admin
Innocent Mujeri
Recent elections in Zimbabwe have once again ignited debates surrounding the credibility and impartiality of election observers, particularly in the spotlight is SADC Electoral Observation Mission (SEOM) head, Dr Nevers Mumba.
Mumba’s report has not only been criticised for bias, but also for its seeming weaponisation to incite regime change in Zimbabwe.
This issue is particularly sensitive and needs to be addressed head-on, as weaponising observer mission reports undermines the very essence of democracy.
According to the Code of Conduct for Election Observers, observer reports should be based on “well-documented, factual, and verifiable evidence from a multiple number of credible sources,” as well as the observers’ eyewitness accounts.
Mumba’s report seems to be significantly lacking in these aspects.
He made sweeping statements about the Forever Associates Zimbabwe (FAZ) Trust without having consulted with its leaders.
Furthermore, he accused Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) of bias without engaging with the broadcaster to understand why there was minimal coverage of the Citizens’ Coalition for Change (CCC) events.
ZBC has since issued a statement that several CCC candidates, including Nelson Chamisa, had declined interview invitations, making it questionable as to why Mumba did not seek clarification from ZBC before making such claims.
It is noteworthy that Mumba himself hails from Zambia, a country that has had its share of electoral controversies.
The withdrawal of some aspiring candidates shortly before Zambia’s 2021 elections raised numerous questions.
SADC however did not dismiss Zambia’s election results.
It accepted President Hakainde Hichilema’s victory. The lack of scrutiny towards Zambia’s electoral process compared to that of Zimbabwe calls into question the objectivity of Mumba as an observer.
Given the alleged ties between Mumba and Chamisa, it was always questionable whether Mumba could serve as an impartial observer.
Both Mumba and Chamisa are pastors, fuelling rumours that their relationship transcends political lines and delves into the social sphere.
Given these alleged connections, one has to question the objectivity of Mumba’s report.
Ironically, Mumba’s religious background, which should have been a foundation for impartiality, seems to have had the opposite effect.
As a clergyman, he is held to a high standard of truthfulness and objectivity, virtues that are essential in religious teachings. However, it appears that Mumba allowed his closeness to Chamisa to cloud his judgment, leading to a biased report that calls into question the very ethical principles he should embody.
Adding fuel to the fire are rumours that Mumba escorted Chamisa to the polling station to cast his vote.
If true, this casts serious doubts on the objectivity and reliability of any report coming from him.
It even begs the question: was Mumba’s election observation report prepared in collaboration with Chamisa en route to the polling station?
Such allegations, if substantiated, severely undermine the credibility of observer mission reports and the democratic process at large.
Moreover, Nelson Chamisa’s dispute of the election results in Zimbabwe is not an isolated occurrence.
It mirrors the actions of Donald Trump in the United States following his loss to Joe Biden.
Trump cited concerns such as Dominion voting machines switching votes and inexplicably high democratic turnout as proof that the election was not free and fair.
In response, Biden tweeted, “Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: either they win, or they were cheated.
That is not democracy. And that is where the vast majority of MAGA Republicans are today. You cannot love your country only when you win.” This perspective offers valuable insight for Chamisa and his supporters.
When it comes to Chamisa’s claim that he won the popular vote, evidence is in short supply.
The CCC failed to deploy agents in every polling station, possibly due to financial mismanagement within the party. This lack of organisation does not bode well for a party seeking to lead a country.
It is also worth noting that despite logistical challenges on the first voting day, an additional day was added to ensure everyone had an opportunity to vote, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to an inclusive and democratic electoral process.
Chamisa’s advisors such as Hopewell Chin’ono, Freeman Chari, and Team Pachedu may have convinced him that he won the election, but reality paints a different picture.
President Mnangagwa has even indicated a revival of the Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD), providing another avenue for dialogue rather than discord.
Joining POLAD could be more constructive for Chamisa than weaponising observer mission reports to incite regime change.
Chamisa and his handlers should know that the weaponisation of observer mission reports is a detrimental practice that erodes the foundations of democracy.
Such reports should be based on well-documented, factual, and verifiable evidence, free from the influence of external or hidden agendas.
As we navigate the contentious landscape of electoral politics, it is crucial to remember the core democratic values that elections are meant to uphold.
Biased reports that are weaponised for regime change not only betray these values, but also jeopardise the stability and integrity of the nations they aim to critique.
Peter Tanyanyiwa
Online Reporter