admin
Dr Matthew Mare
The choice of words by the SADC observer mission borders on incitement and propelling legitimacy crisis with the potential to harm the country.
The report is by any standard a threat to human and national security.
It has the propensity to reverse the peaceful political environment in the pre and during election phase.
The document lacked basic communication skills and fell short of a neutral observer report.
It is akin to a political speech full of emotions and void of facts.
An observer report must be anchored on strategic communication with wise choice of words.
This observer report is a cause of concern as it is politically charged.
In strategic communication, emphasis is on the use of politically neutral and blind terms.
Reckless statements are condemned globally and in most jurisdictions criminalised regardless of who would have uttered them.
When Zimbabwe raised a red flag on the SADC observer report it is basing its argument on defensive realism.
Government cannot fold its hands and watch akimbo the observer team inciting lawlessness.
The human security and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine give the state an obligation to protect, promote and safeguard the rights of its citizens.
Thus, it has the obligation to protect the rights and safety of its citizens regardless of cause.
Elections do not replace public safety and national security interests.
By concluding that elections did not meet SADC, ZEC and Constitutional guidelines, the team had set a tone for violence because the rogue elements are now abusing the report for political expediency.
The mission has literally destabilised Zimbabwe through wrong choice of words.
The situation in Zimbabwe is perhaps an eye opener for SADC and the European Union on the need to train observer teams on the role of strategic communication while conducting their duties.
In addition, political interference remains unacceptable.
Observer teams must not be used as cover for harbouring undesirable elements.
It is observation exercise and not regime change undertaking.
Zimbabwe may be a third world country, but it has a robust security service and any mischief will be gladly accounted for.
Secondly, there is need to separate between agenda setting and agenda loading.
The agenda is to observe the elections and it is unfortunate that the team smuggled the regime change agenda and Nelson Chamisa’s political lullaby in the observer report.
Election observer teams must stick to their terms of reference and not to incite citizens into civil disobedience.
Pertinent to note also, some of the issues raised even in the EU report are in violation of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
In Zimbabwe, the ultra vires and the principle of abrogation of the constitution makes it impossible for wilful violation of the Constitution for political expedience.
Zimbabwe cannot waiver the Constitution to accommodate Saviour Kasukuwere or to amend any electoral law after the declaration of an election.
The report by the observer team is promoting lawlessness, removes the rule of law and replaces it with rule by law by making feverous demands that are not part of the Constitution.
Elections cannot be deemed to be below SADC standards by merely aligning to hearsay from one party.
Why is the report antagonising Zanu PF through and through, while promoting the CCC agenda?
Has the observer mission not joined the hybrid warfare against Zimbabwe?
To what extent is the report impartial and regime change error proof?
The ZEC section 52A(2) which was quoted was compiled with, ballot boxes were all dispatched a day before election, but voting was affected by a printing error and not dispatching as was insinuated by the observer team.
Misrepresentation of facts is observed by failure to cite the remedy where the President had used the presidential discretion to extend voting hours to the affected areas by allowing every voter the right to self-determination.
Had the delays favoured Zanu PF in any way if the observer report had anything to go by?
There are no facts to suggest that there were voters complaining that they did not eventually vote. In the absence of quantifiable and qualifiable data, the argument by the observer team becomes utopia.
Parties, of course, are expected to get fair media coverage. But what if CCC prefer social media over State media, how is it a Zanu PF crime?
It is part of CCC campaign that State media is captured, hence they prefer social media and Studio 7 channel. Has the observer report considered that fact?
Zanu PF cannot go to court to compel CCC not to shun State media because political communication is a strategy and parties voluntarily choose their own best medium.
The observer team should have understood the political media culture in Zimbabwe before getting into conclusion.
The report is a rushed conclusion by the observer team leader Nevers Mumba, which lacks a grounded approach and an insider perspective.
SADC guidelines are there, but societies develop their peculiar political cultures which can only be understood through participatory observation than desktop researches.
The issue of voters not appearing on the voters roll or being at the wrong polling station is stubbornness and misguided ignorance on the part of the voter.
ZEC gave voters reasonable timeframe to go and check their names. Even parties had to help their members to register to vote.
Some deliberately opted not to verify and decided to make a surprise appearance at the polling station in anticipation of miracles.
Voting is a scientific process and not a metaphysical matter, voting register was naturally going to change polling stations as a result of delimitation.
The report must fairly address efforts by ZEC to encourage verification of names and polling stations.
Some registered after the official mop up dates, hence their names will appear in the next election.
There was nothing amiss that those who chose not to verify found themselves loitering at wrong polling stations.
There is no society that is immune to stubborn people who are self-centred.
ZEC even provided a code for people to check for free on their mobile phones.
Mumba should stop taking advantage of being the leader of the observer team.
It is the country’s prerogative to choose who to be an observer and not.
Why does the SADC Observer Mission want to play a holier than thou attitude?
If FAZ intimidated people, where are the dockets?
So, those intimidated found it fashionable to report to observer mission than to police or to approach the courts?
Those are kindergarten accusations to say the least. What is wrong in FAZ being observers like any other organisation.
Where is the criminal element in that? The issue of voter intimidation is a fluid accusation where the accusation lacks the essential elements of a crime.
Concerning the issue of what was happening beyond 300 metres from a polling station; ZEC does not have jurisdiction of what happens beyond such a distance.
The observer mission must not recreate the law, but instead understand it.
Meanwhile, the EU preliminary report condemned the arrest of those who were duplicating the ZEC role.
The EU must not support criminal elements, the net effect of unofficial announcement of results is violence and loss of life.
The State must be applauded for taking a pro-active position.
There is need to prevent loss of life, peace and property by accounting for all avenues of instability in the post-election phase.
Dr Matthew Mare (PhD- War and Security studies) [email protected]
Online Reporter