by Ashley Kondo
Zimbabwean democracy has been under spotlight across the world as different nation states, regional and international bodies and civic entities have made numerous attempts to influence and determine the country’s socio-political and economic processes, including electoral processes.
The United States (US), Australia and Britain, among other countries, top the list of voices that have increasingly maintained interest in the country’s affairs with specific focus on democracy and human rights.
The said countries have often challenged Zimbabwe to institute various reforms as benchmarks for the achievement of democracy and human rights freedoms.
In some cases, these nation states have gone further to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe in a bid to compel it to implement the so called “democratic reforms”.
These sanctions have had a negative impact on diplomatic relations and subsequently resulted in lack of cooperation for economic prosperity.
Nevertheless, the new dispensation which was ushered in by Operation Restore Legacy in November 2017, saw the opening up of more democratic space in the country.
Despite claims by some that the military intervention of November 2017 signalled the death of constitutionalism, Zimbabwe has emerged stronger as a democratic nation.
Resultantly, other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) are re-considering and re-engaging with Zimbabwe.
On 30 July 2018, Zimbabwe held harmonised elections in accordance with the supreme law of the land (Constitution).
The elections were described by many as historic and a legitimacy test for an alleged “coup Government” incapable of abiding and adhering to the principles of democracy.
The contrary has proven to be true after all has been said and done.
The proliferation of political parties amounting over 100 in the run up to the election is irrefutable evidence of the democracy which the nation has enjoyed under the new dispensation.
With regards to the pre-election environment, campaigns were notably conducted in a peaceful manner than ever before with very few isolated cases of intra and inter-party violence.
This enabled the electorate to freely associate with political parties and candidates of their choice according to personal interests and preferences.
To ensure and guarantee a free, fair and credible election, Government invited and accredited all interested international observers from across the world.
After the polls, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) announced ZANU PF’s Emmerson Mnangagwa as the winner, but this did not go down well with MDC Alliance leader, Nelson Chamisa, who suffered defeat.
Prior to the election, Chamisa had vowed that he would not accept any outcome that did not confer him the winner.
Aggrieved Chamisa took to the country’s Constitutional Court to challenge the poll results claiming that he had overwhelming evidence of electoral fraud and malpractice.
As required by law, the court sat down to hear Chamisa’s challenge, while the national broadcaster aired the proceeding live on both radio and television.
Unfortunately, Chamisa could not prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the election had been stolen as he claimed, largely because he deliberately shunned primary evidence in the form of election residue relying only on secondary evidence.
In all fairness, while due procedures were followed, it is absurd to note that some unprogressive elements think that democracy is shaped by one’s own opinion, perceptions, emotions or a given political outfit.
Vested interests of a few individuals with an insatiable desire for power cannot seek to determine and direct independent arms of the State.
It is high time the country moves on and unites for the common good of all citizens.
Chamisa needs to bury the hatchet, concede defeat and allow the country to move ahead and rebuild under the Second Republic led by President Mnangagwa.
