With the new constitution having been overwhelmingly approved in a popular referendum, Zimbabwe can start to prepare for fresh elections — the first since the fateful polls in 2008.
Sunday View with Simukai Tinhu
Crucial questions remain about whether we are ready. The European Union (EU), which recently eased sanctions purportedly as a reward for political progress, appears to think so.
Many also appear to have been encouraged by the broadly peaceful referendum on the new constitution. But unfortunately, this optimism does not stand up to scrutiny.
From its inception, the coalition government has squabbled over how much reform is necessary before satisfactory elections can take place. Zanu PF has insisted that there is no need for reform — not surprising given its chances of retaining power rest on maintaining the status quo — while opposition and civil society insist extensive reforms are crucial.
All Zimbabwean elections since independence in 1980 have been characterised by Zanu PF violence against opposition. When the MDC emerged in 1999 and seemed to have a genuine chance of unseating Zanu PF, the ruling party again resorted to physical force. The presidential elections of 2002 and 2008 in particular were marred by violence and the deaths of hundreds.
Will 2013 be any different?
Many are hoping that 2013’s election will break this history of violence. But despite a new constitution, the political landscape is far from reformed.
- ED’s influence will take generations to erase
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- Govt under attack over banks lending ban
- Zim Constitution must be amended
Keep Reading
Firstly, while there have been repeated calls for peace by government leaders, there is still widespread state-sponsored political violence directed at civil society, human rights defenders, journalists, and political activists.
Secondly, groups of liberation war veterans and Zanu PF youths, who were responsible for much of the torture and abuse perpetrated against civilians in the run-up to the last two elections, remain intact. These groups also contributed to the infringement of rights to freedoms of expression, assembly and association.
Thirdly, the media in Zimbabwe remains muzzled. There are very few privately-owned newspapers and radio stations. This has meant that public information remains under the firm grip of Zanu PF, which continues to use state-owned media to manipulate public opinion.
Fourthly, and most significantly, the security sector is still deeply involved in the political affairs of the country.
Despite Article XIII of the GPA clearly stipulating that “state organs and institutions do not belong to any political party and should be impartial in the discharge of their duties”, Zanu PF has retained control of the security apparatus, the ultimate line of defence of its dominance.
This raises fears that this year’s elections could lead to a repeat of 2008 when Zanu PF, in partnership with the “securocrats”, thwarted a de- mocratic transfer of power. Senior military personnel have been quoted on several occasions openly supporting Mugabe and Zanu PF, and vowing to enable the party to stay in power, flouting the GPA and the codes of conduct of their own establishments.
Meanwhile, Sadc’s calls for the reform in the military, police services, state intelligence services and other critical arms of the security sector have fallen on deaf ears. At its December 2009 party congress, Zanu PF boasted that it would not allow security forces to be subject to reforms.
It appears that the coalition government has also failed to make any changes to repressive laws such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Public Order and Security Act, and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. These laws have been used to severely curtail basic rights through vague defamation clauses and draconian penalties.
