No hope for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe

Recent events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya elicited calls for a non-military and mass-based revolution in Zimbabwe. These calls were largely by Zimbabweans living outside of the country. The Movement For Democratic Change (MDC) despite calls for its participation did not call for nor support the action then called for the 1st March 2011, rather the party said it remained committed to the Government of National Unity willing to pursue a yet-to-be-announced Zuma roadmap to free and fair elections. It is this stance that drew this article. What are chances of a peaceful, free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Given the history of violence and intimidation in past elections, what are the chances that this will not recur?

State Security vs The People
In March 2008 elections MDC made significant parliamentary gains. On paper they became the ruling party. Mr Mugabe lost to Mr Tsvangirai in the presidential elections. Reports indicate that Mr Mugabe had lost by a margin that allowed Mr Tsvangirai to become the president of the country; however after a long delay official results showed that although Mr Tsvangirai had won, the margin warranted a run-off election. The election was set for June 2008 but what followed was a horrific run of terror by all state security organs and ZANU PF supporters. 183 MDC supporters were killed during that time. None of the perpetrators were brought to book; rather Robert Mugabe in Clemency Order No. 1 of 2008, issued in June 2008 offered amnesty to perpetrators.

It is important to analyse the civil-military relationship in Zimbabwe. Civil-Military Relations broadly describes the relationship between the general population and the military authority of the country. The civil population is usually represented by a given civil authority preferably chosen through an election. In an ideal democracy, the military although autonomous in function is largely under the control of civilian authority. In this state, the civilian authority recognizes the supremacy of the military in the use of force whilst the military willingly submits itself to civilian authority. What this means is that; the military, even though it knows that it has the ability to forcibly rule over defenseless civilians agrees to be controlled by them. Core to this is professionalism and neutralism.

In Zimbabwe, there is a military structure that was derived from partisan entities that include liberation forces like ZANLA and ZIPRA. These were armed forces that had strong allegiances to political parties ZANU and ZAPU respectively. Today, the top structure of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces is dominated by former combatants of these liberation forces. The same applies to the police, intelligence and prisons. General Constantine Chiwenga, Lt General Phillip Valerio Sibanda, Air Marshall Perrance Shiri are all former ZANLA/ZIPRA veterans. Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Augustine Chihuri is a former ZANLA combatant. Happyton Bonyongwe, the Director General of CIO and Rt Major General Paradzayi Zimondi, Head of Prison Services are both former ZANLA combatants. Commanders of all the Brigades of ZNA are former ZIPRA/ZANLA combatants.

This scenario serves the interests of ZANU PF best. The relationship between ZANU PF authority and the security apparatus is amicable. The trend seems to show that after retirement most of the senior members of the security system enter mainstream politics on the ticket of ZANU PF. Examples that come to mind are Air Chief Marshal Josiah Tungamirai and Rtd Lt General Vitalis Zvinavashe who are both late. They were both in the ZANLA High Command before independence.

Given this blatant partisanship of the security apparatus will any future election win by MDC be recognized by the security system of the country? To help us understand the skewed civil-miltary relationship let us revisit the statement by Rtd Lt General Zvinavashe on the eve of the presidential election in 2002.

“Let it be known that the highest office in the land is a 'straightjacket' whose occupant is expected to observe the objectives of the liberation struggle. …We (the military) will, therefore, not accept, let alone support or salute, anyone with a different agenda that threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and our people."

The constitution of Zimbabwe states clearly the qualification of a President. Nowhere are the expectations as pointed out by the Generals written in the constitution. The statement clearly showed that the military had become larger than the people. Any choice that did not fit the description by the generals wouldn’t have been accepted regardless of the support by the people.

This was a testimony of the partisanship of the security forces in Zimbabwe. It did not come as a surprise then when Mr Tsvangirai won elections in March 2008 that the security forces were not amused.

ZANU PF has always labeled MDC as a puppet of the west with no ability to maintain the sovereignty of the country. The army seems to believe the same to be true. Is this belief genuine or it is just an excuse to continue hanging on to power? What are the chances that former ZANLA combatants would ditch their fellow pre-independence leaders for a man of little anti-colonial struggle credentials like Morgan Tsvangirai?

It is known that all commanders of the army are appointed by the president. Logically the president appoints people who will be loyal to him. The constitution is clear on these appointments, what is critical however is that even though the commanders are loyal to the president, they have a moral obligation to respect the citizens of the country. In this regard, despite individual political beliefs, they are expected to execute their duties professionally without discriminating anyone of different political beliefs. This is where the security services are lacking.

The new ZANU PF State
It is also important to evaluate the structure and composition of the state and government for us to predict whether ZANU PF will be able to accede to free and fair elections. Firstly, it is important again to differentiate the State and the Government. In short the State is the people, the systems, the laws, the resources, the territory and the intangibles like sovereignty. The Government is the set of individuals who run, manage and execute the programs and policies of the State.
The State in Zimbabwe owns the military, police, judiciary, jails, hospitals, schools, companies etcetera. The government of the day is supposed to run and manage these. The logic here is that; the state comprises of people and the government is chosen by the same people to administer their interests.
We have situation in Zimbabwe where the State and the government are hard to differentiate. The people in the government have become more powerful than the people. In other words, we now have a new State that recognizes only a few privileged people and serves only the interests of those privileged few. The laws of the country are being applied selectively depending on preferences of people in the government. The people are unable to remove offending representatives.
This State has the ability to exploit national resources without prior approval of the people as long as the ZANU PF politiburo agrees to it. For example, a finite national resource like land is being used to pay musicians for singing praises to the government. We have a minister like Ignatious Chombo who has amassed wealth through illegal exploitation of finite natural resources. When the people demand his investigation, the police is unwilling to because it is owned and run by the kith and kin of Chombo.

What then is the probability that someone who is not willing to protect the interests of the new owners of the State would be allowed to take over the government?
Critics will point out that already MDC is part of the government. Reality however shows that MDC is not part of the government that runs the new State, rather it is being allowed to run the remnants of the old State. For example, the police that is usually under the minister of Home Affairs is now reporting directly to the President bypassing Theresa Makone who is an MDC minister. She does not have power to direct the police to investigate the owners of the new state. The nominal power she wields is only for purposes related to the old State.

Tendai Biti runs the ministry of finance. He administers only that part of government that controls the proceeds of the old State. The financial muscle of the new State is controlled by Gideon Gono. That is why Gono sits in the JOC and not Biti.
Given this scenario it is clear that ZANU PF will not accept a free and fair election in Zimbabwe because it would accelerate the disintegration of the State that it is building. Given the vast wealth they have amassed so far, the ZANU PF stalwarts are willing to sacrifice unimportant people in the old State for them to cling on to power.

The Zuma Roadmap
MDC is banking on a roadmap that is being prepared by the South African President Jacob Zuma. What are the chances that ZANU PF will abide by the recommendations?
In 2002 a Commonwealth troika comprising of Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo and Tim Howard announced the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth due to the violence and human rights abuses in the run-up to the 2002 elections. In 2003 Mugabe pulled Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth.

In 2004 SADC Adopted the Mauritian Protocol on Elections. Zimbabwe held its Parliamentary elections in 2005. These were supposed to be held in line with the SADC guidelines but a lot of irregularities were noted. South Africa however declared the process free and fair despite glaring flaws.

When 79 white commercial farmers approached the SADC Tribunal in a bid to stop compulsory acquisition of land by the Zimbabwe government and the tribunal ruled in their favor, the Zimbabwe government responded by pulling out of the Tribunal.
These examples show how arrogant the ZANU PF government is. Whenever the government comes under international scrutiny it responds by unilaterally ending any relationship that could have given credence to such scrutiny. Secondly, the South African government has an amicable see-no-evil relationship with ZANU PF as shown by their “silent diplomacy” even in the presence of compelling human rights abuses.
Given the demonstrated arrogance of ZANU PF and its biased relationship with the South African government, what are the chances that any roadmap will be followed when it seeks to limit the intransigencies of ZANU PF?

A glimpse of the current GPA might give us insight. ZANU PF has maintained its dominance over MDC by dictating what is and is not implemented. The issue of the governors, issue of Roy Bennet, appointment of permanent secretaries, issue of Gono and the issue of Tomana are evidence of clear ZANU PF supremacy over MDC in government. What has been the response of South Africa- the supposed guarantors of the GPA?

The Election Commission
Elections in 2000, 2002 and 2005 were presided over by Tobaiwa Mudede who many allege to have played a part in rigging all of the elections. He remains the Registrar General even up to today as an affirmation of ZANU PF’s supremacy.
Robert Mugabe appointed Justice George Chiweshe as chairman of the Zimbabwe Election Commission. He presided over the 2008 elections and declared them free and fair despite the atrocities. What more did Zimbabweans expect from a former ZANLA combatant, ZANU political commissar and a former Brigadier General of the partisan Zimbabwe National Army?

His loyalty to Mugabe was unquestionable and he was rewarded in august 2008 when he was promoted by Mugabe to the rank of Rt major general. He was further promoted by Mugabe to be the Judge President of the High Court despite protestations by MDC .
The current Zimbabwe Election Commission retained Joyce Kazembe and Theophilus Gambe from the previous commission that dubiously allowed the re-election of Mugabe. The loyalty of the current chairman Simpson Mutambanengwe is hazy. All we know is that he was a member of ZANU’s Dare Rechimurenga before he fled for his life to Malawi after supporting the Nhari rebellion in 1974. He later joined the UANC and became a member of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government. He was part of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia delegation to Lancaster House Conference in 1979. After independence he was appointed by Mugabe to the bench. He was later seconded to Namibia by Mugabe. When Justice Paradza was arraigned before the courts in 2006, Mugabe called on Mutambanengwe who had already retired to come and preside over the case.

Without insinuating that Simpson may be loyal to Mugabe, we know that rarely does Mugabe allow the appointment of a person of questionable political loyalty to such an important commission. It remains to be seen if the commission will be able to resist political manipulation.

In conclusion, the stance that MDC has taken to commit itself to upcoming elections is tantamount to political suicide. The structures that have retained Mugabe to power over the past decade are still intact. The army, police, intelligence and prisons are still in total control of ZANU PF. A few individuals in ZANU PF still maintain a firm grip of the State. There are doubts on the impartiality of the Election Commission. It is safe therefore to say that until such a time when Zimbabwe opposition has the power to dismantle the structures of power built on ZANU PF loyalty; there won’t be any free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.