Electoral violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe

One of the most disturbing developments in Zimbabwe in the aftermath of the much disputed and controversial national elections is the violence and political intimidation that has been unleashed on the masses of Zimbabwe, particularly in the poor rural areas and farming communities. While both the Zanu-PF and MDC have been accusing each other of instigating the violence, there is growing evidence and consensus that the violence has predominantly been perpetrated by the Zanu-PF supporters against the MDC supporters.

Firstly, there are the eyewitness accounts. Most of those reporting violence against them have identified Zanu-PF militia and the so-called war veterans as the abusers, torturers and murderers. There is some consistency and assuredness in the allegations raised against the militia of the former ruling party which is increasingly becoming difficult to doubt, deny or to deflect. While there may well be isolated incidents of the MDC supporters retaliating few, if any, Zanu-PF supporters have come forward with indications or evidence of injuries or torture. Independent witnesses, including civil society organisations, high level diplomats and emissaries of governments mediating in the crisis have also verified that violence is indeed being perpetrated mostly by Zanu-PF supporters.

Second, Zanu-PF have the motive to perpetrate the violence. Any good detective investigating a serious crime will always look for the motive in order to identify the suspects. In this case Zanu-PF which was soundly trounced at the elections have the motive to cause violence for two main reasons. One, as retribution and punishment to those who dared to vote against the party and, two, as a tactic of intimidation to cow the electorate into voting for Mr Robert Mugabe if and when the run-off election is held. Zanu-PF have run out of options and incentives to bribe the electorate – no more farms to give away, no food to give in exchange of votes and no money to buy goodies (tractors, farming inputs, etc.) for the voters at election time. The only ace left up their sleeve is to physically beat their opponents into submission.

Third, the body count – dead and alive – clearly shows that it is mostly or only members of the opposition who have been victims of the violence in Zimbabwe. More than thirty dead and still counting, at least two thousand who have received treatment for grievous bodily injuries arising from assault and torture, thousands more displaced from their homes. And these are all MDC members or supporters or relatives or suspected affiliates. There have been suggestions that the MDC has been perpetrating the violence against its own people in order to tarnish the “good image” of Zanu-PF. If anyone can believe such hogwash, they deserve to be placed in a mental asylum. As the bodies continue to pile up, it is becoming questionable whether the level of violence is not tantamount to genocide.

Fourth, is the lack of suspects. In any lawful society if a crime is committed, the culprit is apprehended as quickly as possible and brought to book for the crime. There are the odd cases when the culprit is never found but that seems to be the exception rather than the norm. In Zimbabwe, criminal violence is being perpetrated at a massive scale and yet very few, if any, culprits have been arrested. The only arrests appear to have been of the opposition members who were in fact the victims of the violence in the first place. There would appear to be an official conspiracy, by the Zanu-PF controlled law enforcement agencies, not to stop the criminality and to allow and encourage the violence.

Given the overwhelming evidence against Zanu-PF, it would appear to be necessary to revisit the whole issue of amnesty for human rights violations if and when Mugabe finally leaves power. In the period leading to the elections and immediately thereafter I was quite persuaded that the offer of amnesty would be justifiable if not desirable in order to draw a quick line with the past and move the country forward. You see, we Africans are a very forgiving lot regardless of the nature and degree of the wrong or injustice committed against us. Look at what happened in South Africa. After many years of the cruelest form of apartheid the new rulers forgave their former oppressors and embraced them in a government of national unity. Therefore I would not see any problem or exception if an incoming MDC government decided to forgive the outgoing Zanu-PF functionaries for their past misdeeds.

However in the light of what is going on long after the election has been held and decided, I do think that there is a case for not providing any amnesty to those who have caused and are continuing to cause the violence in Zimbabwe. I do not think that there is any excuse or justification for this nature and level of violence other than sheer and unbridled criminality perpetrated by morons with the connivance of equally mindless politicians and army generals. I am persuaded that to provide amnesty in these circumstances will only encourage similar criminal behaviour in future. I think that those involved should be swiftly arrested, tried and firmly locked behind bars for a very, very long time in order to serve as a deterrence in future.

There is also another angle to the violence which I should explore a little further. The intent and assumption of those causing the violence is that it will results in more votes for their candidate, Mr Mugabe, or at the very least deter those who might wish to vote for his opponent from doing so. Zanu-PF has tended to use violence whenever they felt that the odds were against them but it is doubtful whether this tactic has been successful in the past. Some will say that Zanu-PF employed violence with a degree of success in the 1980 independence elections. But I do not think that it is the violence that swayed people’s votes towards them – rather it was the even greater trepidation induced by Ian Smith’s army and Abel Muzorewa’s Pfumo Revanhu militia which convinced the people to vote for Zanu-PF. Even in subsequent elections, most notably those of 2000 and 2002, there is no evidence that violence brought in the votes. It is probable that the ballot-box stuffing and other vote rigging shenanigans did the trick.

Perhaps the most illustrative example of the futility of using violence against the electorate is Mr Mugabe’s infamous Gukurahundi campaign in Matebeleland in the early 80s. The campaign was waged mostly to “persuade” the Ndebele people to stop supporting the rival ZAPU party and to support Zanu-PF but in all that period of the campaign Zanu-PF never won any election in Matabeleland. More than 20,000 people, by some estimates, were slaughtered and countless others were raped, injured and displaced but that did not deliver the Ndebele vote to Mugabe. It was only after the 1987 unity accord that Zanu-PF started winning elections in Matebeleland. In the light of that experience, I do not believe that the current pogrom of party cleansing by Zanu-PF will save Mr Mugabe from another humiliating defeat if he is foolish enough (which he probably is) to persist with his intention to participate in a run-off election.

The last point I want to visit is the now controversial issue of whether the MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, should not have left (or is it run away from?) the country and that he should have stayed on to face the Mugabe regime. The people who are making the suggestion that in so doing Tsvangirai displayed a cowardice streak have very short memories. Mugabe himself had to “run away” from Rhodesia (as Zimbabwe was known then) in order to lead the struggle from abroad. During the height of Gukurahundi, the late Joshua Nkomo had to escape from the country because Mugabe’s security forces were intent on physically eliminating him. With these precedents in mind I would strongly hesitate to label Tsvangirai as a coward. I believe he has achieved a lot more being outside the country than he would have achieved had he stayed on and, probably, been arrested or even martyred by the Mugabe regime. What the country needs now are strong and rational leaders around whom to rally and not dead heroes.