Readers will remember that both countries were adversely affected by high levels of political violence at elections in 2007 for Kenya, and 2008 for Zimbabwe. Like other regional bodies, COMESA is anxious that the next elections will not be disrupted by political violence.
It was sadly observed that in both Kenya and Zimbabwe there is a general lack of public confidence in some national institutions. National institutions that are expected to play the role of safeguarding democracy have either been personalised or privatised in such a manner that they now operate in a partisan way, thereby negating meaningful democratic governance. The majority of these institutions are in urgent need of reform in order to re-align them in favour of the nation as a whole.
Indeed, we may have reached the stage in both countries where reforms are no longer the answer; we may have to resort to a revolution. The question of how to strengthen national democratic institutions still begs an answer. In the case of Kenya, it was also observed that where each ethnic group has a presidential candidate there tends to be political violence. This is not necessarily the case in Zimbabwe.
The situation here seems to be that violence will be perpetrated whenever there are two or more candidates contesting a seat in Parliament or a presidential position. Political violence seems to have become part and parcel of the political culture, thanks to Zanu (PF). The few incidences of political violence within the MDC can safely be attributable to the political culture that Zanu (PF) has inculcated for the past 33 years.
The same argument can also be made with regard to the problems of corruption in some elements of the MDC. The experts at the meeting pointed out that although both countries now have an Electoral Code of Conduct, the vexing issue is that of enforcement. Enforcing the code through the Electoral Courts is not easy, especially in a country like Zimbabwe, where enforcement agents are prone to behave in a partisan manner.
Another interesting observation was made on the whole notion of democratic elections in Africa. We struggled to establish whether there are any viable alternatives to elections as means for legitimising whatever our countries may call democracy. Why does it seem imperative that to be deemed to be a democracy, a nation has to hold regular elections?
Is it not possible to devise other, perhaps less divisive, means of effecting regime change or accommodating the people’s choice of leadership? What are these alternative means and to what extent would they be considered to be enhancing rather than eroding democratic governance in a country? We await the elections with bated breath. – makumbe60@gmail.com
Post published in: Opinions & Analysis