Why the Zimbabwe opposition is already crying victory although the count is not finished
http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=122&a=4369
Zimbabwe Election Déjà Vu
By Netfa Freeman
March 27th, 2008
African people let's wake up.
Just as they did three years ago detractors of Zimbabwe’s governing party ZANU PF and President Robert Mugabe are already forecasting that the election in Zimbabwe is rigged, even though it has not happened yet. All of the propaganda machines are in motion to plant misgivings about any outcome that announces victory for Mugabe.
One Mary Ndlovu, a Zimbabwean “human rights” activist has been feverishly providing anti-Mugabe articles and analyses to set the stage for whatever happens. In one published by Pambazuka News she supports her prediction with a diatribe of misinformation and over simplifications asserting, "there is no minutest possibility of a ‘free and fair’ election. Those observers from SADC who boast that it can still be so are only destroying their own credibility."
Logic dictates that such thinking by an African places their faith in and aligns them more with the neo-colonizers, the United States and European Union, led by Britain than with Africa embodied in this case by entities like Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), and the African Union mission (AU).
As it is today, so it was in 2005 when Zimbabwe held elections for seats in parliament. The US, EU, theopposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), a slew of Western beholden “civil society” or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Britain all cried foul prior to the election and grasped for anything that could remotely be called evidence of rigging. While painting their movement as something popular in Zimbabwe, these so-called social justice NGOs/ "civil society" advocates keep claiming their agenda and that of imperialism are not one and the same.
Never mind their rabid contempt for Mugabe mirrors in words and deeds that of officials from the US State Department or the British government. One will never hear them address the point of former Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs, Chester Crocker when he said in a testimony to the US Senate “To separate the Zimbabwean people from ZANU-PF we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you senators have the stomach for what you have to do.” [Democracy Now!, April 1st, 2005]
This not only proved that the sinister intent of US imperialism has been to destabilize Zimbabwe, it also indicates that they believe the government of ZANU-PF is a popular one. Elections in spring 2005 had also reflected the will of the Zimbabwean people and those results were confirmed so by observers from the SADC, the AU, and others like the US based December 12th Movement who were not afraid to speak truth to power.
It should be pointed out that although the MDC had lodged unsubstantiated claims of fraud back then, their ballot counters signed off on the results from each polling station. They later admitted publicly that elections were not rigged. “In first signs of yet another possible split within the opposition party, (Isaac) Matongo (3rd highest ranking MDC leader) publicly acknowledged that the MDC had no grassroots support and that was the major reason the opposition party was losing elections.” [Daily Mirror, February 5th, 2006]
So why are ZANU-PF and Mugabe detractors so insistent in repeating over and again the lie that Zimbabwe elections are fraudulent? On Tuesday I was interviewed about Zimbabwe on The Breakfast Club, a Kingston Jamaica radio talk show, and the fellow guest, Prof. Richard Hull at NYU made the baseless claim that Zimbabwe’s 2002 presidential election was fraudulent. I couldn’t be surprised. Because it was barely disclosed, it would be hardly surprising if Hull were unaware that the renowned NAACP has a report bearing witness that those elections too were free and fair. Like the parliamentary elections of 2005, Zimbabwe’s 2002 presidential elections were certified by SADC, the Union of African States, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches and more.
Prof. Hull also believes Zimbabwe should revert back to depending on its cash crops like tobacco and exotic flowers as a way to get much needed foreign currency. But people cannot eat tobacco, flowers or currency. A Pan-Africanist realizes that the cash crop set up is what keeps us away from using our land to produce for our needs. It is under that neo-colonial set up that unfair trade persists and why the masses of African people continue to suffer.
However, the arrogant and shameless measures of imperialism to affect the outcome in Zimbabwe this Saturday should not be underestimated. They've wanted Mugabe out at least for the last ten years. Those who think that the British and US governments confine their contempt for an independent country and its leaders to public denunciations and lip service are wallowing in the height of folly. If this were the case they would have simply needed only to talk negatively about Saddam Hussein and not invade Iraq, or orchestrate a coup against Kwame Nkrumah, or assassinate Patrice Lumumba, or bomb Libya.
Some Western media pundits have been dangerously forecasting for the last month or so that Zimbabwe elections hold in store the same intense and fatal violence we saw in Kenya. Even though Pan-African Parliament's observer mission, now on the ground in Zimbabwe, has said that the current environment in the country is conducive to free and fair elections. "After what Africa witnessed in Kenya, we are encouraged by the pre-poll situation in Zimbabwe… The mood is good and it brings hope to the continent that we are moving in the right direction" [BuaNews, March 25, 2008]
Those making such comparisons between Zimbabwe and Kenya are playing on the already tarnished image of democracy in Africa and want to prevent the public from asking the hard questions and doing thorough investigations when all is said and done. However, unlike Kenya, there is already motive and prior conviction for African people to more than suspect interference by the iron fist and velvet glove of imperialism in Zimbabwe.Some were surprised when, on April 5th 2007 the US State Department admitted to sponsoring opposition in Zimbabwe but allowances for this policy had already been written into the text of the US' hypocritical Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2000, aka ZIDERA.
This is why when the imperialist beholden "civil society activists” speak or write about the leading figures opposing Mugabe these figures seem almost surreal. They speak of Morgan Tsvangirai and his faction of the MDC as if he is not the same person who plotted an assassination of Zimbabwe's president as a prelude to a coup; as if it is not unusual for Tsvangirai to be flanked by young thugs from urban areas who just over a year ago went on a terrorizing spree around the country fire bombing buses, kombis, police dormitories, and attacking citizens and police in the streets. All of that was part of imperialism’s modus operandi to make Zimbabwe ungovernable. One won't hear the “civil society activist” mention these things. If they mention Archbishop Pius Ncube, a vocal critic of Mugabe, one can be excused for not realizing from them that Ncube is a discredited amoral who has shamelessly advocated for the British and their allies (imperialism) to invade Zimbabwe in order to ”remove Mugabe by force”.
Likewise when this imperialist beholden "civil society" speak or write about Robert Mugabe, one might never understand from them that he was against the Lancaster House Agreement that tied the hands of the ZANU PF government from reclaiming the land from white settlers; that the 1989 conditions and constraints that led to Zimbabwe's acceptance of loans and the Economic Structural Adjustment Program of the WorldBank/International Monetary Fund were largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and felt by allcountries trying to pursue an independent path. You will never hear from them that Mugabe spearheaded the abolishment of said Economic Structural Adjustment Program, something done nowhere else in Africa. One would think a land reform program like none seen since the days of Sekou Ture in Guinea or Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, was not under the leadership of Mugabe; or that there is nothing positive in the new law hesigned that mandates majority ownership of all businesses to "indigenous" Zimbabweans.
Such a listing of facts by an African (person of African descent) is often belittled as a one-sided and romantic worship of an old liberation fighter, turned tyrant. However, when these things are completely omitted, then a bias befitting of a racist Western perspective is the result. No one thinks criticism should not be placed where criticism is due. However, the usual suspect detractors more often list the symptoms of economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the US, EU and Britain making no attribution to the sanctions. They keep peddling the lie that the sanctions are "smart" sanctions, targeting only certain Zimbabwe officials.
Could they be totally ignorant to what Brandon Stone has been able to assess in his well-documented paper, An Investigation of Zimbabwe's Different Path?
Stone reveals “the results of the sanctions were severe, as foreign trade plummeted towards near zero,and "foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe plunged by over 99 percent." Inflation soared, and the lack of foreign exchange devastated Zimbabwe's manufacturing sector, causing unemployment to rise to over 70 percent. These factors - the external campaign by great powers to cripple Zimbabwe's economy - are rarely discussed by Western academics or journalists, who instead portray the crisis in Zimbabwe solely as the result of the land reform, or Mugabe's mismanagement.”
The intensely biased propaganda campaign has been no less damaging. One example can be seen when comparing Guinea and Zimbabwe which both have a head of state who has been in power since early-mid 80’s; Lansana Conte in Guinea and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Conte, however became leader through a military coup following the death of the democratically elected Pan-Africanist President Sekou Ture. Mugabe on the other hand was democratically elected after earning his place as a freedom fighter in the struggle against British settler colonialism. But only Mugabe receives a heavy degree of patented denunciations for being “in power too long”.
Further, a year ago both Guinea and Zimbabwe experienced some internal unrest but again not equal consideration by the media or these “civil society activists”. As part of the aforementioned terrorizing spree in Zimbabwe by opposition thugs, the MDC disguised a protest as a prayer vigil during a temporary ban on demonstrations.
When an out numbered group of police --who are rarely armed with guns-- were attacked by the mob they were provoked into killing one of them, the police still received a brutal beating and had to flee. The incident earned a flurry of attention from the international media that spun its coverage as a Mugabe crackdown on dissent completely omitting the actions of the mob. The imperialist governments and “civil society activists” all chimed in unison with condemnations of Mugabe and ZANU PF.
However, the brutal and unprovoked attack by Conte, which occurred roughly at the same time, went relatively unnoticed. Advancing on a crowd with tanks, Conte’s forces sprayed a mass demonstration of thousands with rapid-fire automatic weapons killing just fewer than 200 people. The same benevolent Western governments and their NGO agents uttered hardly a critical murmur.
Now after 8 years of sanctions against Zimbabwe the election outcome is uncertain. The intended affect of “making the economy scream” as Crocker put it has transpired. Whether or not sisters and brothers in Zimbabwe react the way imperialism wants remains to be seen. As African people we should hope not.
At this juncture the question should not be whether or not Mugabe stays in office but whether or not an imperialist beholden opposition could ever bring resolution to Zimbabwe’s problems. The answer should be obvious. And if the people do hold strong and see through the designs and machination of imperialism by once again voting in Mugabe, we must still be wary of how imperialism and its agents will react. And we must understand that as goes Zimbabwe, so goes Africa and her Diaspora. Only fools sleep in a burning house and only bigger fools watch while arsonist burn.
Netfa Freeman is currently the director of the Social Action & Leadership School for Activists at the Institute for Policy Studies. Freeman is a longtime activist in the Pan-African and international human rights movements and is also a co-producer/co-host for Voices With Vision, WPFW 89.3 FM, Washington DC. He can be reached at netfa@hotsalsa.org
http://raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1207317941,34646,.shtml
Zimbabwe: British interest in poll telling
By Peter Mavunga
April 04, 2008
IT HAS been a momentous week. The harmonised presidential, parliamentary and local elections have concentrated the minds of many Zimbabweans wherever they are. But they have also attracted a level of interest from beyond our borders; a level of interest that left me intrigued.In Britain, the interest has been keen. This has manifested itself in acres of newsprint devoted to the subject; journalists (like John Simpson) smuggling themselves into Zimbabwe despite the ban on the BBC; and a debate in the House of Commons in which David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, made a full statement.Miliband said the level of interest is due to their concern for Zimbabweans whose will, he argued, had to be respected. He called for the results of the elections to be published as soon as possible as further delay was likely to heighten suspicion.
This of course sounds wonderfully balanced and diplomatic although it does not hide the fact that the statement is given from the point of view of a government minister who, like many before him, wants President Mugabe to go.If anything, the whole media coverage has been about maximising the President's discomfort to facilitate his "departure". A good example of this pre-occupation was Jeremy Paxman's question for Cde BonifaceChidyausiku, Zimbabwe's USA envoy, on Newsnight on Wednesday night "Why doesn't he just go?" Paxman asked. To go where?" came the rhetorical question in reply. And quite right too! For all their "good" intentions and ‘‘love'' for the people of Zimbabwe, the British interest in Zimbabwe's electoral process ought to be seen in the context of their perceived interests in the country. If we lose sight of this we do so at our own peril.
The purpose of this article is not in any way to argue that President Mugabe should not go if that is what the people of Zimbabwe desire. He himself will not deny this given that he is the man who brought democracy to a troubled people who had been denied the vote since colonial times by the white man. The point I make here is that the responsibility to remove Cde Mugabe from office or any public servant for that matter, is, after due process, a matter for Zimbabweans. It is certainly no business of the British to inject haste and sense of urgency in the process.Election results in Iraq after the removal of Sadam Hussein took months to come out without questions being asked of the British and the Americans.
There is a due process, though, that has to be gone through. Zimbabwe has a Constitution that sets out the rules of how the electoral business is conducted in circumstances similar to those that we saw during the course of this momentous week. Even John Simpson the BBC's world correspondent conceded back on Wednesday that the Zimbabwe Constitution allowed the presidential election results to be published by today, Friday. Yet the sense of urgency in British political circles and media alike implies wrong doing on the part of the Zimbabwe authorities when, in actual fact, due process, which Morgan Tsvangirai, MDC faction leader said quite sensibly on Tuesday he was going to allow to take its course.
British intervention in matters like this, I am afraid, has tended to be partisan, condescending and unhelpful. It has implied that Africans, those ‘‘benighted heathens'', cannot manage their affairs, let alone resolve their own differences peacefully.The coded messages inherent in what they were saying was that very soon Zimbabwe was about to descend into Kenya-type chaos of murder and destruction. Talk of "tensions rising" was designed to whip up feelings of grievance to trigger a violent reaction.
Once Zimbabwe was in smoke; images of dead bodies like we saw in Kenya, would become the subject of western cameras. It is all done in the interest of informing the world what is going on in the African country. Yet, if truth be told, bodies of dead British soldiers coming from Iraq are quite rightly never paraded in public. This would be an affront of public decency.It is essential, that Africans should consider themselves capable of doing what they have to do for themselves. Sikhanyiso Ndlovu put it nicely when he told an interviewer earlier this week that: "We do not do things in order to please you." Yet there is an unhealthy desire to report issues of national interest to the British.
The harmonised elections were held in an atmosphere of self-imposed peace and tranquillity. It should be a measure of what a people can do without outside interference despite their differences.The only blot to this sense of maturity was the constant stream of unofficial "results" that kept coming out as if to undermine the official results from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. True, there was political posturing and manoeuvring, as there was something in it for the MDC Tsvangirai faction. For instance when the faction's secretary general, Tendai Biti, repeatedly said on Sunday, the day after the elections, that "there was no room for doubt, in fact no shadow of doubt" that the MDC had won 67 percent of the vote or had won the election, it served two purposes.
First, it was a clever way of creating in the collective mind of the British public that the opposition had finally won the election. The clever bit was that given that the strategy of the opposition party was to portray Zanu-PF as a party that "rigs" and "lies" about the elections, any figures that came out officially afterwards would be dismissed by the British public as such. But Biti's repeated claims served another purpose: of making black people look silly. I would have thought that one claims that there is "no room for doubt" about anything when one is in possession of the full facts, not when this is but an opinion. Or one should tell the world the basis on which the claim of total sureness is made.
Another contribution to the silly season was Basildon Peta's suggestion that Morgan Tsvangirai, whom he believed to have won, should go to State House accompanied by supporters to claim the presidency. I notice, though, that the MDC faction leader did not choose that option. For a start it serves to undermine the very institutions that allow due process to take place in peace. It also begs the question as to whether Peta would be willing to travel from South Africa to lead the supporters?
And Bishop Desmond Tutu was also suggesting in the "London Paper" that foreign troops must be deployed to"watch Zimbabwe". He is concerned about human rights and that the country might "descend into chaos." I do not know how the cleric came to that view.What is known is that ours is a professional army that has performed its duties excellently. There will be no requirement of an outside force to keep it in check. And so to depart! This has been a momentous week and one in which Zimbabweans ought to reflect coolly what happened and continues to happen. For, as I write on Wednesday night, the end results of the parliamentary and presidential elections remain unknown to me.
But whatever happens, the will of Zimbabweans must prevail not through the coercion of an external force that has an axe to grind, but through the efforts of our own people.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/891/in1.htm
Slowly does it
Whoever wins Zimbabwe's presidential polls has a gargantuan task at hand. But bigger challenges lie ahead, notes Gamal Nkrumah
----------------------------------------------------------
Slowly does it, or does it? Politics is both a messy and mysterious business, and especially so in Africa. The Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) has ruled Zimbabwe with an iron fist since independence from Britain in 1980. This week, its stranglehold on Zimbabwe might be loosened somewhat. Be that as it may, never underestimate ZANU-PF leader, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. He is a seasoned politician and he knows that he cannot be rubbished by his people even if he loses last Saturday'spresidential poll. The Zimbabwean army, the police and the dreaded Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) are all behind Mugabe. And, many of his people are.
As Al-Ahram Weekly went to print, it was still not certain what the final result was. The opposition claims outright victory. The government claims a tie. There were initial rumours on Tuesday that South Africa was brokering a deal; however, it later transpired that that was not the case -- or at least that was what the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Tsvangirai and members of the Mugabe government disclosed. What is crystal clear, however, is that the presidential race was razor- sharp close.
To listen to the international media, one would imagine that millions of Zimbabweans are gasping to see the back of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. And, yet even his critics concede that he is popular in the rural areas; his land grab policy has won him accolades among his own people and throughout southern Africa and beyond. Indeed, it is peculiar how often Westerners are surprised to learn that Mugabe has certain popular appeal, not so much however, in the urban centres -- not just the middle class suburbs, but in the sprawling townships as well. For the urban dwellers of Zimbabwe, 28 years of Mugabe rule has been a question of promises but no delivery. Mugabe may be about to bounce back, but so too will Zimbabwe's sanctions- fuelled economic crises.
In the past couple of months, parallels have been drawn between Kenya's political crisis and Zimbabwe. Nothing can be further from the truth. Kenya is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country. Zimbabwe is a far more homogenous country with virtually two main ethnic groups -- the majority Shona and minority Ndebele. True, the Shona people are subdivided into Zezuru, Karanga and Manyika, but they all speak the Shona language and clearly ethnicity is not a factor in Zimbabwean politics. In Zimbabwe, what is at stake is the political future of the country and the accompanying economic ramifications.
By any measure, Mugabe is a difficult leader to deal with. He is headstrong, and he can be ruthless. Last Saturday's presidential polls might have been one of his greatest challenges since assuming office, but certainly his biggest tests are well behind him. If he steps down now, he will still be revered as the Father of the Nation. He is a shrewd politician and might still clinch a deal with his opponents, in which case he will remain. At worst, he would be handled with kid's gloves as some sort of senile elder statesman. He will not take kindly to that sort of treatment, and that would be grounds for continued concern over Zimbabwe. The opposition MDC too, has its diehard supporters. However, its image is tainted as a pro-Western organisation -- a weakness that Mugabe never fails to exploit.
The ruling ZANU-PF has long been led by a cronyistic political elite. There have been defections, too. The most famous today is the charismatic and relatively youthful Simba Makoni, at one time a Mugabe right-hand man, his finance minister and secretary-general of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). This time, he was running as an independent presidential contender. Well, as it happened he lost resoundingly -- or so Zimbabwe's Electoral Commission says.
As well as being suave Simba Makoni was the youngest of Zimbabwe's presidential hopefuls and he looks it. At election rallies he jumped up and danced, the crowds roaring with laughter and excitement. There were lots of reasons for the dismal performance of Makoni; primarily because he is too closely associated with Mugabe. Many Zimbabweans dismiss him as a Mugabe henchman in disguise.
Morgan Tsvangirai, on the other hand, is dumpy and morose. He has cause to be bellicose. He has suffered greatly at the hands of Mugabe's henchmen, including the thugs in the security forces. He has neither the natural charisma of Makoni or Mugabe.
Initial results according to the MDC suggested Morgan Tsvingirai had 50.3 per cent to Mugabe's 43.8 per cent, which should preclude a run-off, though a ZANU-PF spokesman said this was "wishful thinking".Most probably there will be a run-off considering who holds the power.
Decked out in ZANU-PF attire, Mugabe delivered what might be his swan-song on election eve, acknowledging that after years of stultification, there is a new spirit of yearning for change, of rejuvenation. He spoke of the dangers of "speculation and lies" and of "causing unnecessary havoc". That speech was a defining moment for Mugabe.
Whoever wins, change is on the horizon. Mugabe wants to pep things up. He knows he has to. Zimbabwe has long epitomised African freedom, the bitter liberation struggle (or chimurenga ) was an inspiration for people of African descent the world over. A new Zimbabwean president would need to make the case anew. All these would be welcome changes of substance and symbolism.
Zimbabwe is a country in deep trouble. It was once among the most promising economies of the continent.Today, most Zimbabweans cannot get anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS. The income gap between townspeople and those in the countryside is considerable, but not growing. If anything the gap is actually closing. Indeed, at least in some rural parts of the country peasant farmers can live off the land. In the townships it is hard to eke a living with unemployment and inflation 100,000 per cent, whatever that is.
There is a way to salve these wounds. Most Zimbabweans just manage to scrape a living. To play the Chinese card. They are the biggest investors in Zimbabwe now and are on their way to steer the country into its orbit, much to the chagrin of the old colonial masters. To complicate matters, graciously retiring is not an option open for Mugabe. There is still a strong chance that he has another term or so to work up a compelling pitch.
On the face of it, the Zimbabwean presidential and parliamentary elections are abundant proof that the country is a vibrant democracy. Mugabe is certainly not a dictator. He is not an African potentate in the traditional sense. He permits opposition parties to have a say and to field presidential candidates with the potential to outdo him. The new Zimbabwean president will face a reality test of his own. Yet,there was an understanding that whoever won, Zimbabwe's problems will not evaporate overnight.