Search
User login
Navigation
Team Agonist
Editor-at-Large: Sean-Paul Kelley
News Editor: Tina
Contributing Editor: Quiet Bill
Contributing Editor: Don Henry Ford, Jr.
Contributing Editor: Nat Wilson Turner
Special Contributor: Numerian
Special Contributor: Brian Downing
Universal Pantograph provides technical support for The Agonist.
Thoughtful
Abu Aardvark
ACS Blog
America Adrift
The Arabist
Blah 3
Tracy Barnett
Booman Tribune
Corrente Wire
Disturbing Trends
Drudge Retort
Electric Politics
Glenn Greenwald
The Gist
Registan
The Huffington Post
Informed Comment
Intrepid Liberal
Col. Patrick Lang
The Left Coaster
Mahablog
Mish's Global Econ
Lance Mannion
MyDD
Total WonKerr
Raw Story
Seeing the Forest
The Sideshow
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
TalkLeft
Undiplomatic
View From Iran
Watching America
Ian Welsh
The Young Turks
Global
Timely
Mixed Bag of Candy:
BAGnewsNotes
PKU News
St Martin Private Eye
Scoop.com.nz
Lazy Laces
Quiet Bill's Corner:
Effect Measure
Brian Downing's Picks:
Al Jezeera
Asia Times
Night Watch
Emirates Journal
Soldiers for the Truth
The War Report
Iraq Casualties
Global Security
Numerian's Numbers:
Mother Jones
Tom Dispatch
Der Spiegel
Big Picture
Calculated Risk
Bonddad
House Bubble
Prudent Bear
Who's online
Syndicate
Zimbabwe: Mugabe's Choices
I find it very difficult, at this point, to believe that Robert Mugabe did not lose Saturday's presidential elections in Zimbabwe. The real question now is whether he will face reality or attempt to distort it.
He has already lost the parliament. Opposition parties have won 105 of the 210 seats so far, with 10 seats still undeclared.
As for the presidential election results, different numbers are floating around, but they all indicate a second-place finish for Mugabe. The MDC, the main opposition party, claim their candidate Morgan Tsvangirai won 50.3% of the vote, enough to avoid a run-off between him and Mugabe in the second round. Meanwhile, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network gives Tsvangirai 49% and Mugabe 42% based on the limited results posted at polling stations. If true, those numbers would force a run-off.
In the second round, one question is whether the breakoff faction of Mugabe's ZANU-PF would join with MDC to oust the incumbent. Some totals I heard said the dissenters placed third with 8%, potentially making their leader a kingmaker. My guess is he would back the MDC. That means that Mugabe is probably realizing that a second round - if conducted fairly - would likely result in his defeat.
Additional evidence that Mugabe's popularity has faltered comes from IRIN, which reports that rural voters - long regarded as some of Mugabe's most loyal supporters - are turning their backs on him and his party. The MDC have taken a number of seats in rural districts, including those of some senior ZANU-PF politicians. If the urban-rural split in terms of party support is breaking down, Mugabe could have an even harder time going into a second round, especially if the MDC is riding momentum from a first place finish and a host of parliamentary victories.
But the central and increasingly tense question is why no official results have appeared. The voices hurling accusations of fraud at Mugabe are becoming increasingly high-profile and increasingly outspoken. Desmond Tutu said Mugabe should've retired ten years ago. The State Department called on the electoral commission to release the results. And here's David Miliband, the UK's Foreign Secretary (and perhaps future Prime Minister):
"A delay in announcing the outcome can only be seen as a deliberate and calculated tactic," he said in a statement on Zimbabwe in the House of Commons.
"It gives substance to the suspicion that the authorities are reluctant to accept the will of the people," he added.
Miliband said there was "an international consensus that the will of the Zimbabwean people must be properly revealed and respected.
"Last Saturday the people of Zimbabwe made their choice. Outside the 9,400 polling stations the tallies have been posted. The Zimbabwean electoral commission knows what those results are, and has a duty to announce them."
So why the delay? It's tempting to psychologize Mugabe, and say that he's torn about what to do. I imagine he and his inner circle are seriously contemplating going the route they went in 2002, when most international observers agreed that ZANU-PF won through rigging, voter intimidation (especially youth-led violence against MDC supporters), and various types of vote suppression including underprovision of polling stations and materials in urban MDC districts. But it may already be too late for that. With international attention riveted on the country, it would be pretty brazen of Mugabe to rev up the machine now. Declaring a victory of higher than 50% would simply not be credible, and launching a campaign of violence and suppression as the country heads into the second round would provoke international condemnation and could seriously destabilize the country. With the prize so near, I imagine MDC would fight pretty hard for it, both at the ballot box and in the streets. The mood in Harare is already getting bad, according to the BBC.
Not that I put it past Mugabe to ignite some of those worst-case scenarios. The New York Times claims to have some behind-the-scenes insight, and it's not pretty:
Zimbabwe now waits to see if the official count matches the opposition’s, knowing it would not require a very heavy thumb on the scale to force another round of voting three weeks from now.
There were signs that Mr. Mugabe has endorsed a second vote, which, while not as humiliating as an outright defeat, would still seem a difficult pill for a man who has held power for 28 years and considers himself the father of the nation. Wednesday morning’s edition of The Herald, the state-run newspaper, reported that “the pattern of results” shows that no candidates “will garner more than 50 percent of the vote, forcing a re-run.”
The newspaper, considered a mouthpiece for Mr. Mugabe, published no actual election totals from Saturday’s vote and attributed its conclusion to analysts. But it likely means that ruling party insiders have urged the president not to give up his — and their — power, either convincing Mr. Mugabe to keep on fighting or at least to maintain the option.
[snip]
A businessman with close connections to the party hierarchy, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said the president had met Tuesday evening first with the chiefs of military and intelligence and then with key members of his cabinet and the party presidium.
“They urged him to go to the bush,” the businessman said, meaning that in a runoff the party would employ tactics of intimidation and bloodshed that had worked well in earlier campaigns, especially in rural areas that can be closed off to opposition candidates.
President Mugabe was said to hesitate. He is a once-lauded liberator and statesman who became a ruthless autocrat to be forever remembered for murderous campaigns against his enemies and an ill-conceived takeover of white-owned farmland that ended up wrecking the economy. He feels a strong sense of rejection in the election results and a part of him wants to concede, the businessman said. Still, Mr. Mugabe was urged to continue.
I can well believe that the pressure on Mugabe is intense, and that in attempting to balance competing desires and competing demands on him by his nearest and dearest he has simply taken the path of least resistance by delaying the results. But if the New York Times' portrayal is correct, I repeat that I think the die-hards are miscalculating. It seems the picture has shifted in a major way since 2002, especially in the rural areas. The confidence that they could "close off" rural areas to the opposition might prove a fatal mistake.
Also, it's not only observers in America who have Kenya in mind - I'm sure people in Zimbabwe, and in Mugabe's regime, are nervous about the parallels. Even today I still hear reports about serious problems in Kenya: as rivals continue to argue, we are told, the "deadlock deepens." Mugabe must be aware of the possibility that if the opposition does not win, he could face a Kenya-type situation with escalating violence, bitter rounds of talks, and months of tension - which would be a heavy load for an 84-year-old man to shoulder while an economic catastrophe rages in the background.
Maybe Mugabe would take the other option, then: stepping down. Rumors have it that the opposition and the government have already begun talks about a transition. Sadly, though, I think it's more likely that he'll put a fight. To be president at 84 one must be somewhat of a megalomaniac, I believe. Stepping down just doesn't seem to fit with the nature of the man.
At the level of international politics, some are already calling for intervention, albeit on a diplomatic level, by offering Zimbabwe a generous aid package if Mugabe steps down. But I think there's still time for a cautious approach, at least until we know the results and can gain a better sense of Mugabe's thought process. Intervening now could seem paternalistic, and just as antidemocratic as Mugabe's delaying tactics. For once, I am in agreement with those issuing strong statements but refraining from immediate action. This situation is simply complicated.
If there's one positive thing coming out of this, it's that I think - I hope - that everyone is paying more attention to these elections. The US has spent a great deal of time touting elections (as though elections in and of themselves comprised democracy) as the solution to countries' problems. So we in the US at least owe countries in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere the courtesy of following their elections closely, and condemning any fraud and voter suppression/intimidation that occur. If we do so loudly enough and often enough, maybe we can affect the climate of permissiveness and apathy that allowed dictators like this to hang on for so long on the first place. But maybe that's naive. I guess we'll be finding out soon enough.
Premium Advertising
The Learning Center
Financial Questions Answered
Advertise Liberally