Zimbabwe's Elections: Will a Delayed Election Lead to Democratic Progress?

[caption id="attachment_2658" align="aligncenter" width="700"] [/caption]

From Independence to a Turn for the Worst

The end of white minority rule in Rhodesia in 1979 gave rise to hope for a nation that had undergone over 70 years of colonial rule, and, after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by white separatists in 1965, an apartheid–type regime that had sparked a war of liberation by African nationalists. Robert Mugabe, who had earned respect as one of the major leaders in the fight for independence, was elected as the first President in the democratic and renamed Zimbabwe.  In the first decade of his rule, Mugabe was commended for his conciliatory and practical approach to relations with white Zimbabweans. They were allowed to take part fully in the political process, continue to contribute to the economy through agriculture, business and manufacturing. More than three decades later, President Mugabe continues to rule, but now he does so under an amended constitution that has created an excessively powerful executive branch.

Zimbabwe, which had enjoyed huge economic growth in its first decade, including being a major food exporter to the region and to Europe, has deteriorated dramatically since the early 1990s. Mugabe's rule has been beset with corruption, violence, and other human rights abuses against opponents and their supporters. Elections have been fraught with violence and intimidation, and have led to international condemnation.

After the 2008 elections again marred by violence, Mugabe's ZANU-PF party and the main opposition party, the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM), reached a Global Political Agreement (GPA), brokered by the Southern Africa Development Community. This agreement set up a power-sharing unity government and provided for the writing of a new constitution, followed by a new set of democratic elections, all to take place by 2012. The constitution was finally completed, sent to referendum in accordance with the GPA, and signed into law in May 2013.

Will there be an election?

 The upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections, provided by the GPA and new constitution, offer an opportunity for a return to a competitive democracy and an end to over two decades of economic turmoil, autocratic governance, and human rights violations. However, while a legitimate election would renew some confidence in the government, no signs so far point to any real change being made as a direct result of this election.  Even the date of the elections is undecided. Initially scheduled for July 31st, 2013 by decree of Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court, the elections may instead be held later in the summer, after the SADC urged the Zimbabwean government to delay in an extraordinary summit held in Maputo, Mozambique. President Mugabe's party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), obliged.

They have now appealed the election, asking for a delay of at least two weeks. This extra time is intended to allow for further institutional reforms and give the opposition parties more time to organize their campaigns. Morgan Tsvangirai and his party, the MDC-T, had rejected the July 31st date when it was first announced, arguing that "Mugabe is deliberately precipitating a constitutional crisis." Opponents of the July 31st election date argued that more time is needed to implement reforms of the election commission, media and the military, as well as to rid the electoral register of "ghost voters" who threaten the legitimacy of the election.

The reforms were originally a component of the GPA in 2008. The new constitution, which was approved by 95% of voters in March 2013, provided for a number of other reforms which are still nowhere near completion. President Mugabe has shown a great deal of reluctance regarding these constitutional changes. Many of them would decrease the power of the executive using measures such as a two term limit on the presidential office, and requisite parliament backing for a declaration of a state of emergency.

The Cause for Hesitation

Mugabe initially responded to calls for a later election date with the rebuke that "the other parties do not want elections, they are afraid of elections; they know they are going to lose and it's a sure case that they are going to lose.'' Despite the evident political bluster and fears about the impact of reform on his own abilities to influence the election, his words do contain some grains of truth. Like many opposition parties in other African countries, and Western democracies, who have seen themselves join the ranks of the reviled and ridiculed upon assuming a governing position, Tsvangirai and the MDC-T have battled waning support since first taking part in the power-sharing government. Unable to fully distance itself from government actions, the MDC-T now shares in the government's failures, and faces disillusionment among its supporters. Reversing this trend and regaining the support of the Zimbabwean people will require careful political manoeuvring. An extended campaign would be an advantage here, but is unlikely to be enough in itself. Suggestions for electoral success include reaching out to the MDC-N, the second branch of the original MDC. Unless the opposition parties communicate and act together, they are unlikely to be able to topple Mugabe's regime.

Pushing the election date back is unlikely to lead to a leap forward in democratization. Firstly, even if the opposition does band together and win the election, it is unclear whether they will truly be more supportive of the necessary reforms. Allegations of corruption also plague the MDC. Furthermore, although the opposition have generally been understood to be the victims of state sanctioned violence, the risk remains that leaders who have spent entire careers in a system characterized by terror and intimidation will carry on the cycle. Secondly, the reforms that are needed will likely take months, or even years to enact. The police and the military are currently controlled by ZANU-PF, and are likely to stay that way for some time. The media has little freedom, which means that few Zimbabweans have access to the information needed to cast a well-considered vote. Lastly, delaying the election does not significantly lessen the probability of politically motivated violence. In fact, it gives Mugabe more time in which he can use his powers of decree against his competitors.

Conclusion

The biggest benefit would be a stronger, more cohesive opposition. If they can do this they will invigorate political debate, even if they do not take power. Many now agree that another power-sharing government would be the best route for the country to take. If the MDC can sufficiently distinguish themselves from ZANU-PF in policies and methods they may at least set the scene for future victories. Any reform in the case of this long standing dictatorship is a step forward. Hopes should not be set too high, and it would not be wise to place too large a stake  on the outcome of this election. If ZANU-PF and the MDC factions show that they can take part in polls that are peaceful and fair, then this should give Zimbabweans good cause to ask for real changes in due course.

Photo attributed to Terry Feuerborn on Flickr Commons