent free and fair election.

In the Zimbabwean context the Zimbabwe Election Support Network notes that the Global Peace Agreement signed by the three political parties in the country provided an opportunity for legislative reforms on laws like the Electoral Act, AIPPA and POSA thereby presenting an opportunity for the conduct of fair and free elections in the country. The role of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission came under the spotlight especially on the ballot stuffing issue.

Some of the issues raised emanated from the challenges, which were faced by voters in the previous elections conducted in the country. The voter’s roll and the presence of police officers to assist voters in the polling stations during elections came under the spotlight and the Zimbabwe Election Commission (ZEC) highlighted that some of these issues are a result of the provisions of the law. Under some of the best practices being followed in other countries an independent electoral body is given the mandate to maintain the voters roll. Currently in Zimbabwe the Registrar General is in charge of the voters roll, registration of births and deaths and according to a survey conducted by ZESN, the voters roll was reported to be in shambles with some deceased people still appearing on the voters roll. This has prompted some civic organisations to lobby for an independent body like ZEC to be in charge of the voter’s roll.

The crowding out of private media from the limited media space and repressive media laws has also reduced the role the media in the conduct of free and fair elections. The current Zimbabwean situation has seen the media being used as an instrument to promote hate speech, individual interests within parties and criminalisation of some sections of society. Some of the remedies discussed include that the constitution should guarantee media freedom and access to information, the establishment of an independent broadcasting authority and harmonised media regulation through self regulatory mechanisms.

An assessment of the range of political parties we have to choose from shows that whichever way one looks at it, Zimbabweans are screwed!  It’s mediocre politicians all around, positing ludicrous policies whilst they happily take part in scandalous shenanigans.  So come next trip to the ballot box, we’ll just have to elect the lesser devil into power.  Question is, whose political thrust will be easiest to endure?

Missionaries

They’ve courted our vote for years, promising new and exciting things if we give them a chance.  They’ve positioned themselves as the party for the ordinary Joe, preaching right, opposing wrong and taking up the people’s cause.  To their credit, they’ve managed to gather a large following, many of them eager youths. Unfortunately, they have also shown signs that they will give us more of the same.  We have seen them in government and they haven’t proved themselves very different.  In fact, it’s quite predictable how things will turn out should they have complete rule.  I foresee that after they have been in office for a few years, they’ll have us lying on our backs once more, as we go through the motions of the same old same old.

Who’s On Top?

This party is small but feisty and able to play ball with the big boys.  Despite their size, they have many tricks up their sleeve and the ability to turn the heat up on events.  They are well known for rousing the political scene. The downside is that leadership issues remain unresolved.  As things stand, it appears to be a party of wrangling cowboys.  So one wonders, at election time, will we be voting for a party with a guy on top or maybe a reverse cowgirl?

Standing Up and Shaking

The little parties of Zimbabwe politics are unstable.  However, they make sure that everybody gets some and this keeps things entertaining.  Usually, as elections are coming, these groups remind us of their existence by becoming rather vocal.  Occasionally, they will make the news, either for infighting or swinging, that is exchanging (political) partners they get into bed with. For this reason, nobody truly knows what (and whom) they actually stand for.  Most people are therefore, uncomfortable about engaging with this bunch.  After all, can you really vote easy when there isn’t something solid to lean against, and you’re balancing on one leg with the other leg dangling precariously somewhere else?

Violated in Every Way

The lover who turns on you is the best way to describe this party.  Things began beautifully and we were happy bedfellows.  Today it is dramatically different and the good times are but a distant memory. It’s a case of no matter what position you choose for yourself, you will never be satisfied.  In fact, you will suffer abuse.  The party of selfish lovers have years of experience in bondage and sadomasochism.   They’ve made us perform demeaning acts, brainwashed and drugged us senseless, used and used us some more. Still, in spite of this, the results of the vote will have them firmly back in power, and power is what rape is all about.

With such a political landscape, it is understandable that Zimbabweans feel disillusionment, indifference and fatigue when it comes to voting.  Thus, when the outcome of the elections are known, by far the largest population of voters, as always, will be those who have opted not to pick a favourite position for being screwed over.

I loved every single one of them – the beautiful series of TV ads from South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission.  Each one was crafted to gently nudge citizens to register for and vote in the recently held municipal elections.  “Love your South Africa” was the poignant payoff line that summarised the advertisements’ intent.  I must admit, I felt quite moved to take-part in their elections myself.

Can you imagine if our own Zimbabwe Electoral Commission undertook a similar TV ad-campaign for voter mobilisation?  That would be something!  I know its wishful thinking.  There’s no money to conduct elections this year, let alone to design slick adverts.  And with nothing independent in the name or operations of the ZEC, having a non-partisan campaign is doubtful.

Nonetheless, one can dream.

They could start by showing black and white footage of people in long, winding queues.  Then the voice over would say “Lest we ever forget” as the ad would continue to show Zimbabweans patiently waiting to exercise their right to access cash, bread and anything that wasn’t readily available at the time.

“The fight for our democratic rights was hard,” the voice over would add before a melancholy tune begins playing.  Images would be run of women being beaten, battered and bruised political activists, maimed villagers and the lifeless bodies of once-promising youths.  I am certain we wouldn’t have to search far for such material.  There was more than enough violence perpetrated in the period 2006-2011.

Then the music would pick up pace and become a happy melody.  The voiceover would announce, “But that fight is over.  The people of Zimbabwe won.”  This would be accompanied by pictures showing the wealth gained from the struggle; fallow farms and derelict factories.  To emphasise the point, a snippet of an interview with a young man would be shown where he would enthuse how wonderful the fruits of our democracy are. “Currently I’m unemployed … because of illegal sanctions,” he quickly adds.  “But my tomorrow looks bright, thanks to the sacrifices of those who have gone before me.”

The pictures of some of the country’s most prominent independence-struggle icons would be displayed, concluding with that of the President in all his boisterous self.  Cue the voice over: “We fought hard to be where we are today.  Let’s ensure that this is the only future we’ll ever have.”

The background music would reach its crescendo, the screen would cut to a shot of the ZEC logo and the voice over would conclude:  “Make your mark and vote in the 2011 General Elections.  Your life depends on it!”

Author and historian Blessing-Miles Tendi shared with Kubatana his response to Peter Godwin’s recent opinion piece in the New York Times:

Peter Godwin wrote an article entitled “Making Mugabe Laugh” in the International Herald Tribune on 20 April 2011. In the article Godwin claimed that the Ivory Coast under its recently ousted President Laurent Gbagbo and Zimbabwe, led by President Robert Mugabe, have some “striking parallels”. Godwin argues that both countries, led by highly educated presidents or intellectual-politicians who were liberators from repressive regimes, were once viewed as success stories in their respective regions. These parallels are true but they are hardly striking.

Africa has and continues to be led by many other intellectual-politicians who are also viewed as “liberators” of some sort. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki and Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika are only a few examples. Similarly Godwin’s narrative of a “success” story gone wrong can be applied to several African countries. Moreover, when Godwin likens Gbagbo and Mugabe by arguing that they resorted to “racist vestments of extreme nativism” he simplifies the deeply complex and different motives for both leaders’ actions.

Godwin also invents similarities in order to bolster his straw man argument that the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe bear some “striking similarities”. For instance he asserts that the “two countries have also been similarly plagued by north-south conflicts”. This is an irresponsible distortion of history. Indeed the Ivory Coast has been deeply divided by a north-south conflict centring on religion, among other important factors. However, Zimbabwe has never experienced a north-south conflict in its history.

Where the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe “crucially diverge”, Godwin argues, is that whereas West Africa’s leading power Nigeria refused to recognize Gbagbo after he lost the 2010 presidential election to Alassane Ouattara, Southern Africa’s leading state South Africa helped Mugabe stay in power after he lost the 2008 election. According to Godwin former South African president Mbeki “bullied” opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai into a power-sharing government led by Mugabe. Such a conclusion can only be reached by someone who has never taken the time to interview all the political actors involved in Zimbabwe’s 2008 power-sharing negotiations. Had Godwin done this, he would know that Tsvangirai was not bullied into a power-sharing arrangement. Negotiators to the power-sharing agreement, including Mbeki, have all recounted to me in interviews that sharing power was at the time the only viable solution to the 2008 political deadlock in Zimbabwe. The terms of the power-sharing agreement were crafted and agreed on by Zimbabwe’s rival political parties – not Mbeki as Godwin seems to believe.

I share Godwin’s criticism that power-sharing is a “democracy-defying model”. The spread of the model in recent years is a cause for concern. But it is clear that the question of how to resolve conflict in Africa remains extremely complex, and there may be good reasons for thinking that in some cases the benefits outweigh the costs. After all, power-sharing is usually justified principally in terms of the number of lives it is likely to save in the short term. However, in order to make accurate decisions as to when these benefits outweigh the costs, it is essential to fully recognise the barriers that power-sharing may create to genuine reform. Even if power-sharing arrangements do deliver greater peace and stability in the short term, their flaws suggest that it should only be used as a last resort.

Godwin is wrong when he writes that “Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has been rewarded by the international community by being largely ignored”. By international community I presume that Godwin means the West. Here in Britain, where I reside, Zimbabwe features in the media frequently and it is discussed in parliament more than any other African state. There are even combined American and European Union targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe – something more undemocratic and human rights violating states such as Angola, Swaziland, Equatorial Guinea, Pakistan and Middle East states are not subject to.

The problem with the West is that double standards on global human rights and democracy promotion have helped Mugabe to cast and reject Western interference as imperialism. Western double standards have become undemocratic regimes’ fall guy for their unwillingness to introduce genuine, indigenous, workable and sovereign institutions for human rights promotion and protection. Consequently, Godwin’s call for America to support democracy and human rights movements in Zimbabwe is misguided. America and the West are part of the problem – not the solution – in Zimbabwe’s problems.