There has been considerable controversy surrounding the MDC’s decision to have its 41 elected members of Parliament sworn in and participate in Parliament. A variety of criticisms have been made but most focus on arguments that the decision is a betrayal of those losing MDC candidates who had their seats stolen from them by ZANU (PF) and that the presence of MDC MPs in Parliament legitimises the entire election, ZANU (PF)’s rule and the new Parliament itself.
At the outset let me state that most of us in the MDC understood that the elections would be rigged and that there was very little prospect of us winning. Indeed when we announced our decision to participate we said we would do so under protest and that was because we understood that the playing field was warped and that ZANU (PF) would use every trick in the book to deny the people of Zimbabwe the right to choose candidates of their choice. Whilst some in the MDC were carried away by the huge crowds who attended our rallies, especially in the last two weeks of the campaign, many of us continued to say both privately and publicly in campaign rallies (and to the media) that the elections would be rigged.
In the Sunday Telegraph of the 20th of March 2005 I was quoted extensively in an article entitled “Zimbabwe election has no chance of being fair”. Part of the article reads: “he also suspected that ZANU PF would simply announce the results in its favour, regardless of the votes cast… they have all the machinery in place to rig it… the big question isn’t if they will do it, but how they will do it”. I and others in the MDC were under no illusions. If you ask anyone who attended any of my rallies they will tell you that I had repeatedly said that Mugabe would not allow us to win and that the election should be seen as part of a process not an event.
In the same campaign rallies I argued why it was necessary that we contest the elections. I said that we had no option as a social democratic party committed to non-violent principles, as any refusal to participate would mean that we had given up hope of ever achieving change through peaceful, democratic means. I said that we had consulted widely and that most importantly the people of Zimbabwe wanted us to participate. I said that there was no chance of our participation legitimising the regime as those who already supported the regime would continue to support whether we participated or not, and that those who abhorred the regime would continue to do so. I said that with a great reduction in democratic space it was vital that we held whatever ground we had to expose the regime. I pointed out that they were very few historical precedents in Africa in which boycotting parties effected change, but that there were many positive precedents in countries such as Senegal, Ghana and Kenya where parties which continued to participate in patently flawed elections ultimately prevailed. I pointed out that it was only if we participated that we would be able to expose both the electoral fraud and ZANU PF’s deep divisions.
I believe that our decision to participate has been vindicated. In particular I have no doubt that had we not participated ZANU PF would not only have conducted a seemingly non-violent campaign but, more seriously, the rampant and serious fraud would not have been exposed. We should not fool ourselves about South Africa’s position, for example. I have absolutely no doubt that if we had not participated South Africa would have blamed us and would have said that we should not be heard to complain as we had ourselves chosen not to be in the game. Had we not participated, the debacle which occurred with the announcement of the total votes cast on Thursday evening would not have happened. Had we not participated, we would never have been in a position to document and expose the systematic and widespread breaches of the Electoral Act.
In essence what I’m arguing is that there were many sober heads in the MDC who understood that not only did we have no choice but to participate, but that our very participation would serve to further undermine any claims to legitimacy the regime may have had. We understood that ZANU PF would rig the election and barring a massive turnout of voters there was always a possibility that the MDC would lose some of the seats it already held. Of course our efforts were not helped by some in civil society who urged a boycott or the spoiling of ballots. Be that as it may the fact remains that despite the attempts of SADC to endorse the poll the regime has not been legitimised and in fact is in worse trouble than ever. The Americans, the European Union and many others condemned the election and have imposed even tougher measures against the regime. Even the African Union was not prepared to give an unequivocal endorsement. The regime shot itself in the foot in that most of its “good” work (in ensuring a violence-free run-up to the poll) was messed up by Thursday night’s announcement and being forced as a result to add 244,000 extra votes to the final figures.
Having decided to participate in an election we knew would be stolen it would now be illogical not to take up our seats. As I have stated above one of the reasons for participating in a fraudulent poll was so that we would maintain as much democratic space as possible. In a country where every independent daily newspaper has been shut down and where the only shortwave broadcasting radio has been jammed there is very little democratic space. We all have very few opportunities to expose what this regime is doing and the folly of its policies. Whilst Parliament certainly has its limitations the fact remains that it is a forum where these issues can be spoken of openly and where a daily record is taken of what has been said and, more importantly, what has been exposed.
One of the tragedies of the last Parliament is that the independent media failed to report on what was exposed during Parliamentary sessions. My own committee of inquiry is a case in point. When that committee was established there is no doubt that the regime’s intention was to commit me to prison in the same way Roy Bennett has been committed to prison. However that committee of inquiry was turned on its head when detailed evidence was presented to the committee regarding corruption in the allocation of farms. Indeed those committee hearings played a major role in driving a wedge between Jonathan Moyo and the rest of ZANU (PF). The report that Renson Gasela initiated in September regarding the food situation is another case in point. And there are many more examples of how Parliament was used to make this regime accountable. Indeed it was our participation in the last Parliament that finally exposed ZANU (PF) for what it really is to the world.
In my view it is absolutely vital that we continue that exercise; that we continue to use Parliament to expose the true nature of this regime. In the context of the current Operation Murambatsvina it is vital that we be in Parliament to document in a public record the horrendous human rights abuses which have been perpetrated by this regime.
Of course there is no doubt that because the regime enjoys such an overwhelming majority it will now be able to ride roughshod over us. However this regime remains desperate to restore its legitimate status and to that extent has to be careful about how far it goes in abusing Parliamentary practice. Whilst it may be able to vote us down on every single piece of legislation presented to Parliament it will still have to respect basic Parliamentary procedure which means that we will have an opportunity to record the truth behind every lie used by the regime to justify Draconian legislation.
In closing I should mention that regarding my own Bulawayo South constituency I have canvassed the views of my constituents in several public and private meetings. In one case a questionnaire was produced giving constituents the opportunity to vote for me either to attend Parliament without protest, or not to attend Parliament or, finally, to attend Parliament in such a way that does not confer legitimacy on the regime and in a way that ensures the Parliamentary process is used to protect Zimbabweans’ rights and democratic space. In the poll that was conducted an overwhelming majority wanted me to adopt the third option. In my constituency it is clear that my constituents do not want me simply to warm a seat in Parliament. An overwhelming majority do want me in Parliament but in there fighting for their rights at every turn. I cannot say that this is the case in every constituency but I have no doubt in my constituency that I have a very clear and dominant mandate to participate but under certain conditions.
One further point: I do not see participation in Parliament as the be all and end all of the struggle to bring about democracy. I see it as one method and indeed not the main method of doing so. It should be seen as a method that is complementary to other forms of non-violent struggle. And just as I do not criticize those in civil society who engage in other forms of non-violent struggle, and indeed do all in my power to help them, so I believe that our participation should be seen as an asset that can be used to assist these other forms of struggle.
In the current fragile state this nation finds itself in no one has a monopoly of knowledge as to what is the correct policy to adopt. I understand and respect the views of those who fear that our participation in Parliament, despite the arguments I’ve raised above, will nevertheless legitimise this awful regime. I am deeply conscious of this and will constantly review my own position in Parliament and will continue to discuss my continued participation with my constituents and friends and colleagues who I respect. I hope that those who are critical of my decision will at least grant me the acknowledgement that I am acting in good faith and that I am trying to do what I can to share in the new dawn of democracy, something Zimbabwe so desperately needs.
David Coltart MP – Bulawayo South