The Zimbabwe Independent
Iden Wetherell’s opinion piece “where is the yellow card?” in the Mail and Guardian 3rd September 2004 cannot go unanswered.
It is argued that we should have given the Mugabe regime a yellow card prior to making the collective decision to suspend participation in all elections until there is full compliance with the new SADC protocol on election standards. This is despite the MDC’s track record of issuing yellow cards for the past five years in an attempt to restore transparency and fairness to Zimbabwe’s electoral process.
The MDC has engaged in unprecedented litigation since the June 2000 parliamentary elections to expose flaws in Zimbabwe’s electoral system, with more than 38 parliamentary court challenges and the presidential challenge (involving over 20 side applications). Despite the subversion of the judiciary we diligently continue to expose fraud in our electoral process.
Extensive work was done by the MDC to explain to Zimbabweans and the international community the serious fraud and flaws exposed by this litigation. Meetings have been held with the likes of President Mbeki, President Wade, President Obasanjo, and other African leaders to explain how Zimbabwe’s electoral system is so seriously flawed.
During four years in Parliament the MDC caucus has done all in its power to reform Zimbabwe’s electoral system. The Parliamentary Justice committee, chaired by the MDC, conducted vigorous enquiries regarding this issue in the run-up to the 2002 presidential election.
Hardly a parliamentary week passes without MDC MPs raising questions about, or debating electoral issues. In the course of these debates the MDC extracted some concessions agreed to by the Mugabe regime, such as using indelible visible ink to mark voters in future. Regretfully, Zimbabwe’s privately owned newspapers are seldom in parliament to report the MDC’s efforts in this regard.
The MDC’s election and legal departments have done extensive research into electoral systems in Africa. A study trip was undertaken to Kenya in 2003 which culminated in the MDC producing its own draft Electoral Bill.
In January we produced a document outlining 15 minimum changes which have to be implemented to in order for genuine, democratic, elections to take place. That document was refined into a booklet called “Restore”. Since publication of the Restore document MDC leaders conducted an intensive diplomatic campaign in Africa to promote the principles contained therein.
The Mauritius principles emerged in part because of efforts by the MDC and Zimbabwe non governmental organisations around electoral issues.
It may be argued that this is ancient history and that whilst we may have given warnings about our concerns in the past we have not given the Mugabe regime adequate warning since it indicated it would respond to some of our demands. That would be to ignore the facts, as we made it abundantly clear, prior to our decision to suspend our participation in elections, that the proposed reforms outlined by the Mugabe regime did not come even close to addressing fundamental concerns we have raised repeatedly – in particular concerns relating to the rule of law and civil and political liberties. With less than 7 months until the elections there is insufficient time to wave yellow cards any longer.
Despite these unambiguous and regular warnings, even highly respected news organisations have carelessly stated that the Mugabe regime’s proposals meet our demands and the SADC standards, when it is obvious that they do not.
What then about the timing? The harsh reality is that we had a narrow window of opportunity in which to make this decision. Prior to the publication of the Mauritius principles we had no regional benchmark to support our case for electoral reform, so the decision could not have been made prior to the Mauritius agreement.
The publication of a bill to control non governmental organisations immediately after Mauritius proved that the Mugabe regime has no intention of complying with the SADC principles agreed in Mauritius. Nomination day for a by election was due on September 3 and we had to make a decision prior to that day. Had we not made a decision before that day the region could have assumed that we believed that the Mauritius principles were in the process of being implemented in Zimbabwe.
The timing also has to be seen in the context of what has been stated in the region about the issue of negotiations between ZANU PF and MDC. For over a year we have been told that we are engaged in informal negotiations with ZANU PF when that is not true. A real fear we had was that ZANU PF’s compliance, or rather non compliance, with the Mauritius principles would be fudged as would our “acceptance” that Zimbabwe’s electoral system now complied with the Mauritius principles.
We had to make it clear, emphatically, urgently and unequivocally, that our electoral system does not, and will not, even in the event of Mugabe’s proposed changes being implemented, comply with the Mauritius principles.
The article suggests that we should have used the next few months to prove that Zimbabwe’s electoral environment does not comply with the Mauritius principles.
That however is precisely what the Mugabe regime wants us to do. It would, no doubt, be happy, for the purposes of political expediency, to keep dangling the carrot of meaningful reforms, hinting at implementation, but deliberately delaying implementation until just prior to the elections in order to hoodwink the regional and international community into believing that the elections were free and fair. This scenario would simply serve to exacerbate Zimbabwe’s deteriorating political and socio-economic environment. Only the restoration of legitimate government, secured through a free and fair ballot, can arrest this decline.
Zimbabweans have been deeply traumatised during the last 5 years and need a peaceful period of at least 6 months prior to the elections to feel confident to freely participate in the democratic process and make an informed choice at the ballot box – this will not be possible if they have been fed a controlled diet of distorted information, denied access to alternative voices and ideas and endured a coercive and hostile political environment just prior to polling day. Moreover, there has to be sufficient time to restore public confidence in the value of elections as a mechanism for positive change and deepening democracy.
For all the regime’s claims that the MDC is dead and that they can run an election without us, ZANU PF can never claim legitimacy unless the MDC participates. Whilst the MDC could have been ignored in 2000 it is now recognised regionally and internationally as a credible political party and to that extent its participation in the 2005 election is critical to both ZANU PF and SADC if Zimbabwe’s crisis is to be resolved.
To that extent it was critically important that we indicated to SADC as soon as possible that we were not prepared to participate in this charade any longer and that they should bring the Mugabe regime to book as quickly as possible to resolve the crisis.
The onus is now on the SADC to ensure that the Mugabe regime fully complies with its obligations under the SADC elections’ protocol. A failure to do so would put the SADC’s credibility on the line.
It is suggested that what is required is for the MDC to test the water. That precisely is what we will be doing. We will be testing the Mugabe regime’s sincerity in the course of the next few months in Parliament, in the courts and in the media. At every turn we intend explaining to the Zimbabwean electorate and SADC why it is that the NGO bill, ZANU PF’s proposed reforms, and existing draconian legislation that severely curtails our fundamental rights are wholly incompatible with the Mauritius principles.
Finally, the article suggests that we are somehow disengaging from the political discourse. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are suspending our involvement in the electoral process pending Zimbabwe’s compliance with the Mauritius principles.
That is very different to suspending our involvement in the political process. We are actively identifying candidates for the 2005 parliamentary election. We will be vigorously participating in Parliament and organizing our structures in anticipation of the Mugabe regime being forced to comply fully with these wonderful new SADC standards.
David Coltart MP
Shadow Justice Minister
7th September 2004