VOICES are beginning to get louder calling for Southern African Development Community-supervised elections in Zimbabwe next year as the only way to break the political logjam.

The voices argue that only Sadc-supervised elections can ensure a result that would be internationally accepted. This would be all very well if Sadc itself still had a semblance of credibility.

In the past decade Sadc's weakness has been displayed for all to see not only regarding the political crisis in Zimbabwe but in its partisan interventions in other outposts of tyranny such as Swaziland.

Sadc's major weakness seems to be its policy of appeasement towards leaders who have blighted the region. This is particularly so under the direction of executive secretary Tomaz Salomao.

Over the past 10 years Zimbabwe has held several presidential and general elections which have been marred by violence. Invariably Sadc has observed these elections and has seen documented evidence of electoral intimidation and fraud but it has chosen to sweep these under the carpet adjudging the elections "generally free and fair."

President Robert Mugabe is the longest serving leader in the regional grouping, which like his reign is 30 years old. This is an intimidating factor to the younger generation of leaders who have to contend with his often wayward doings.

Many countries in the region literally owe their sovereignty to him. Had it not been of him the Mozambican story would have turned out differently. The ruling Frelimo party was losing its war against Renamo which was backed by South Africa's apartheid regime when Mugabe intervened and saved the day.

Mugabe supported the liberation struggles of both Namibia and South Africa. The Namibian leadership feels indebted to him. The two presidents who have ruled Namibia, Sam Nujoma and Hifikepunye Pohamba, have been his unwavering allies.

Mugabe also supported South Africa's liberation movements.

His intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1998 is seen as the highest point in his pan-African interventions.

Many leaders in the region and indeed on the whole continent see him as Africa's elder statesman. This is what has made him go almost beyond censure.

Therefore, to think that Sadc can disinterestedly supervise an election in which he is a candidate is to expect too much from these "mere babes" leading the sub-continent.

The African Union, another "old boys club", is just a macrocosm of Sadc.

The harmonised elections held in March 2008 were about the freest and fairest ever held in Zimbabwe. The beauty of those elections was that ballots were counted at the polling stations and the results verified there and then and placed on a notice board at the station. The collation of the results was easy to manage.

What this means is that Zimbabwe has a blueprint of how to manage a free and fair election. If the system that was used in March 2008 is used and the whole electoral process observed by the international community Zimbabwe could deliver a credible election.

What is the problem however is the whole question of the transfer of power if it becomes necessary, as it was in March 2008. Sadc watched with a chilling aloofness as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission withheld the results for a full five weeks as Zanu PF sought ways to manage its loss. The result of the presidential election was disputed leading to the bloody runoff of June the same year.

Although Sadc intervened after this resulting in the negotiated settlement that created the government of national unity, the intervention was too late. The correct time to intervene would have been in the five weeks in which the election results were being withheld.

So, unless Sadc changes its old-boys-club mindset and ditches the policy of appeasement it won't be able to superintend the Zimbabwean elections and the transfer of power when and if that becomes necessary.