admin
THE final report of the European Union Election Observer Mission was, as expected after the preliminary moves of the mission and some of its early statements, something that went well beyond the terms of reference of the mission and became a sort of instruction to Zimbabwe on how it should run elections.
This is a pity, since a proper observer mission report could help highlight where improvements would be useful and provide some raw material for those who have the actual job of setting the electoral law in Zimbabwe, the Parliament of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabweans have already done a lot in the last decade to upgrade their electoral systems, both with the 2013 Constitution and then the major belt of amendments required to bring the Electoral Act into conformity with that Constitution.
Both, generally, coming to the form we now see as a result of consensus rather than a majority imposing its own version on a minority.
The Constitution was written after a great deal of consultation with the people themselves, and then hammered into detailed shape in Parliamentary committees.
It replaced the frequently amended version passed by Britain after the peace negotiations at Lancaster House that ended the liberation war with an effective transfer of power.
But after a little over three decades, Zimbabweans, quite correctly, reckoned they could use their own experience of living under a less-than-ideal Constitution to put something better together, and this was achieved.
A referendum approved the final version, and had the interesting point that there was very little opposition, either at party or individual level. It also went through Parliament with approval from both Government and opposition benches.
The Constitution gives a robust outline to the electoral processes, the finer details coming through the Electoral Act, and again the required amendments to bring it into conformity with the new Constitution did involve a detailed consultative process involving both Government and opposition legislators.
When we come down to what almost everyone notes as the inherently messy process of a competitive election, it helps when we all agree on the rules and regulations, and when there is a good, swift and fair process to sort out any disputes.
As the Government has noted, that process was not called into action after the August elections. The Constitution establishes that the courts make the final decisions when there is a dispute.
The Constitutional Court hears any electoral petition involving the Presidential poll and a High Court judge any petition involving a Parliamentary poll.
To avoid the sort of complication, which had been seen a couple of times in the past, over the normal lengthy process of a High Court action, the present procedure is designed to produce a very quick result, so the umpire’s decisions comes without any long waits.
The Chief Justice did what he was required to do, designating a pool of judges and he went way beyond the minimum numbers with a good percentage of the bench.
This meant that regardless of how many petitions emerged, there would be a judge available and almost certainly available close by who could sit promptly.
The designated judges carried on with their normal work, but as soon a petition emerged they would suspend normal operations, quickly deal with the petition as a matter of extreme urgency, make and announce their decision, and then go back to the normal lists of cases they were dealing with.
But no one objected to any of the polls. There were simply no petitions, from the Presidential poll through the Parliamentary polls, to the local council polls. No one went to court.
There were signs that some losers were extremely disappointed, but none of them reckoned they could put together even a makeshift case, let alone something that would persuade a judge.
The opposition winners stood in the same queues as the Zanu PF winners to be sworn into office, implying they accepted the results.
One major problem that faces Zimbabwe uniquely is that there is a fairly large group of outsiders who disagree strongly with the Zanu PF Government, at least since land reform, and would like to see another political party win the Zimbabwean elections.
In some cases it is just politics, wanting a more amenable government to deal with; in other cases it appears to be a lack of appreciation as to why Zimbabwean voters might disagree with them.
Some go further. The sanctions law of the United States, for example, without actually stating that the opposition must take over, makes it pretty clear that sanctions must remain until it does.
The views of Zimbabwean voters are not really that important, although in a democracy the government is formed by those who win the elections.
However, in Southern Africa there are a majority of countries that have had the same political party winning elections since independence, in several cases for more years than Zanu PF has been in power, who are regarded as solid global citizens, as well as some countries that have seen changes, sometimes even multiple changes.
It depends on the voters, not on the outsiders. Zimbabwe just wants the same treatment, respect for the people who actually stand in line and mark their ballot papers, rather than on who is good buddies with an external power.
There has been a trend in Zimbabwe after every general election to have a good look at our own electoral law and see where we can make improvements.
There were the major changes as a result of 2013 Constitution, and the amendments went further than needed because we wanted a really good law, and even then we have needed some adjustment since then.
We also reckoned at the start of the Second Republic that some of the ancillary law, especially that regarding the media, access to the media and setting up of media, plus a large swathe of law regarding public order to maximise freedom of expression, needed replacement, let alone an overhaul.
So again, with general Parliamentary consensus, we did the changes, dumping the laws we all agreed were very far from ideal and putting in something a lot better.
We saw those improvements working in the August election, and working well, but fine tuning is always possible.
While the August elections had exceptionally high levels of peaceful campaigning, a major accomplishment, most Zimbabweans will have in light of experience some thoughts on how we can make our electoral and associated laws even better, to reduce that inherently messiness of an election.
Unfortunately we cannot pass a law to make everyone accept a result, but we can make it ever clearer that non-acceptance is not really rational.
The right way to do this is to make sure that our MPs know our thoughts, and then that Parliament moves forward carefully and thoughtfully to have a good look at the law and figure out where it can be improved and fine-tuned.
Every election adds to experience so we can use that. One major goal is to work towards consensus, something that should be possible if legislators are looking to making the process better.
This cannot be rushed, but moving at deliberate speed after passions have cooled, we can come up with some good ideas.
Online Reporter