Zimbabwe Information Center in North America
A project of the North American Coalition for a Free Zimbabwe (NACFREEZ)
MDC
By Stanford G. Mukasa
Letter from America
January 7, 2008
Time for Zimbabweans to tell Mugabe : Enough is enough. Zvakwana. Sokwanele
Given the crisis brought about by the elections in Kenya, and considering the way Robert Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe has routinely rigged elections and sent thugs to beat and even kill opposition supporters, it is no wonder that many people have lost any hope that elections in Zimbabwe will ever be democratic, free and fair.
What is even more troubling is that, in contrast to the Zimbabwean experience, elections in the western countries are routinely and traditionally peaceful, democratic, free and fair.
Zimbabweans in Diaspora have a front-row seat in witnessing the electoral process in the western countries. They will shake their heads in despair when they notice the night- and- day difference between the way elections are conducted in the west, compared to elections in Zimbabwe under the iron heel of the Mugabe regime.
Here in the United States 2008 is the presidential election year, and it has generated a lot of interest and excitement as candidates for the presidential elections freely roam around the country trying to win support from the voters.
Yes, it is true that to run in the presidential elections a candidate must raise at least $75 million to pay for the campaign.
The federal government will pay part of the money if the candidate agrees to limit the cost of his or her campaign to $50 million.
The United States presidential election race was launched in the mid -western state of Iowa last week.
Iowa has since 1972 been the start of the primaries for presidential elections.
Some people psychologically believe that the strength, viability and popularity of candidates is tested in this state and could determine future prospects for winning in the presidential elections in November. Some candidates have dropped out of the presidential race altogether after a poor showing in Iowa.
However, some candidates, like former president Bill Clinton who first ran in 1992 did not win the Iowa primaries but proceeded to win the elections in November.
In the Democratic primaries in Iowa the three leading candidates, Barack Obama, whose father came from Kenya, Hillary Clinton former First Lady under the Clinton administration and John Edwards gained the most votes. Two candidates who had a poor showing were reported to be dropping out.
Among the Republicans, a former governor and church minister, Mike Huckabee, who surprised many with his victory yet he did not spent a lot of money in his campaign and former governor, Mitt Romney, were the leading winners in the Iowa primaries.
Presidential candidates for both the Republicans and Democrats as well as the mass media converged for an unusual way of conducting primaries. Many Americans are still not clear about the system that is used in Iowa.
Worse still, Democrats and Republicans have different and unique ways of conducting the primaries in this particular state.
Primaries in the United States give each presidential candidate an opportunity to gather as many delegates from each state as possible in the hope of winning the nomination at their parties’ conventions. The candidate who gets the most delegates from the primaries is technically assured of winning the nomination at the national convention.
The Democrats will hold their convention from August 25 to 28 in Colorado.
The Republicans will have theirs from September 1 to 4 in Minnesota .
There will be 4049 delegates at the Democratic National Convention. To be nominated a presidential candidate will need to win 2025 votes.
For Republicans a presidential candidate must win at least 1191 votes from the 2380 delegates who will attend the Republican National Convention.
After the conventions the presidential race will become a two- people race instead of about 12 candidates who are vying for the nomination from both parties now.
The Iowa primary is always the first, followed by New Hampshire. The Iowa primary is, in fact, called a caucus because of its unusual way of conducting primaries. The word caucus comes from an old Native American word meaning a meeting of elders.
The Democratic caucus in Iowa involves meetings or caucuses of mainly party members in different parts of the state. Some meet in school buildings, others in halls, yet others in people’s homes. At each caucus voters will stand in different spaces in the room and according to their preferred candidate. The candidates do not attend. But they have their representatives who stand at an allocated space in the room.
Imagine a similar caucus in Zimbabwe. In some ways Iowa would be like Midlands in Zimbabwe. During separate primaries for the MDC and ZANUPF party members will meet in different buildings including people’s homes and, in a game of musical chairs, shift around to stand by their chosen candidates.
Now back in Iowa, if a candidate has less than 15 percent support, the candidate is declared NON VIABLE, and the candidate’s the supporters are urged on to shift their support to other candidates. After about an hour or so the candidate who has most people in all the caucuses wins the majority of delegates to the convention from that state.
Almost overnight last week the political road show left Iowa for New Hampshire, or, in the case of Zimbabwe, this could be from Midlands to, say, Manicaland for yet another primary.
A very important characteristic of the caucuses or primaries in the United States is that they are grassroots-based. They give the presidential candidates an opportunity to test their popularity and support at local communities.
Watching Democratic and Republican supporters crisscrossing to their respective primaries, some of which where in different rooms in the same building, and with no insults exchanged or violence reported is the highest ideal for any elections.
Let us go back to Midlands in Zimbabwe. Can we by a long stretch of imagination envisage a peaceful caucus or primary for MDC and ZANUPF supporters taking place in different rooms in the same building, or in neighboring homes and ending peacefully?
Can we imagine this peaceful, democratic and transparent process being replicated across the length and breath of the country? Why do supporters of ZANUPF have to declare some places no -go areas for the opposition or disrupt violently meetings of the MDC?
In the Iowa caucus, just as in other primaries both the Republican and Democratic candidates and their supporters waged their campaigns and conducted their primaries peacefully..
Over 218, 000 people voted in the Democratic caucus, and about 93, 000 voted in the Republican caucus in Iowa. Yet there was no report of inter party violence. The elections were conducted peacefully. There was no interference from hired thugs. There was no heavy presence of the police.
Party officials and representatives supervised the process and organized their party supporters as they participated in the process. Everything was peaceful.
No one threw stones or harassed or assaulted rivals or opposition supporters. The atmosphere was civil. And when it was all over people retreated to their homes.
It did not take any effort at all to maintain peace and quite and civility because all these noble attributes were part of the social and political culture.
One important lesson from these primaries or caucuses was that elections represent a time when, according to the democratic theory and practice, power temporarily transfers to the people.
During elections the role of the state is not to control, manipulate, regulate or even administer the elections, but to act as a referee to make sure that the procedures for conducting elections are observed.
Elections are a sanctified moment for the voters. Elections are a sovereign property of the people under whose control they directly fall. Elections represent an evaluation, or a judgment, of the state leadership by the people. Elections are a people’s unconditional right to decide who will govern them for the next four, five or six years.
Seventeenth century English philosopher, John Locke and his French counterpart, Jean Jacques Rousseau, popularized the notion of public opinion, or elections, as a necessary form of a people-driven government. Locke identified three laws that he said govern human conduct, namely, civil law, the law of religion and what he called the law of opinion.
Rousseau coined the term l’opinion publique, or public opinion, and stressed the right of people’s opinions to be part of the policymaking process by their country’s leadership.
At that time Europe was at the tail end of centuries of rule by Kings who believed in the so- called divine right to rule. They had no regard for people’s opinions as something they should listen to, let alone be guided by.
Yet another English philosopher and social reformer , Jeremy Bentham, designed the idea of determining a majority opinion through a process known as voting.
The famous English writer, John Milton , came up with his Areopagitica in which he argued for a marketplace of ideas or an environment where people could express their opinions without fear of persecution or attacks.
Areopagitica came from the Greek word Areopagus or a meeting place for the council of elders.
Most unfortunately colonialism distorted the notions of majority opinion and freedom of expression for the local people who lived under colonial domination.
However the nationalists who fought successfully against this colonial domination had an opportunity to establish this tradition of free and fair elections and freedom of expression in a free and open social environment.
But some apologists for this legacy of colonialism have criticized what they call the western hypocrisy of calling for freedom of expression and free and fair elections in their former colonies when the very same former colonialists never allowed such basic human rights among the subjects they ruled.
The same apologists have also argued that elections in post- colonial Africa must not be modeled along the western traditions and practices. Instead, they have argued that the head of state must be equated to the tribal chief whose tenure in office could not be determined by a preset number of years.
Traditional chiefs ruled until they dropped dead.
It has also been argued that in pre-colonial traditions chiefs and kings were not subject to scrutiny by their citizens.
It is this eclectic witches’ brew of selective western notions of conducting elections and African traditions of electing leaders that characterizes Zimbabweans election process. It creates a very hostile environment for the opposition parties.
Putting Zimbabwe aside, one encouraging development in Africa has been the phasing out of the neo-colonial notions of elections and freedom of expression and the press.
Many countries in Africa are recognizing that elections and the freedom of the press and expression are basic and inalienable human rights as defined by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These rights are neither western nor African values. They cannot, therefore, be described as an imposition by the west on Africa.
Kenya had emerged as one of the leading textbook cases where elections and the freedom of the press had clearly been institutionalized in the post-Daniel Moi era as inalienable human rights that were respected and upheld by both government and civil society.
As a matter of fact, campaigning during the period leading to the Kenyan elections and the actual elections received international praise and respect. Candidates and their supporters, just like in Iowa in the United States, roamed the entire country campaigning freely.
It was the counting of votes and distortions in the release of results that spoiled Kenya’s finest tradition in electoral politics.
The Republic of Benin was another country where the presidential elections in 2006 were so free and fair that there was a call for representatives from other African countries to go to Benin to learn about that country’s experience in elections.
But amidst the optimism about Africa’s trend towards free and fair elections Zimbabwe sticks out like a sore thumb of a country’s leadership who have absolutely refused to allow freedom of the press or free and fair elections.
The question for the civil society leadership in Zimbabwe today is: What will it take to force free and fair and democratic elections in Zimbabwe?
Zimbabweans have by now learned that rushing to vote and standing for hours in slow moving voter queues will not bring about free and fair elections because Mugabe has absolutely no intention of stepping down from office as long as he is alive.
Letter from America. January 7 2008. In today’s Letter from America Dr. Stan Mukasa analyzes the United States presidential election campaigns; the recent elections in Kenya and the impending elections in Zimbabwe. Full Story