Zimbabwe vote called 'sham' a day after watershed elections

Challenger Morgan Tsvangirai blasts the vote as rigged and calls for investigation. But the African Union says vote is 'free and fair.'

|
Philimon Bulawayo/Reuters
Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai gestures during a media briefing in Harare August 1. Tsvangirai dismissed Wednesday's election as a 'huge farce' and said the results were invalid because of intimidation and ballot-rigging by President Robert Mugabe's ruling party, which is claiming victory.

Yesterday’s election in Zimbabwe is being described by former prime minister and main challenger Morgan Tsvangirai as a “sham” and a “huge farce” that does not reflect “the will of the people” – as early indications show that President Robert Mugabe won a landslide victory for himself and his party.

The results have not yet been officially announced. But leading officials from the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF), Mr. Mugabe’s party, have told members of the foreign media, including Reuters, that Mugabe has won the watershed elections in what proved a tense but peaceful day of voting.

In response, Mr. Tsvangirai and a litany of  Zimbabwean civil society and monitoring groups are forcefully alleging vote rigging and manipulation – setting up what could be months of contention.

Charges of fraud include instances of shutting the polls in urban areas, despite long lines of voters that one group said “disenfranchised” 83 percent of some neighborhoods, as well as charges of voting lists where as many as 1 million names were of deceased persons.

Tsvangirai, in public comments today, disparaged what he expects to be Mugabe's victory claim that may be announced as soon as Friday: "This election has been a huge farce. Its credibility has been marred by administrative and legal violations which affect the legitimacy of its outcome. … It is a sham election that does not reflect the will of the people.”

The challenger, whose campaign team had been increasingly questioned about being too confident amid a probability of voter fraud, also called for an investigation by regional African organizations. That call includes the African Union, though yesterday the head of the AU’s 69-member observing team, former Nigerian leader Olusegun Obasanjo, described the elections as “free and fair.”

One Mugabe aide told Agence France-Presse: "We have romped [to victory] in a very emphatic manner. We have defeated the MDC."

The elections themselves proved to be largely peaceful, with voters wearing their respective party colors and going about their business normally. That is a contrast with 2008 elections that were notoriously bloody, and that showed Tsvangirai had defeated Mugabe in the first round.

Yet today, Solomon Zwana, chairman of Zimbabwe’s biggest election watchdog, the Election Support Network, offered that, “It is not sufficient for elections to be peaceful for elections to be credible. They [elections] must offer all citizens an equal opportunity to vote."

In Harare, the capital, the mood is somber and calm following what is being accepted popularly as a Tsvangirai loss to Mugabe. Among many, there is no surprise about the outcome. Other describe the future as seeming bleak.

“If it is true that Mugabe won, then I think it is the end for our country. We had hoped that our country would have a new beginning after decades of economic meltdown, but unfortunately this development will take us backwards because Mugabe does not want to engage the West,” said Tinashe Machingura, a student at Harare Polytechnic, a downtown college.

Most are too afraid to talk, while some prefer to wait the announcement from the official election commission.

Today, former education minister David Coltart said he was never given the legally required list of voters ahead of July 31, and called the election a “fraud.” He said he turned over six pieces of concrete evidence of breaches of the electoral law to the official observer mission.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Zimbabwe vote called 'sham' a day after watershed elections
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2013/0801/Zimbabwe-vote-called-sham-a-day-after-watershed-elections
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe