Online Reporter
Innocent Kurira, [email protected]
THERE is something fundamentally wrong when an organisation repeatedly finds itself returning to the same electoral battlefield without resolving the problems that caused the previous contest to collapse.
That is the uncomfortable position in which the Basketball union of Zimbabwe (BUZ) now finds itself.
The Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) has directed the union to hold fresh elections for the position of president before the end of the year, following the leadership impasse that emerged from the most recent poll.
On the surface, another election appears to be the obvious solution.
But is it?
Former BUZ president Joe Mujuru has raised a question that deserves serious consideration: what happens if the union holds another election under essentially the same constitutional and procedural framework that has already produced disputed outcomes?
BUZ could simply be preparing to repeat history.
The latest crisis was a surprise. David Pick and Johnson Shumba finished level on five votes apiece from the 10 provinces. Attempts to break the deadlock failed and the two subsequently emerged as co-presidents.
Whatever one’s view of the individuals involved, the bigger issue is that the system did not appear to provide a sufficiently clear and universally accepted route out of the deadlock.
That is where the real conversation should begin.
An election is not only about casting votes. It is about having rules that tell everyone what happens before, during and after those votes are counted.
What happens when candidates are tied?
Is there a run-off?
How is a run-off conducted?
Who is responsible for interpreting the rules?
What is the process for challenging an electoral decision?
How quickly must such disputes be resolved?
These are not peripheral questions. They are the foundations upon which a credible election is built.
Mujuru’s argument that BUZ needs to fix these fundamentals before simply rushing back to another presidential contest therefore deserves attention. This is particularly important because the latest dispute did not occur in isolation.
BUZ’s electoral history has already included serious disagreements. In 2022, the SRC nullified a BUZ election and ordered fresh polls after concerns were raised over the electoral process and constitutional compliance.
The latest impasse has now once again brought the union’s governance structures into the spotlight, with FIBA also becoming involved in efforts to resolve the leadership deadlock.
That should tell everyone something.
The problem is bigger than Pick versus Shumba.
It is bigger than whoever eventually becomes president.
And it is certainly bigger than the personalities occupying the BUZ executive.
The danger of focusing exclusively on the next election is that BUZ may end up treating the symptom while leaving the cause untouched.
Another vote may produce a winner, but unless the rules are strengthened, future contests could still generate fresh disputes.
That would leave the union trapped in an exhausting cycle: election, dispute, intervention, fresh election and another dispute.
Meanwhile, basketball itself pays the price.
Administrators spend valuable time fighting over governance while athletes, coaches, clubs and development programmes require attention. Sponsors and partners also need confidence that the organisation they support has stable and predictable governance structures.
The sport cannot afford for its national administration to be permanently consumed by electoral disputes.
This is why the period before the next election should perhaps be viewed not merely as preparation time, but as an opportunity for institutional repair.
BUZ needs to look carefully at its constitution and identify the grey areas.
If the document does not clearly explain how a presidential winner is determined, that must be addressed.
If it does not provide an undisputed mechanism for resolving a tie, that mechanism must be established.
If there are weaknesses around electoral disputes, those must be closed.
And importantly, these changes should not be designed around the interests of any particular candidate.
The rules must be bigger than the individuals.
That is the essence of good governance.
The objective should not be to create rules that help Pick, Shumba or any future candidate. It should be to create a system that remains credible regardless of who is contesting.
BUZ now has an opportunity to do precisely that.
The SRC’s directive provides a clear deadline for a fresh presidential election. But before the ballots are printed and the campaigns begin, there should be an honest examination of why the previous process ended where it did.
Otherwise, the union risks confusing activity with progress.
Holding another election is activity.
Fixing the system that governs that election is progress.
Zimbabwean basketball deserves an administration that can devote its energy to growing the sport rather than repeatedly defending the legitimacy of its leadership.
The next BUZ election should therefore be more than another contest for the presidency.
It should be a test of whether the union has learnt from its recent history.
Because if the fundamentals remain unresolved, another election may simply produce another dispute and basketball will once again be left watching from the sidelines.
