Zimbabwe Elections & latest developments: Ambassador of Zimbabwe briefing

Meeting report

2008 Zimbabwe Harmonised Elections: Ambassadorial Presentation
The Chairperson introduced the Ambassador of Zimbabwe, Dr Simon Khaya Moya.

The Ambassador thanked the Committee for the invitation.  There were four presidential candidates who would be voted for on the 29 March 2008. He emphasised that the people of Zimbabwe could through the ballot vote for their candidate of choice. He felt that the history of Zimbabwe, particularly during the struggle for independence, was important to give an understanding of the current political and economic environment in the country. They were in a situation where events in the country were interpreted from both within and outside the country. It was important to strike a balance when making an objective assessment.

The movement for liberation culminated into a military wing that was spearheaded by the Zimbabwean African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and Zimbabwean People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA). They were the respective military wings.  The Zimbabwean African National Union (ZANU) and Zimbabwean African People’s Union (ZAPU) were formed under the banner of the Patriotic Front, led by the late Dr Joshua Nkomo and President Robert Mugabe. Their primary aim had been to rid the country of the systematic deprivation of the means of production ( in this case land) by a minority against the majority of the country’s inhabitants. The situation was that 70% of the productive land was owned by 1% of the population. The Lancaster House peace talks brought about a ceasefire and elections in Zimbabwe. These Lancaster House talks resulted in the then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the American government promising to fund a land reform programme. The primary component of the programme was the transfer of land from minority to majority ownership. The Lancaster House compromised document placed a halt on land transfer for ten years, except on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis. However once the time period lapsed, the Zimbabwean government postponed the implementation for fear of jeopardising the political processes in Namibia and South Africa. The wiling-buyer-willing-seller failed to work and the British government, under Prime Minister Tony Blair reneged on the agreement made by the country.

In 2000, Chief Svosve moved in with his landless people and occupied some of the nearby farms. The war veterans then followed. The Zimbabwean government tried to sanitise the occupations with the use of a series of legal instruments such as the principle of one-person-one-farm. That year was also a parliamentary election year that saw the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) enter the list of candidates. The MDC was formed a year earlier with the backing of white commercial farmers and external partners. The pre-2000 election environment had since been repeated each time there had been elections. Whenever the MDC lost, President Mugabe was accused of rigging the elections and violating property rights. English Prime Minister Blair and American President George W Bush had instituted an agenda of regime change that had been tailored to support the opposition. The Ambassador stated that the West seemed to hold the view that the election in Zimbabwe would only be considered free and fair if President Mugabe and his party were removed from office. They were supported by the massive media empire and comprehensive economic sanctions.

The Zimbabwean Electoral Commission (ZEC) was constitutionally empowered to carry out the delimitation process and to run presidential, parliamentary and local government elections. They had held consultations with all the political parties and other stakeholders. This resulted in the Constitutional Amendment that saw both the Senatorial and House of Assembly constituencies increased. The Senate now comprised of 93 members and the House of Assembly was increased from 150 to 210 members. The ZEC delimited a total of 1958 wards throughout the country. The Ambassador detailed the processes that would be carried out by the ZEC. The voter population as of 4 December 2007 was 5 612 464. The Zimbabwean Constitution allowed for 20% above and 20% below the average number of register voters per House of Assembly constituency. The ZEC also produced its own voter education material. In line with the law, President Mugabe appointed the members of the ZEC after bi-party consultations in Parliament.

Under Zimbabwean electoral law, where two or more candidates were nominated for the presidency, the first round of elections should find a candidate receiving a majority of 51%. If that did not happen then a second election would be held within 21 days thereafter. The run-off election would only consist of the two candidates who had received the highest amount of votes. Invitations to observe the elections had been rolled out. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Extraordinary Summit held in March 2007 mandated President Thabo Mbeki to mediate between Zimbabwe’s main political parties, ZANU-PF and MDC. The negotiations were to ensure that there was a free and fair election. President Mbeki informed the SADC that ZANU-PF and the MDC had reached an agreement on all substantive matters relating to the political situation in the country.

The Ambassador maintained that it was a fallacy that economic sanctions were only targeting a select few. There had been overt financial sanctions that had been augmented by the West. They had not only imposed a full range of sanctions on Zimbabwe, but Britain and its allies had given sanctuary to high profile individuals on the police wanted-list. The farming community had been finding it difficult to access farming equipment and inputs to produce in abundance. A number of programmes had been put in place to accelerate the economic growth in the country. The Ambassador hoped that the West and everyone else would realise that a free and fair election in Africa was not one where the opposition would necessarily win.

Discussion
Mr T Leon (DA) restricted his questions to the issue about the media both within and outside Zimbabwe. The Media Monitoring Project in Zimbabwe stated that the public media in Zimbabwe was grossly biased toward President Robert Mugabe. The statement made by the organisation was that the public media had romanticised President Mugabe and the ruling party and denigrated his rivals. The Ambassador was quoted in the newspaper, The Weekender, saying that the South African Broadcasting Commission (SABC) trumpeted British falsehoods. He asked how would the Ambassador provide assurance to the Committee that the domestic media in Zimbabwe was not promoting one party to the exclusion of others. Furthermore he asked how would they assure that other media broadcasters, such as the ones in South Africa, achieved accreditation in the Zimbabwe elections. 

Dr Moyo replied that the elections were run by the ZEC and all complaints should be directed to ZEC. He was impressed by the coverage of parties in the lead up to the elections. The independent newspapers in Zimbabwe did not refer to ZANU-PF, and they circulated all over the country. They were concerned by the outside broadcasts from Washington and London that compelled the opposition to engage in incitement for regime change purposes, and those actions were ignored. He denied that he had said what Mr Leon alleged.. He explained that he had sent a list of the observers to the SABC, who would be going to the Zimbabwe elections. The SABC claimed that the only observers invited were Iran, Venezuela and Libya. He had called the SABC and wanted to know why they wanted to mislead the public.

Mr Leon asked whether the quote that was attributed to the Ambassador was true.

Dr Moyo replied that it was not.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) agreed with the Ambassador that they were all together in the fight for liberation, however there were challenges. He asked how those who had left Zimbabwe would be allowed to participate in the country’s election. 

Dr Moyo replied that during negotiations the matter regarding voters in exile was discussed. They were encouraged to return to Zimbabwe and vote.

Mr Sibande commented that people were quiet about the comprehensive sanctions and he wanted to know the reaction of the opposition party regarding sanctions.

Dr Moyo reiterated that there were comprehensive sanctions. He also added that the refugees who had stolen from the government had fled to the United Kingdom. They  were welcome to come back to Zimbabwe and vote. The reason that they had gone to the UK was that it was easier for the regime change agenda.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) commented that to some in South Africa the issue of Zimbabwe was not motivated by the views from the West but rather by the intrinsic value of the issues of civil and political rights. He asked whether,  if ZANU-PF were to lose the elections, they would accept the result. Some people from the security sector in Zimbabwe had stated they would not accept defeat.

Dr Moyo replied that ZANU-PF would accept the result of the elections. The party that won the election should be respected. Any statement issued by anyone would be unimportant as the observers were there to note the processes. 

Dr S Pheko (PAC) wondered what the Ambassador meant by ‘harmonised elections.’

Dr Moyo replied that it meant the Presidential, Parliamentary and Council local government elections would take place on the same day.

Dr Pheko remarked that there was the impression that Zimbabwe’s economy had totally collapsed. He asked what would be done both in the long and short term to fix the country’s economy.

Dr Moyo replied that the Government was doing all they could despite the harsh comprehensive sanctions. He hoped that once the elections were over and it could be seen that the processes was free and fair, those who were implementing the illegal sanctions would then reconsider their actions.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) wondered if the Ambassador felt that they had lost ground with the Lancaster agreement. She further mentioned that there were four candidates that ran for the presidency. She asked why Simba Makoni was removed from the party, ZANU-PF, when he announced that he would run for the Presidency.

Dr Moyo confirmed that they did lose ground because of the Lancaster document since it was a compromised document. It had to be done as it propelled the liberation of Namibia and South Africa. This showed their view on the African continent. ZANU-PF’s party Constitution stated that if a person was to leave the party and stand alone, that action would be regarded as having expelled themselves from the party.

Dr Luthuli asked how would parties run their campaigns without funding from both inside and outside Zimbabwe.

Dr Moyo realised that funding was needed to campaign. There were laws regarding funding, which were clear, and if funding was received it had to be reported.

Mr B Skosana  (IFP) remarked that there was general trepidation that the recent political violence in Kenya could be passed over to Zimbabwe if the people were not satisfied with the outcome. He asked if there was a contingency plan in place by the government.

Dr Moyo replied that Zimbabwe was determined not to repeat the situation in Kenya. He added that it was currently peaceful in Zimbabwe and after the elections it should be peaceful also. If there was a situation the police should pre-empt.
 
Mr W Seremane (DA) mentioned that it was unfortunate that there were no members from the opposition parties present. He asked if it was true that there was intimidation.

Dr Moyo replied that if there was intimidation the Zimbabwean police should deal with the situation.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) commented that there was a justification in South Africa’s choice to resolve the problem in Zimbabwe.  There was a vindication of South Africa’s position, especially with the acknowledgment that Zimbabwe chose not to act on the land issue in the 1990s in order to preserve the political peace within Namibia and South Africa. It was true that the comprehensive sanctions on Zimbabwe were there to fulfil the interests of a few select people outside the country. He thought that they should be very aware of this.

Mr Ramgobin questioned whether, considering the fact that ZANU-PF and the MDC would be the larger recipients of funding, this created an atmosphere that was balanced for the elections.

Dr Moyo replied that there was a law that needed to be abided by, and both houses in parliament passed it.

Ms S Camerer (DA) mentioned that although the Ambassador emphasised that the ZEC had everything under control, the Secretary General of the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Union had criticised the voter registration, saying that the voter’s roll was in shambles and that the media in Zimbabwe was under the control of the ruling party. She asked for comment.

Dr Moyo replied that the Secretary General was an activist for the MDC and it was understandable that he should campaign for his party.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) asked if observers would be allowed in the booths whilst the ballots were being counted and when the ballots were being transported to the national electoral offices.

Dr Moyo replied that the counting would be done at ward level. Every candidate and their agents would check the boxes that would be used to ensure that they were completely empty. The results would be transmitted to a command centre at the constituency level and candidates would have to sign for this as well. Observers would be allowed to observe all the processes, but he was not certain of whether they would observe the actual counting of the ballots. 

Mr Leon, on a point of order, asked for clarification from the Co-Chairperson. He had written a letter to the Chairperson, Mr Sithole, asking for a briefing from both the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr Sithole had responded that the matter was receiving urgent attention. However, there was no explanation given regarding why the Ambassador was now giving a briefing to the Committee. He respectfully added that the Ambassador’s briefing had been very biased and there was some dispute of fact on whether the mediation between the government and opposition in Zimbabwe had been a success or failure. The South African government had stated that the mediation was a success while the opposition in Zimbabwe had stated that it was a failure. Neither the Department nor the Ministry had come to the Committee, despite the Chairperson requesting their presence at the Committee meetings. He wanted further clarification and on the context of the Ambassador’s invitation.

Adv Madasa noted Mr Leon’s comment and added that the Ambassador represented the government of Zimbabwe, and that included the opposition. He was not here as representative of one political party.

Ms Hajaig replied that she was not aware of the circumstances and suggested that when the Chairperson returned the Committee should discuss the issue.

Ms Hajaig then adjourned the meeting.