Legally Zimbabwe must hold the next poll within the time frame given by seven out of the nine learned judges who deliberated on the matter. But, politically, that timeline does not make sense. I hate to say it, but there is something that stinks about being legalistic. (After all, the law is such a reeking ass, isn’t it?)
I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think this business about the courts deciding poll timelines should be cast in granite. Interpretation of the law should always be guided by sustainable pragmatism and a thorough view of prevailing situations.
I remember very well that when some former MPs were challenging President Robert Mugabe to proclaim dates for by elections in Nkayi South, Bulilima East and Lupane East, the High Court ruled that the mini polls could not be conducted as demanded by the applicants because there was no money.
Citing lack of money by the august court was a situational consideration. Then, the High Court did not dispute the fact that it had taken too long before dates for the by elections were proclaimed. Due consideration was given to prevailing conditions.
There is a telling precedent that should also have inspired flexibility on the part of the Constitutional Court judges as they went about interpreting the constitution in the case in which a an applicant sought to have the poll held by June 30.
Mugabe is already moving around with dirty hands. The judgement acknowledged that he had violated Zimbabweans’ right by not proclaiming the dates for the poll in time. Of course, it was not the business of the court in that particular context to deliberate on what action to take against Mugabe and the government following their failure to announce the dates in time – but it seems nothing is going to happen thereto. If there is already a failure to proclaim dates for the next poll, and, as is clear, nothing is bound to happen around that, what was good for the goose should now also be good for the gander when the election time frame is pushed to a generally acceptable date. After all, the goose has also failed to proclaim dates for by elections in the constituencies named above and more than 20 others that fell vacant after the 2008 polls.
The difference is that while Mugabe’s failure to decree dates for the by-election and this year’s polls were apparently motivated by self-interest and political expediency, in that they would not suit his and Zanu (PF)’s agenda, pushing the next elections to beyond July would be a clear response to the call for justice.
It is clear that July 31 is not a good date by which the elections must be held. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, as this has been said over and over again, but we need at least four months to adequately prepare.
A lot of work still needs to be done to clean up the voters’ roll. There has to be global consensus on what measures ought to be taken to ensure that the media is professionalised enough to ensure that all political parties get equitable coverage and still more to revamp the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the RG’s offices.
The last time I checked, government did not have the money to conduct a credible election, and I am not sure that such money will be available in the next couple of weeks. But then, even if the money were to be availed, there is a host of other structures and processes that have to be put in place. There is need to realign the laws with the new constitution, getting rid of one or two bad ones in the process, and embark on comprehensive voter education, in addition to mobilising necessary human and material resources.
As an aside, I don’t see how Zanu (PF) would comfortably enter the election given the sorry limp in its gait. It is struggling to paper over, let alone repair, the evident fissures in its structures, is yet to hold its primaries and is miles away from launching its campaign.
Yes, the Constitutional Court has ruled that we should have the election by July 31, but I could kick the judges for not being practical in their judgement. After all, the new constitution allows us to hold the election within four months from the date of the expiry of the current Parliament, meaning it would still be legal to have it by the end of October. – For feedback, please write to majonitt@gmail.com
Post published in: Opinions & Analysis