|
ON ZIMBABWE HARMONISED ELECTIONS : 2008
On 24 January 2008 a Proclamation declaring the harmonized electoral process was published.
The Proclamation fixed the 29 March 2008 as the day of the elections.
The Proclamation was amended on 6 February 2008, by Statutory Instrument
ON ZIMBABWE HARMONISED ELECTIONS : 2008
INTRODUCTION
On 24 January 2008 a Proclamation declaring the harmonized electoral process was published.
The Proclamation fixed the 29 March 2008 as the day of the elections.
The Proclamation was amended on 6 February 2008, by Statutory Instrument
13 A of 2008.
The effect of the amendment was to change the nomination day from 8, to
15, February 2008.
The effected changes enabled people who had not registered on 7 February, to register up until 14 February, 2008.
Many unregistered voters took advantage of the amendment and registered.
A sizeable number of potential voters who would have been disenfranchised were, therefore, captured in the voters’ roll.
THE CAMPAIGN
The campaign which a multitude of local and international observers witnessed remained the envy of many countries in the region. People moved freely as they made every effort to sell their respective party manifestos to the electorate. Political parties and their candidates including independent political aspirants, addressed rallies and other gatherings of a political nature without any hindrance from any person or authority whatsoever. Peace and tranquility prevailed throughout the entire period of campaigning.
THE VOTING
On 29 March, 2008 - the day of poll – the electorate queued at polling stations which were in their respective wards to cast their vote. This, once again, proceeded in an exceptionally orderly manner without any noticeable incidents across the whole spectrum of the country’s political divide. Observers who came to witness the process did nothing other than to marvel at the logistics which the election management authority had put in place. Practically all voters managed to cast their vote within the allocated time and no one ever came forward to complain that they were denied the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
COUNTING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULTS
This part of the process was so transparent that whoever would have won in a ward, or in the House of Assembly, or the Senatorial, constituency would know of that fact as soon as the collation of figures was completed. That was so because, immediately upon the completion of the collation of figures at each polling station, the results would be entered into form V11 and signed for by agents of each political party, independent candidates’ agents included. A copy of the signed V11 form would be pinned on the notice board which was at the polling station for all to see.
Another copy of the V11 forms with results which had been signed for would be posted to the V23 form where figures for the ward center would be collated. The results of the collated figures would determine the councilor for the ward. Those results would also be pinned on the notice board for all to read and see who the councilor of the ward was/is. The same process was repeated in the case of the House of Assembly constituency as well as the Senatorial constituency. The results of each collated set of figures would be pinned on the notice board for the electorate, the public at large and the observers to see the candidates who would have made it into the House of Assembly or the Senate. The same results would be posted to the National Command Centre where the returning officer would announce the total votes for each candidate and declare the winner as the Member of Parliament, or the Senator, for a given constituency. The announcement was meant to inform the nation and the world at large of the results of poll as well as the winning candidates.
As the returning officer continued to announce the results of poll, the election management authority received a deluge of complaints from candidates who claimed that they were announced as having lost the election when the result which had been pinned on the notice board showed that they were the winning candidates. Such complaints remained a common feature and this compelled the ruling party, ZANU (PF), to examine the V11 and V23 forms which each of its agents was in possession of. Please note that these were availed to political agents upon request.
The ruling party observed that the figures which appeared on forms V11 were not tallying with the entries which the election officers had made in forms V23 in respect of practically all polling stations which had been used as samples to enable the party to get to the bottom of the matter. The mispostings which the election officers had done constituted gross irregularities which the ruling party insisted should be corrected. The samples which are at hand bear testimony to the stated fact.
When the ruling party made the above described observation, the party engaged a team of legal practitioners whom it instructed to file an application with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission urging the latter authority to order a recount, verification and a proper audit of all its electoral materials relating to the Presidential election. The Commission deliberated on the matter and, in the face of glaring inconsistencies, could not do anything other than to respond favourably to the issue which the ruling party had raised with it.
Whilst that exercise was in progress, the opposition MDC Tsvangirai Party filed an urgent chamber application with the High Court praying the court to order the Commission to:
(a) announce the results of the Presidential election within four (4) hours of the time of the order, and urging the court
(b) order the Commission not to alter the figures which would have been announced.
The Court deliberated on the application of the opposition MDC party and dismissed it with costs.
When the opposition MDC party got wind of the issue which related to the recount of votes by the Commission, the party filed yet another application with the High Court opposing the recounting of the votes. The Court dismissed that second court application. Ironically, the opposition MDC Party filed sixty (60) petitions with the Electoral Court citing what it termed gross inconsistencies of figures which appear in forms V11 as read with forms V23 – an issue which is, and has been, the ruling party’s bone of contention all along. The figure work, it is easy to observe, was a complete mess of an otherwise very good electoral process. That mess can only be corrected by allowing the parties to go to the root of the matter as no reliance can be placed upon the forms which the election officers completed after the voting process had been done with. The need to ascertain the winner at each stage of the election can hardly be over – emphasized. It is in the interest of fairness not only to the candidates but also to the electorate and the world at large that a recount of the votes in all areas complained of remains a necessity. That issue of the recount and the need to work with correct, as opposed to imagined, figures are the main reasons for the delay in the announcement of the Presidential result.
The Commission is making every effort to embark upon the exercise of recount so it factors correct figures into the final result after which it would announce the results of the Presidential elections.
The Commission must be afforded the opportunity to work on this intended process for the good of all stakeholders. The patience of stakeholders as well as that of our SADC friends, the African Union and the World at large is, therefore, craved. The work which the Commission embarked upon was a mammoth task involving, as it did, some four (4) elections in one. The Commission should, therefore, be afforded sufficient time within which it would collate the figures in an as meticulous a manner as it can, allowing no room for stupid errors after which it would proceed to announce a result which will not be contested by any of its stakeholders, the two protagonists – ZANU (PF) and MDC Tsvangirai Party – in particular.
22nd April, 2008 |
