A tale of two elections

The UK election has come and gone. The leader of the Conservatives, Mr  David Cameron has been re-elected prime minister after a stiff challenge from labour rival Ed Miliband. Closing poll predictions made a hung parliament look more likely than a majority for any one party but the Conservatives have defied the odds and won. The campaigns have been peaceful but eventful in terms of the debates around ideas on how the parties intended to deliver public services such as healthcare and education with bold promises being made. The televised debates saw a resurgent Ed Miliband which improved poll ratings for him albeit too late. The economy was also a topical issue with the Conservatives blaming Labour’s handling of the finances which led to the financial banking crisis of 2008. Labour has always maintained that the crisis was global and regulation was the responsibility of all global financial players. Labour is famously blamed for leaving the country broke and in debt. 

Zimbabweans in the diaspora especially in the UK will want to compare campaign and polling day experiences and the contrast is just miles apart. The recent harsh treatment of independent candidate Temba Mliswa, a former ruling ZANU PF party candidate in Hurungwe West is testimony to this stark difference between the former colony and former colonial master. Mliswa is basically an enemy of the state now and villagers have been warned against associating with the former MP and ZANU PF chairman. The opposition has endured emotional and physical violence and in some cases death at election time since 2000.

You have to ask the question: what is the point of elections in Zimbabwe? You also have to appreciate the stance taken by the main opposition the Movement for Democratic Change not to participate in future elections if the reforms in the new constitution are not implemented. First we need to distinguish between a political party, the state, and government.  The ruling political party takes charge of state resources to form a government. The state does not belong to the political party. That distinction has become largely blurred in Zimbabwe because the ruling party has survived more than 35 years in power and generally abused state resources for party and personal use.

But why do we vote? Why do we line up for hours to vote? Vote for whom and for what? We are supposed to vote for a political party that has the best plan for the delivery of public goods and services mainly healthcare, education, transportation and communication, sanitation and clean water, and to some extent national security. The purpose of the vote has been defeated in Zimbabwe because the ruling party has lost the capacity to deliver public goods and services without the assistance of foreign aid. Foreign aid has enabled Zimbabwe and other developing nation states to run governments. You have to question whether the government is accountable to the Zimbabwe electorate or to foreign aid donors? The later is more plausible. But why subject the electorate to an expensive and divisive electoral process? It must have something to do with legitimacy. The ruling party must be seen to have been democratically elected but the reality is that violent tactics are used to win at all costs. The ruling party has the advantage of incumbency and has access to state resources which it diverts for its own use. The police and secret service and even the army top brass is ready to defend the status quo which has seen the personal fortunes of many of them improve.

The election is a painful but necessary sideshow and you have to notice how the work rates of those wanting to be re-elected dramatically increases during election season before they withdraw into their shells until the next election. Legitimacy is a currency in parliamentary democracies. Aid dependent nation states use legitimacy as a currency for more aid. It explains why president Robert Mugabe agreed to power sharing in the bloody 2008 election even after 'winning resoundingly' as 

opposition leader Dr. Richard Morgan Tsvangirai had withdrawn from the contest following the reign of terror against opposition supporters. 

Parliamentary democracy does not suit incumbent liberation war political parties stuck in the politics of nationalism in which the war has not yet ended. There is no political space for opposition parties. The former liberators are the new oppressors. They still need elections for that legitimacy currency and will win elections at any cost. The electorate has no say in how the country is run but the donors have.