The news on the Zimbabwean election is moving very quickly, and after days of delay, it appears likely that official results will be announced while we’re all asleep. The state run Herald newspaper had access to what it claims are the tallies of the presidential vote – which while the paper wasn’t specific, are said to show Morgan Tsvangarai with 49% of the vote and Robert Mugabe with 42%, indicating a runoff election would need to be held. The parliamentary results released show the MDC with 99 seats and Zanu-PF with 96, with smaller opposition parties holding 16 seats. The MDC have claimed in the last hour that their compilation of polling booth results show Tsvangarai with an absolute majority, but that they would reluctantly agree to a runoff if the official results differed. Results were publicly posted outside each polling booth in order to prevent rigging, under pressure from other African countries and South African President Thabo Mbeki in particular.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was interviewed on Lateline tonight, and repeated his condemnation of the Mugabe regime as “brutal” and indicated that he was working to reinforce the will of the governments of African Union and neighbouring states to ensure a peaceful outcome which respected the will of the people of Zimbabwe. Interestingly, the International Herald Tribune is reporting sources close to the governing party indicating that Mugabe has expressed a willingness to stand down. It’s being intimated in several quarters that immunity from prosecution would be the price of his departure. It may well be that the delay in reporting the results has had more to do with negotiations under way than any rigging of the results. I don’t think that the reports we’ve seen in this country have made it clear that the figures being discussed are not the results of estimations from the MDC based on reports from scrutineers of the count, but rather are a compilation of the tallies from each polling booth. So there is – at least in theory – a much larger degree of transparency in the count than in previous Zimbabwean elections.
I hope other nations, and Western nations in particular, have been contemplating aid packages to enable the next government, which it appears likely will be the MDC, to do something to put the country back on its feet. It would be difficult to judge whether the human rights abuses or the economic situation is more reprehensible, though of course both are actually intertwined. Nevertheless, the international community can’t rest on its laurels even if – against what appeared overwhelming odds – a fair if not absolutely free election result has been achieved.
Elsewhere: More at Blogocracy.
Piers has the lowdown……it’s big Mal’s fault.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/blood_on_frasers_hands/#trackbacksmore
What a horrible mess to unravel. The only things in Zimbabwean’s favour is that they appear to be a well educated people and there do not appear to be major religeous or cultural complications. This will take the greatest of leaders to put right.
“It may well be that the delay in reporting the results has had more to do with negotiations under way than any rigging of the results…”. A rare note of calm common sense on the progress of the election, thanks Mark.
There is a lot of rending of garments about how long it is taking for the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission to declare the results, and plenty of hysterical reporting on possible electoral fraud, most of it unsubstantiated so far, it seems.
Let’s not forget that in Australia and other similar countries, for example, results are not officially declared for the Reps for a couple of weeks after polling day (the result claimed by the winning party on polling night is based on an indicative throw of preferences at the polling booths, and not an officially certified result). Certification of results by the central electoral authority is a serious business and takes time, even in Zimbabwe.
Some reporter a couple of days ago pointed accusingly at a vacant lot in the Zimbabwean countryside and raved about how 8000 voters were enrolled here, implying massive organised fraud by the Electoral Commission. There are two possible other explanations: this was a mustering point for enrolling homeless voters, to which they return on polling day to vote at an erected polling booth, or the Electoral Commission has made a mapping mistake and the voters are correctly enrolled for the populated area nearby.
Instead of assuming that Mugabe’s significant personal and party vote is the result of massive organised electoral fraud, the simpler explanation might well be that many of Mugabe’s supporters have been paid or otherwise compensated through the party machinery at village and township level. Vote-buying is well understood in countries like Thailand and Mexico, as it probably is in Zimbabwe. And vote buying trumps voter fraud (like individual cemetery voting) in poorer countries every time.
The most impressive aspect of the election so far for me has been the reports that polling results were posted on the walls of the polling booths in the villages (to stop any subsequent manipulation of results at provincial or central locations).
Western reporters have missed the real significance of this. Villagers and township residents, and their polling officials, have shown a rare kind of courage that should be celebrated and praised internationally. Posting local polling results makes your village an instant target for post-election retribution if the provincial/national vote goes the other way and the usual bullies and thugs resume power. How brave is that, in machete-land?
We are yet to see the endgame, but it looks like Mugabe’s days are over. Let’s hope that the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission can gain some respectability for running a mostly credible election in such extraordinary circumstances, and that a viable and loyal Opposition can rise from the ashes of Mugabe’s defeat. Otherwise Zimbabwe might end up swapping one dictatorship for another.
“Immunity from prosecution would be the price of his departure”. You forgot to add: “And a first-class air ticket out of the country to his bolt-hole of choice”.
Ah, yes, the traditional despot’s Golden Parachute.
I seem to remember sterling individuals like Field Marshal Dr Idi Amin Dada, President for Life, and (nearer to home) President Ferdinand Marcos cutting similar deals.
Wonder if Mrs Mugabe will be kind enough to leave a pile of shoes behind for the local St Vinnies to dole-out to those in need.
The more things change……
I like the story that some of Mugabe’s acolytes are urging him to hang in there, because they have Australian school fees to pay.
Who would have guessed that they bursar at Kings would have a stake in the Zimbabwean election?
It’s all rather messy. Zimbabwe may well go down the usual African road, with the army commander deciding who gets to run the place.
Is it too late to bring back that old bastard Smithy?
Lloyd at 1: Wow. That Ackerman piece is horrible. Apparently, liberals are responsible for all suffering in the world.
I knew Piers was a reprehensible character but I didn’t fully appreciate the scale of his incredible, breath-taking repugnance.
Has previous media comment has understated extent to which ZANU-PF did retain substantial support in rural areas based on nationalist themes and the white imperialist bogy. Some commentators couldn’t believe anyone would vote for Mugabe, same way some never meet a Howard or Bush voter. This support seems to have drastically declined (did ZANU-PF believe their own propaganda and give insufficient attention to rigging the vote?). Voters may be wrong but they are rational (remember the fall of Indira Gandhi?). Prospects for the country are bright, although the economy is stuffed it has a functioning state apparatus and reasonable levels of human capital, rather like eastern Europe post-1989.
Spiros: Alas, Smithy has passed on from this world. Though history has vindicated him, by default if nothing else.
Andos: The Piers Ackerman piece can be turned from “reprehensible” to “spot on” by simply changing the term “driving white farmers from thier land” to “Gukurahundi”.
SATP, I was being sarcastic about Smithy. History has certainly not vindicated him. Mugabe was the only game in town to speak of circa 1979. It’s a great pity he didn’t retire in 1988.
Steve: are you trying to say that liberals around the world applauded the slaughter of innocent civilians in Zimbabwe? I don’t quite understand your point.
Andos, Mugabe as soon as Mugabe got into power he set about massacreing the Matabele. By the standard Ian Smith was held to this should have led to calls for Mugabe to be sanctioned worse than was the Smith government.
Spiros, perhaps vindication was the wrong word. History has shown that Smith ran the country far better than Mugabe, was nowhere near as racist as Mugabe, and the standard of living for all (Mugabe’s inner circle excepted) was better under the Smith regime.
Piers is so glad to blame Mal but does not go further. Why didn’t he go back to the possible real demon of the peace? The over-education of a chosen one.
A marist brother boy, then turned over to the jesuits, picks up seven degrees then turns into the dictator, Mugabe. Now there is a story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe
Spiros wrote: “Mugabe was the only game in town to speak of circa 1979.”
Steve @ pub wrote “as soon as Mugabe got into power he set about massacreing the Matabele.”
Whatever happened to that nice Mr Joshua Nkomo? My recollection is that there were TWO major leaders in the armed struggle for majority rule: Mr Mugabe & Mr Nkomo. They had an alliance didn’t they? So did Mr Nkomo lose his Parliamentary seat at some stage in the 90’s?
He was fired in 83.
Just checked on the late Joshua Nkomo: he’s still deceased – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/382848.stm
That’s a brief summmary, but it indicates that many Zimbabwean leaders contributed, that Nkomo’s army was supported by the USSR, with Mugabe’s army supported by China. Then North Korea helped out later! Good for them, eh?
What a mess. Colonial rule in Africa had its tragedies; it seems that liberation-supported-by-the-new-colonialists had its downside too. Cold War rivalries in Zimbabwe, but between China and the Soviets.
cheers
There was a report on one of the TV newses that Mugabe had already fled the countrey which is why he hadn’t been seen since the election, but I don’t think it has been verified in any way. I just hope he’s out of office and if there is a run-off election (which all reports indicate Mugabe would lose) Zimbabwe doesn’t degenerate into the kind of violence we saw recently in Kenya and have seen in other African countries. Under good governance Zimbabwe has every chance of recoverting, but it would take time and they would need help. And, with the Rudd Government in power, I’m sure we would be among the countries to make a worthwhile contribution.
Re Ackermann, did anyone ever expect him to behave otherwise? Read his piece over coffee at Rumours the Armidale Mall this morning and nearly choked on my club sandwich. (They provide the Tele free so I never have to buy it.)
For the first few years, at least, Mugabe looked reasonable, except to those who believed the niggers would never be able to rule themselves. I hate the fact that, this time anyway, the racists turn out to have been correct.
I know what you mean, David, but the racists weren’t correct. The fact that Mugabe behaved the way he has in Government has nothing to do with the fact that he’s black, just who he is as a person.
For the first few years Mugabe was subject to the somewhat moderating influence of his first wife. It was after her death that he drifted from zealot to despot.
“from zealot”
Mugabe is Jewish? I never knew.
Regime change in Zimbabwe is no more a path to peace than it was in Iraq.
It is wrong to identify the personality Mugabe as an isolated tyrant, the sole cause of the problem. The national sovereignty movement that brought about the revolution has not gone away, this is Mugabe’s strong power base, not bribed or deluded puppets of Mugabi’s manipulation.
Mugabi has defiantly dismisseed democratic due process and economic responsibility. He has often stated that he is still in revolutionary/war mode, Zimbabwe’s sovereignty is not yet complete. The final struggle has been land reform. The democratic constitution of Zimbabwe entrenches the property rights of white land owners and as such has to be defied in order to bring about land reform. The clashes between war veterens and white land owners was not just Mugabe sending in goon squads, this was grass roots insurection, the final stage of the revolution facilitated by the old war horse himself.
A change of government and the prosepect of economic development through engagement in global markets, as seems to be the MDC’s agenda, will throw petrol on the fires of indiginist land reform. The national sovereignty movement will not abandon its demands for land and will once again go into civil war mode if ZANU-PF is removed.
As for the MDC, this light of democracy, they have been calling for a split in the military in order to orchestrate a military coup if Mugabe is elected. The prospect of a military dictatorship is likely even if the opposition wins government as this will trigger a civil war.
A British backed military dictatorship, or a government whose strings are pulled by foreign capital, crushing a civil war and encouraging foreign investment is not the road to peace.
Elsewhere: More at Blogocracy.
Spiros, quite possiby there are many things, including the meaning of common words, which you “never knew”.
Despite the name, your Greek is slipping. Zealot = fanatical enthusiast.
Or perhaps it is my Greek which is a little rusty, tell us, does “Zealot” somehow mean “Jew”?
From dictionary.com
Zealot
a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.
Spiros, I’m afraid you are trumped. The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you!
From Oxford English Dictionary online
Zealot
a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until ad 70.
Steve, you’ve got to learn to stop while you’re behind.
Spiros, you will never win, not in life, not in anything.
Paper dictionary trumps ANYTHING online.
Spiros, much as I am enjoying your little spat with SATP I should point out that where you rely on a citation you should show the whole of it. It is naughty to do otherwise, and some pedant (like me) might just check.
This is the definition of zealot provided by dictionary.com:
Use of the word zealot is not confined to reference to a radical Jewish movement of the first century AD and, from the source you cited, the word should be capitalised when used in reference to them.
SATP used the word in uncapitalised form. His usage is correct.
GregM, you’re such a spoilsport.
Also, latter usage ALWAYS trumps archaic usage, unless you’re reading ancient history.
Yea, yeah, I know, but it was fun teasing SATP.
Oh, it was just baiting. Way to use etymology for evil, Spiros.
If Mugabe was white or yellow there would not be half the noise over his actions. Rigged elections are OK for America but what about Australia? Mugabe is certainly bad but have you remembered Burma, or China, or any other African countries, Asian countries, South American countries, that have dictatorships or other government by force of arms? Mugabe recognised that white farmers were the source of his countries poverty – they had to go. Had they been black farmers we would never have heard of Zimbabwe. Good riddance to Mugabe – but what would you have done should Howard been re-elected last November and put the lives of a million Australians in danger?
So he got rid of them and everyone in Zimbabwe got so much richer and every one of them goes to bed each night with a full belly then?
That particular policy of his worked out really well, didn’t it?
Meh. It could have been worse.
John Tracey is right about two things – it’s probable that there is still support for Mugabe, and the land reform impetus to some degree developed independently of Mugabe. That’s not to say that one should buy into the whole post-colonialist discourse he wrapped it up in – a central factor in the collapse of the economy was the attack on the rule of law. But the new government is still going to have to grapple with tensions over land.
The land & plentiful labour is all Zimbabwe had.
Now it has nothing. Unless the labour can be coordinated to produce, and the land can again be managed effectively, they are stuck where they are.
Not going to be easy.
Mugabe got 42% of the vote. You know what that means. It means the economy’s so far south that the sumbitch’s running out of bullets. It also means he hasn’t quite run out of them yet. I do hope he saves one for himself.
Historically it’s true that agriculture was their economic mainstay, steve, but they’ve also got large unexploited coal reserves and gold in the ground – Tzvangerai was once a Miners Union leader, let’s not forget.
They’ve also got a very well educated and literate population.
If all the landowners were to go to heaven would the earth disappear? Not really! That he stuffed up the economics of his country is obvious. Who stuffed up Americas? Australias’? etc etc etc?
No-one has stuffed up Australia’s economy. As I last heard inflation in Australia is running at 4%, a bit of a worry but not over 100,000 percent. Unemployment is, officially at a little over 4%, not 80%, as it is in Zimbabwe. And the vast majority of Australians don’t go to bed hungry every night as most Zimbabweans do, In fact obesity, a product of having a surfeit of food, is a major health issue facing Australia, but not Zimbabwe.
You obviously have bizarre standards, completely detached from reality, to make the comparisons you make.
I’m somewhat bemused by those commenters here and elsewhere who think that all of Zimbabwe’s problems could have been avoided had it not been for the Lancaster House Agreement, and that they could be solved by reverting to the status quo ante. Since when was the absence of democracy a cure for the absence of democracy?
And Piers Akerman is old enough to know that the Lancaster House Agreement was primarily brokered by the British government of his heroine, Margaret Thatcher.
Also, those who want to test the accuracy of statements by Piers and his interlocutors about TEH LEFT’s attitude to the Mugabe regime can check out the positions of the Australian Greens, the ALP, the ACTU, and the SEARCH Foundation (successor to the former Communist Party of Australia).
This has got all the drama of a remake of Guns At Batasi. Where’s Dickie Attenborough?
Its stating the obvious, but there is every probability that the run-off election, which apparently will not have independent observers, will be a repeat of the massive physical intimidation of the Opposition.
Your comments seem unfortunately accurate, Paul, in light of news that MDC offices in Harare were raided overnight, and Tsvanagari has gone into hiding for his own safety.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2207801.htm?section=justin
Paul Burns says:
Oh, yes. Mugabe even has a Politburo. He’s a marxist, so he’s not going to go willingly.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mugabe-crackdown-opposition-raided/2008/04/04/1207249396936.html
There.
It’s time for the South Africans to seriously tell Mugabe to get out. No ifs or buts.
It’s pretty safe to say where Mugabe’s went wrong:
- ABC 7.30 Report
- screen dump
At this stage looking a bit like Mugabe will “contest” a run-off election, without foreign observers or foreign journalists, but WITH lots of Zimbabwe Police and Zimbabwe army.