Zimbabwe resident reads the pro-government newspaper which explains how the imperialist nations are working to overthrow the ZANU-PF ruling party.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos
Sunday Mail Reporter
ZANU-PF has requested the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to recount and audit all its electoral material relating to last week’s presidential election following revelations of errors and miscalculations in the compilation of the poll result.
Consequent to the anomalies, the party has also requested that the commission defer the announcement of the presidential election result.
The anomalies were detected following the close scrutiny of the V11 and V23 forms. A V11 form is an original document carrying results at polling stations and is signed by all agents of contesting parties.
After the signing of the V11 form, information is then recorded in the V23 forms that collates polling station results within a ward. These forms also announce the results of the council elections.
For example, at Rimbi Primary School the V11 form shows that President Mugabe got 612 votes but the V23 form that is then forwarded to the command centre shows that the President got 187 votes.
This anomaly was detected in a number of constituencies.
Reports say some ZEC officials in the Midlands were arrested following these revelations.
In papers submitted to the election management body, Zanu-PF notes that errors and miscalculations that occurred in certain constituencies prejudiced Zanu-PF’s presidential candidate, Cde Mugabe.
The constituencies are Mberengwa East, West, North and South. The party made the request under the advice of its legal representatives.
Part of the letter reads: “As will soon become apparent, the constituency elections officer and his team committed errors of miscounting that are so glaring as to prejudice not just our clients’ candidate but also (in some instances) his co-contestants.”
The papers highlight that votes were mostly miscounted in Mberengwa East and South. Where Cde Mugabe was deprived of 468 votes, one of his co-contestants, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC, had the benefit of 100.
In Ward 25 of Mberengwa South, Mr Tsvangirai is said to have garnered 98 votes instead of 116. A total of 8 533 votes were also recorded against Cde Mugabe’s name.
The figure should have been 9 001, thereby showing a difference of 448 votes. Dr Simba Makoni’s total in the same constituency was recorded as 3 191 instead of 1 191.
In Mberengwa East, the sub-total was recorded as 2 718 instead of 2 618. In the same constituency postal ballots for Ward 20 were not accounted for.
In Mberengwa North, according to the party, it was discovered that Dr Makoni’s ballots were recorded as 564 instead of 568 while Mr Tsvangirai’s were captured as 2 153 instead of 2 146.
In Mberengwa West, Mr Tsvangirai was said to have received 77 ballots instead of 189. In terms of Section 67A of the Electoral Act, ZEC is obliged to order a recount of votes in polling stations.
This is in situations where it “considers there are reasonable grounds for believing that the alleged miscounting of votes occurred . . . and that it would have affected the result of the election”.
The party is therefore appealing to the commission to urgently consider its case.
Reads the letter to ZEC: “While it may require statisticians to account for what is plain, and indeed blindly obvious to our client, is that ZEC may be faced with a serious, profound and far-reaching case of miscounting.
“ZEC may also be faced here with an overarching and unpleasant case of misposting of votes. Once one or other of those scenarios is found to be a real possibility, then there can be no doubt that the entire results of the presidential election in Mberengwa’s four constituencies are grossly irregular and (in their current form) cannot stand up to scrutiny.”
Zim detractors put to shame
ZIMBABWE continues to disappoint its detractors. Every projection they make about it does not come true. Where they expected the country to be in flames, it is in peace.
There is no doubt that the political and economic challenges the country is facing will be overcome and the country will get back on the path to peace and prosperity.
The outcome of the House of Assembly seats is now known and the MDC Tsvangirai faction has won. The outcome of the Senate has also been announced, and Zanu-PF has won.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) did well to manage the emotions of the voters by carefully announcing the results, showing how close they were. Those merchants of mayhem who had hoped to stir people’s emotions and cause disturbances were left frustrated.
Apart from some alleged discrepancies that are beginning to emerge and are being challenged through the court system, ZEC must be congratulated for running a transparent and credible election, which has won the approbation of most of the election observers.
With voters turning up in their numbers to choose a president, senators, House of Assembly representatives and councillors in one day, it was always going to be difficult for ZEC to process the results.
There is nothing like a perfect election. This is why laws governing elections have a provision for results to be challenged through the courts and the MDC may yet find its parliamentary lead seriously challenged.
Ordinarily, the MDC Tsvangirai faction should have been congratulated for winning the House of Assembly election. It is, however, difficult to do so when considering that their victory is not a result of persuading the voters to appreciate their agenda and programmes.
Instead it is a result wrung out of the voters through the economic sanctions that the party has advocated. Most voters that opted for the MDC did so, not on the basis of attractive programmes, but of expediency, as they felt it is the only way of beating the sanctions-induced difficulties.
By using sanctions to win the elections, the MDC Tsvangirai party has sown bad seeds that may yet come back to haunt the party in the fullness of time.
The white and foreign influence in the MDC remains a cause for concern and a hindrance to any political settlement. Already there are reports of white farmers causing disturbances in farms that have been redistributed. What gives them the confidence that if the MDC wins the presidential race they will get their farms back? Is it because there are assurances that have been made?
While the elections have been peaceful, such moves by the white former farmers have the effect of re-introducing the politics of physical confrontation. The new farmers will feel obliged, and rightly so, to defend their land.
The ambiguity in the MDC land policy also gives rise to fears that it intends to reverse the land redistribution programme in favour of white settler farmers.
The parliamentary victory of the MDC, though marginal, has been met with glee in Western capitals. This explains the impatience being shown regarding results of the presidential poll. Hoping that the parliamentary victory will translate into a presidential win, the results are more awaited in London and Washington than in Harare and Bulawayo.
All these factors point to a responsible response from patriotic Zimba-bweans.
In the event of a run-off they must defend their sovereignty and their land.
Polls rob House of stalwarts
By Morris Mkwate
THE House of Assembly will never be the same again. Colourful figures in both Zanu-PF and the MDC lost in last week’s harmonised elections, marking their exit from the House.
Over the years, these are the characters that shaped Zimbabwe’s legislative outlook. But after last week’s elections, their contribution to Parliament only remains historic.
Cde Oppah Muchinguri is a notable character that was not spared in the polls. As Minister of Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development, she emerged a towering figure that stood for women empowerment.
Her incisive debates on women’s issues in Parliament not only captivated fellow legislators, but also drew them to appreciate the importance of empowering women.
Notable among her contributions in the House was the coming on board of the Domestic Violence Act, which she, together with the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa, as well as other stakeholders, worked hard on.
Unfortunately, the colourful dame lost the Mutasa Central seat in last week’s poll, barring her from directly participating in House proceedings.
Cde Chinamasa himself also failed to secure a ticket into the House. Many will argue that although he lost the battle, he has on previous outings won the war that is legislative business.
As leader of the House, he was the "big brother" who managed affairs on the floor. When it came to formulating new laws, he executed them with precision.
He would not rest until business was done with. On several occasions, he would drag the House up until late in the evening in order to see a Bill through.
Cde Chinamasa would also take ministers who were not conversant with House and legislative procedure through the ropes. Members of the MDC could freely cross the floor to consult him on certain matters, courtesy of his accommodative nature. The House will never be the same without him.
Secretary-general of the Mutambara-led MDC faction Professor Welshman Ncube is another key figure that lost last week’s electoral battle.
Together with his fellow faction member Mrs Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, who also lost her seat, they formed a formidable debating team.
Prof Ncube acquitted himself well as chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Committee. While his duty was to scrutinise all legislation that was brought before the House, his contribution on the floor remains unquestionable.
Mrs Misihairabwi-Mushonga, on the other hand, was the pride of her constituency. Many speak of her ability to critically analyse matters at hand and proffer recommendations.
Her role as chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Public Accounts is also well appreciated.
Cde Kumbirai Kangai is one of Zimbabwe’s first lawmakers. In the last Parliament, he was Deputy Speaker.
He, however, lost the latest battle for Buhera Central. Legislators and those who attended the previous Parliament will remember his calculated judgments while in the chair.
On select occasions, he would show his lighter side. But mischievous characters have seen more of his stern side, as he sought to ably steer proceedings in the House. This often saw some legislators being ejected from the House while others had to settle for a booming "restrain yourself!"
Cdes Shuvai Mahofa, Mike Nyambuya, Munacho Mutezo and Chris Mushohwe are also among those who lost in the polls. Their contributions in the House will also be missed in the next House of Assembly.
While such colourful figures lost out last week, a new Parliament stands on the horizon and will bring with it a new crop of legislators.
Stakeholders expect the next Parliament to borrow its stream of thought from the more experienced class, which crafted some of Zimbabwe’s most critical pieces of legislation.
Illegal sanctions, British blackmail and Zim polls
AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona P. Mahoso
The same Anglo-Saxon powers trying to judge Zimbabwe's 2008 elections from London, Washington and Brussels today themselves accepted and benefited from the total disenfranchisement of Zimbabweans for 90 years from 1890 to 1980.
Zimbabwe's sons and daughters then fought a war for 15 years. That war brought one person one vote to all Zimbabweans for the first time. The same Anglo-Saxon powers who now judge the 2008 elections called "terrorists" the very same freedom fighters who brought the vote to Zimbabwe in 1980.
But the purpose of bringing the franchise to Zimbabwe through war was not just the vote itself. The vote was a tool which would enable the freed Zimbabweans to make their own laws on how to take full control of all their national assets, how to distribute the assets among themselves, how to safeguard the same assets and how to own and manage the various sectors, companies and parastatals of the Zimbabwe economy.
But the same Anglo-Saxon powers judging the elections from afar today did not support the war that brought the vote to Zimbabwe in 1980. In Gerald Home's book From the Barrel of the Gun: The United States and the War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980, the US and the other Anglo-Saxon powers sponsored mercenaries and other aid for the white Rhodesian regime in the same ways they have sponsored the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) and hundreds of other organisations against the patriotic movement and Government who brought the vote to Zimbabwe in the first place.
What this means is that the Anglo-Saxon powers refused to sponsor the liberation war that brought the vote. Instead they sponsored the Rhodesian war against Zimbabwe. But today, through the MDC, NCA and hundreds of NGOs in Zimbabwe, the very same Anglo-Saxon powers have sponsored and openly manipulated the vote which was made possible by a struggle they condemned as terrorism.
The Anglo-Saxon powers have used illegal sanctions and blackmail to coerce the people of Zimbabwe either not to vote at all or to vote for the opposition in the belief that the havoc and pain caused by the illegal sanctions would be lifted as soon as the parties sponsored by the foreign powers win the vote through foreign sponsorship that was first brought by the war of liberation.
Put another way, the popular vote is the people's instrument which they captured through a liberation war. Once that vote becomes the object of alien sponsorship, it becomes the alien sponsor's instrument to the extent of the numbers of parliamentarians who succeed through such sponsorship and thereby deceive or force the people into accepting foreign sponsorship and undermining their sovereignty.
What we are saying is that the illegal economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe since 2000-2001 are meant to serve the same purpose as the scorched-earth policy of the Rhodesian regime during the war of liberation. The purpose of burning the peasant's granaries, confiscating the peasant's cattle and offering rewards for information that would lead to the capture or killing of freedom fighters was to turn the entire African population against the struggle for its own liberation.
The difference between 2008 and 1978 is that in 1978 the liberation movement had a strong commissariat which held teaching pungwes almost every night and explained to the people the meaning of the Smith regime's economic war against villagers. There were highly conscientious and conscientised political commissars at the cell and base level who explained to the people that their survival as African communities depended on rejecting the sugar and biscuits or the blood money from the regime and, instead, finding alternative ways of surviving through unity and co-operation until liberation day.
But in the 2008 elections the language and message of the liberation movement in Government was no longer as clear as it was in 1978-79. The Voice of Zimbabwe had been subjected not only to liberal reforms but also to a new type of communication: a cacophony of conflicting and confusing political advertisements as political communication. The people who introduced the media reforms in 2007-2008 did not do as thorough a job of understanding the context as those who handled the pungwes of 1978-79.
This 2008 weakness added to the intensity of the daily economic war and manipulation served to coerce the people to accept those who were offering unreal and unrealistic short-cuts to the Third Chimurenga; whereas in 1978-79, those offering a short-cut in the form of the Internal Settlement were eventually rejected and defeated by April 18 1980.
We must say "eventually defeated" because the same uses of sugar, cash and biscuits in 1978 succeeded in persuading large numbers of Africans dreaming of instant arrival into middle-class life to vote overwhelmingly for Muzorewa.
The Nature of the Economic War in 2008
The day after the MDC was announced as having won more parliamentary seats than Zanu-PF, several working people in Zimbabwe reported incidents on kombis where touts had lowered their fares and were returning some change to passengers with the political message that Harare had voted properly and therefore now deserved lower fares. There were also indications that shelves which had been completely emptied in the run-up to election day were suddenly being supplied and refilled when it became clear the MDC had a slight lead in parliamentary seats.
But the most indicative period was the two weeks up to election day. Prices began to go up at least once a day, if not several times a day. Announcements of cost of living adjustments for teachers doctors, nurses, soldiers and other public employees were followed with huge price mark-ups in essential goods which insured that the increments were rendered valueless before the workers even received them.
The opposition parties and so-called "independent" candidates made sure to describe graphically the symptoms of this economic warfare without calling it so, without any analysis as to the causes, and without ever mentioning illegal sanctions and how they caused the hardships.
The opposition parties and so-called independent candidates instead emphasised the short-cuts to Zimbabwe's economic liberation which their sponsors would make possible as soon as the voters elected them. This was similar to Bishop Abel Muzorewa's promise that the war of liberation would end instantly as soon as he became the prime minister of the mongrel state of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
In addition to the totally unsuitable political advertising and the manipulation of supermarket shelves, the people were also exposed to 50 hostile media outlets or products (including internet sites) which reinforced the economic war and offered the false short-cuts to economic prosperity which were being touted by the opposition.
What started in 1997 as company shut-outs organised in co-operation with the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) became more elaborate and more sophisticated in 2007 and 2008.
The pattern was widely acknowledged as far back as 2003, following the defeat of the MDC by Zanu-PF in the 2002 Presidential elections.
For instance, on September 4 2003, the Daily News published a long letter to the editor which was called "Cathy Buckle can't fool everyone all the time."
The letter showed that there were some within the regime change camp who were still proud that the MDC had invited Britain and its Anglo-Saxon allies to wage economic war against Zimbabwe in order to coerce the voters to abandon the liberation movement in exchange for sugar, mealie meal and other handouts.
But there were others, such as Cathy Buckle, who were beginning to sense that openly celebrating an economic war against one's own people posed serious risks for the opposition. The people might become as clear in 2003 as they were in 1978. They might reject the short-cuts being offered by today's equivalent of the Internal Settlement. So Cathy Buckle wrote at length to deny the existence of British-sponsored illegal sanctions altogether.
But Denford Magora, who became Dr Simba Makoni's advisor and spokesperson in 2008, wrote the reply to Buckle which the Daily News published on September 4 2003. His letter stated, among other things, that:
"Britain and America have a tried and tested method of getting rid of regimes they do not like. The game plan always involves making sure that the population of a country suffer enough to rise up against the incumbent government. That was the plan in Iraq and, when it failed, United States President George W. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair dropped all pretence and invaded that country.
"By opposing bailouts by the international community, the West is imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe. These sanctions have nothing to do with Mugabe or Zanu-PF. They are designed to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe do not feel comfortable, with the result that they rise up against Mugabe and chase him out of the country. "
But, precisely because the vote came through the gun, Britain and its allies know that it is easier to manipulate the same vote now through sponsorship, sugar, and biscuits than it is to try to sponsor the gun.
This is because it is harder to bring in special forces and keep them hidden and working for a long time, without their being discovered, than it is to use about 400 to 500 British, North American and European companies, company subsidiaries and NGOs already operating inside Zimbabwe.
So, on September 11 2003, one Richard Chauke, who was close to the operations of industry then, wrote another letter to the Daily News to complain about companies who were benefiting from the workers and resources of Zimbabwe using profits from those same workers' labour and resources to wage an economic war on the entire population. Richard Chauke wrote:
"Industry really plays, politics too, perhaps with more (material) vigour than all the politicians. Truly, industry cannot be spared for its role in the Zimbabwe crisis. It is unfortunate that where industry acts politically, economists are quick to jump onto the grand stage to lecture us righteously about laws of supply and demand."
No comments:
Post a Comment