Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Stephen T. Maimbodei
18 December 2008
opinion
Harare — PARLIAMENTARY and presidential elections in Ghana, Africa's oldest democracy, have come and gone.
There were a number of surprises.
The first being that none of the presidential candidates garnered the required two-thirds majority to claim outright victory.
Thus, on December 28 Ghana will go back to the polls to vote in a run-off poll.
The second surprise was the pattern of voting.
According to reports, it was a poll characterised in some constituencies by what they term "skirt-and-blouse" voting where voters chose a presidential candidate from one party and a parliamentary candidate from another.
This is also Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, the doyen of Pan-Africanism called Africa's "redeemer", and one of the continent's founding fathers who led Ghana to independence in 1957, which saw winds of change sweep across the continent as Africans sought emancipation from colonial Europe.
But Nkrumah was ousted in a coup in 1967 engineered by neo-imperialist forces.
The other surprise was the entry into Ghanaian politics by none other than Nkrumah's youngest daughter, Samia Yaba Christina, who won a parliamentary seat, giving credence to the widely held view that "Kwame Nkrumah Never Dies".
Christina's entry into politics proves not only what an interesting and challenging decade this has been for women, but also for the future of Pan-Africanism.
However, will Samia live up to her father's ideals in a 21st century which has seen an independent Africa continually lagging behind in development, and still be dictated to by the West?
Much is expected from her, although she cannot achieve her father's ideals single-handedly.
It is, however, ironic that as Ghanaians prepare for the run-off poll, the so-called Elder and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, a Ghanaian national, together with Graca Machel and Jimmy Carter have presented a damning report on Zimbabwe's President Mugabe to the Paris Club under the leadership of French President and current European Union chair Nicholas Sarkozy, who has conveniently forgotten that his presidency was determined through a run-off.
This is the same Sarkozy whose actions in Africa as Cabinet minister in Jacques Chirac's government always courted controversy.
It is also the same Sarkozy who last year shamelessly protected a dubious French non-governmental organisation Zoe's Ark operating in Chad after they had abducted African children in Chad for questionable adoptions in Europe.
This is also a Paris Club where none of these so-called Elders questioned France on its involvement in the Rwanda genocide of 1994, despite being eminent international figures already.
It has remained a puzzle to many that Graca Machel-Mandela seeks President Mugabe's head on a silver platter to gratify Western interests when Southern Africa has never stopped mourning the assassination of her husband President Samora Moises Machel in 1986.
The region has been waiting for her leadership role using the close associations she enjoys with these "champions of human rights" to probe without fear or favour the downing of the plane that killed Cde Machel.
Such is the world of duplicity.
The cholera epidemic and the humanitarian and food situation are now the convenient "final" body of evidence to justify the invasion of Zimbabwe in a mission predetermined way back.
Sometimes, meanings in some songs are so direct that listeners do not have to make inferences.
Ghanaian musician King Ayisoba's chart-busting song "Champion No Easy", sung in Pidgin English, is one such song.
In "Champion", King sings: "Champion no easy you for make training hard," meaning that to be a champion one must work hard.
The song's message is apt for the presidential race in Ghana was tight and none of the candidates got the 50-plus-one percent required.
Put simply, winning an election is no ball game.
A few years ago when Zimbabwe's sungura maestro Simon Chimbetu sang "KuState House kure", takati zvareverwei (The road to State House is bumpy, we said don't talk about it). But we have since discovered that the song means just that.
Sarkozy and Segolene Royal also found that in May 2007 when their inconclusive result failed to produce a winner and they advanced to a run-off.
Last September, former United States First Lady and now Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton also realised this bitter truth that "champion no easy" when Barack Obama foiled her bid to occupy the White House as President.
Last November, Segolene Royal again discovered that "champion no easy", when she ended up in a run-off vote battling Martine Aubry to become the first woman to head the biggest party on the French left.
With such examples, the whole Western establishment still wants to pretend that they do not get it.
If they do, are we to interpret Audrey Brown's action on BBC Network Africa on December 11 as mischief after announcing that Ghana was headed for a run-off on December 28 as she punctuated the news item with Ayisoba's "Champion no easy"?
In the past few years, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe's presidential polls ended up in run-offs.
In the March election, President Mugabe polled 43 percent against Morgan Tsvangirai's 47 percent.
In Ghana, Nana Akufo-Addo won 49 percent of the vote, while John Atta-Mills polled 47 percent.
In all cases, none of the candidates achieved the 50-percent-plus-one vote needed to win outright in the first round, forcing them to go to a second round as stipulated by their laws.
If the laws about run-offs are stipulated by each country's constitution, why does Zimbabwe's inconclusive March 29 poll become such an issue that we are all forced to accept that there was an outright winner when there wasn't one?
The West's double standards regarding elections in Africa vis-à-vis the Zimbabwean poll were raised by President Mugabe in his graveside speech at the burial of national hero and Zanu-PF's political commissar Cde Elliot Manyika last week.
President Mugabe questioned whether the West will display a similar enthusiasm they have so keenly shown on Zimbabwe since the March 29 harmonised elections and the subsequent June 27 presidential run-off poll.
He emphasised that like Zimbabwe, Ghana was going for a run-off because none of the candidates had won, and said that although MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai initially led, he did not win as stipulated by Zimbabwe's electoral laws.
The same with George Weah against Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, so too for Sarkozy and Royal.
Among each of the contenders, someone led but did not win until after the run-off.
How then do technicalities, if any, arise within the context of leading and winning?
How could such a result translate into the deployment of an invasion force?
The President was very clear about the observance of the law as opposed to observance of interpretations made to suit the interests of Western nations who never supported our liberation in the first place.
The worrisome issue is that the rule of law is being interpreted so selectively when it comes to the case of Zimbabwe because of the illegal regime change agenda.
What also makes the Zimbabwean situation so peculiar that we have the West calling for a "peacekeeping force" to deal with the broad problem of sanctions, poverty and the cholera epidemic, all of which are a major African problem?
What are the repercussions and implications of these actions by the West on Africa's body politic?
It is also amazing that Africa has accepted the long process in the formation of the American government, and took it as a given which should not be questioned, because it is a process they claim is inculcated in that "great" document that says "We the people".
In 2000 the US electoral process should have resulted in a run-off, but it did not, and we accepted the subsequent eight years of a Bush administration.
Therefore, as Zimbabweans await the formation of the inclusive Government while Ghana awaits the poll run-off, we hope that the sentiments we echoed from various quarters do not seem like what we say in Shona, "Kutambisa nguva kushambidza imbwa makumbo" (It's a waste of time to wash a dog's feet).
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 The Herald. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Ahhh.... but do the Ghanan authorities in power routinely assault, maim, and kill those affiliated with other political parties?
It's not an apples to apples comparison after all, is it?
There is a *world* of difference between having a runoff due to no one party or participant getting 50% + 1 vote in a free and peaceful election; and having one in an election that was neither free or peaceful from the start.
And, even in spite of that, one where the opponent of the entrenched party not only outpolled them, but *almost* won.
If all the votes had been counted, and all the electorate freely allowed to cast their vote as their conscience, and not their bruises, dictated, there probably would not have been a need for a runoff.
A brainless article. But, to the authors credit, shamelessly defending Mugabe with the pen is a hard game - if not impossible. The cracks in the argument could swallow someone the size of Joyce Majuru. The contestation over the Zim poll situation is not that there was a runoff, but the nature of the runoff - it was bloody - unbelievably bloody - and that is the bottom line. Is political victory through blood and force the African Way? If power through murder is the true African way then the core argument of your article is valid.
Esigonowhere,
This was a great article, well thought out and perfectly presented. There are no cracks in the author's argument as you would like us to believe. It is you with a skewed mind who thinks like that because you despise anything that supports the position of the Zimbabwe electoral processes/system but upholds the same system elsewhere.
You say that "The contestation over the Zim poll situation is not that there was a runoff, but the nature of the runoff". You are wrong. Let us start from where it all started. While the process of counting, collating and verifying, leading to the announcement of results was taking place, Biti started announcing "MDC parallel results" which were at variance with the official ZEC results. Biti first told the whole world that MDC had won 68% of the presidential vote, only to climb down to 58% and further climbed down to 53% and further revised the percentage to 50.3%.
That’s where the contestation all began. And you know as much as I do that the elections of March 29 were characterised by peace and tranquility. No wonder, ZEC had to delay announcing results for some time while thoroughly verify results to see why they were so different from those being announced by MDC's Biti. It was, however, later discovered that this was just some sinister move spearheaded by the CIA and MI5, embedded with the MDC, who were trying to sway public opinion against the govt - It did not work.
You very well know that Tsvangirai did not want to participate in the run-off believing that he had won when in actual fact he had not and this is what this article is saying. It took the intervention of McGee for the sellout stooge to agree to return to Zimbabwe from his self-imposed exile in Botswana and participate in the run-off. Iam sure this was the time he was assessing the strength of his bandits who were being trained by Khama. So the contestation was not about "the nature of the runoff" but was about runoff itself.
Next came the period between the March 29 and June 27. If you remember well, during the month of April, reports coming in from most parts of the country were of Zanu pf supporters being killed while others were beaten by MDC thugs. During this period, close to 50 Zanu pf supporters and war veterans were killed by MDC thugs - nothing is said about these people. My own brother and some relatives were beaten and their homes and property destroyed by MDC thugs for being Zanu pf supporters. They only returned to our village (Minda mirefu) when Zanu pf came in full force to campaign in the area.
During the later part of that period we started hearing reports of MDC youths and supporters being beaten or murdered. While I do not condone violence of any nature, I believe that we could have witnessed worse violence than we saw considering the polarization that exists in our country today. I believe our people restrained themselves and conducted themselves in a very civilized manner which is unparalleled anywhere in Africa.
Yes we lost lives but the situation could have been worse had leaders like President Mugabe not spoken strongly against violence. Therefore, the violence we witnessed (from both sides of the political divide) did not warrant boycotting, thus, "contestation of the nature of the run-off". Hence, the run-off was not "...bloody - unbelievably bloody" as you put it.
The bottom line is that Mr Boycott, as is his nature, boycotted the run-off after realizing that he was going to lose the run-off hands down. The Zanu pf strategy - of being with the people - took Tsvangirai, McGee and all CIA agents embedded with NGOs unawares to the extent that the only face serving move was to withdraw at the 11th hour.
I am deeply sorry to bring to the notice of the writer that this article is full of observations that are deeply primitive and immature in itself.
One of the most primitive ideologies of the century being sold to all the citizens of the African countries by their so called leaders is that the Western world is always dictating to Africans of how they should govern and be governed. That ideology is primitive because the leaders of Africa have not been wise enough to determine when to admit that SOME IF NOT ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS PROVIDED TO BOTH AFRICANS AND THEIR LEADERS ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF AFRICANS. I am an African I can assure you that most of the Leaders in Africa rule their citizens as dictators without respect. The only few Africans who are in agreement with the leaders are their very own cronies who support the leaders' dictatorship so that together they cheat the rest of the hard working citizens to accrue the wealth of the land to themselves and their families only. They start to hide behind the ideology of colonialism when the western worlds start to criticize such dictatorships and impunities. Who is to be blamed for the genocide in Rwanda? Any one who blames the West or the Europeans and their leaders for this matter is a hypocrite. Was it the western powers who asked the Kenyans to kill each other with hatchets, hoes and cutlasses after their elections failed? The African leaders could not do anything while fellow Africans were killing fellow Africans. Are we still primitive enough to settle land disputes by hatching one another down? Should one tribe being cheated resort to resolving their disputes by innocent killings? Kenyans should have stripped both Kibaki and Raila Odinga down because they failed to contain the citizens from committing such atrocious evils. Or they are the war lords who commanded their slaves to kill one another to settle the land dispute. What brand of leadership is that?
African leaders please learn to come up with the so called kind of democracy that will set all African citizens free on their own lands from the hands of their dictatorial leaders who have become slave masters of the innocent citizens they are ruling.
The African leaders are full of greed even though I admit that not all of them are. More could be said but chew upon this for the mean time.