Most people agree that elections are the one and only way civilized nations decide who should and who should not form the government of the country. In Zimbabwe developments in the most recent past point to a disturbing trend where this tried and tested democratic tradition has been turned upside down. Not only has the process of electing public officials itself been marred with violence and death but even more disturbing with the refusal of those so resoundingly rejected at the polls refuse to accept the verdict as handed down by the people. It is, sadly not only a Zimbabwean first but also Kenyan phenomena, which one fears may turn out to be Africa’s contribution to the democracy and elections debate in the halls of academia in world universities and colleges. Sadly this is no longer theory but a very sad chapter in the ever catastrophic African record of dictatorship, life presidency and kleptocracy.

MDC-USA notes with increased trepidation the ever increasing call for elections in Zimbabwe in 2011. Most recently, the MDC President and Zimbabwe Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, as reported by Reuters said “Zimbabwe elections will go ahead next year, despite infighting that continues to hamper the government power sharing agreement.” Prime Minister Tsvangirai added a caveat we all agree with when he said, “When we emerge from the constitutional reform program an agreed time frame for elections will be outlined.”

 He also said something the people of Zimbabwe have been crying for that the ideal arrangement is to “respect, (the) conduct of an election with a clear winner.” Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara has been all over the map so much so that it is really difficult to ascribe him a position on this issue. Suffice to say his recent statement while on a visit to Ghana didn’t illuminate but muddled the waters even further.

Mr. Mutambara is also quoted by a New Zimbabwe.com reporter as having said that “We are working on electoral reforms, economic, political reforms and constitutional reforms that will make our elections free and fair.” In Zimbabwe, he added, “the question should not be about how soon elections should be held, it should be about how to hold quality elections. There will be no elections until such time when we are ready.” He however, revealed in the same piece that “it will not go beyond 2013. We want to make sure that everything is set before elections are held,” he pontificated in his usual professorial gibe.

President Robert Mugabe on the other hand, like Prime Minister Tsvangirai has indicated on several occasions that elections would be held in 2011 whether the ongoing constitutional reform process is concluded or not. Mugabe has already hinted and more recently during his birthday interview that “he is ready to represent his ZANU PF party in the election which would go ahead next year whether or not there was a new constitution.” If precedent is anything to go by, Mugabe’s statement should not be taken lightly. Arbitrary decisions by ZANU PF in the supposedly inclusive government should tell us who is to be believed. Like it or not whether elections will be held in 2011 or 2013, the only difference between Prime Minister Tsvangirai and President Mugabe is the completion or otherwise of the new constitution, its endorsement and referendum.

Herein lays the problem we in the diasporas and particularly the MDC-USA finds disturbing. It is the total absence and total disregard of fair, just and peaceful elections whose results will be respected by all parties that the three principals should be falling over each other to address first. It is also the lack of consensus within the GPA as to what should occur first, the constitution and referendum, the MDC –T position or political opportunism as is exemplified by ZANU PF and MDC-M. To ZANU PF it is always the political environment first and elections conduct second. Any signs of negative voter perception is a trigger for more violence and elections soon after. Their mantra is cow the electorate, beat the population to pulp and then conduct a sham election. If that result does not confirm them as the eternal rulers of the country, delay announcing results, manipulate the numbers and invite only those observers of a like mind who will declare the violent charade as free and fair even if it is patently clear that the process was flawed.

Zimbabwe has had a tradition of holding some form of elections beginning with the historical 1980 elections that ushered in the government of Robert Mugabe after the protracted armed struggle. Imagine Ian Smith et al had at that time behaved the way Mugabe and his coterie are behaving now. The war would have continued. And rightly so the international community would have condemned let alone intensified the sanctions against the country. Fast forward to the year 2000 when ZANU PF for the first time had a credible opposition at its hands. We knew all along that ZANU PF had unparallel degrees in political violence. What we didn’t know was the extent to which those degrees could be unleashed against fellow citizens for the sake of ZANU PF continued stranglehold on power.

There is no denying that the country needs a new government and soon. But to pretend that we can hold the next elections on the basis of the current constitution and under the same conditions and supervision by a handpicked group of observers is the height of naïveté. ZANU PF is a violent party. ZANU PF is not about to become some civilized political contestant pledging to abide by the same rules that govern elections elsewhere in the civilized world. It is also naïve to assume that the new constitution will fundamentally change ZANU PF from a violent to an accommodating political party willing and able to accept the electoral results.

Quite the contrary. We in MDC –USA strongly feel that a lot has been achieved by the Unity government in terms of the quality of the people’s lives, but this does not in any way mean ZANU PF has been transformed. Until and unless ZANU PF disavows itself of the notion that the country owes them eternal gratitude for the liberation of the country, we can forget that a paper constitution can achieve what the collective conscience of ZANU PF has failed to do regardless of all their Christian protestations.

The constitution making process is a good thing for our country. The threat by civil society to pull out of the constitution making process is enough evidence that politicians want to have their cake and eat it. There are not only financial hurdles to this process, but also increased violence ahead of the public consultation period. Evidence abounds of ZANU PF thugs targeting several communities and “reeducating” them on what to say and not to say during the outreach programs. This is hardly the recipe of a people driven constitution let alone one that will usher in a new political dispensation we can all live with and be proud of. It is not the enshrinement of a life presidency in the constitution either. We may have that clause. What matters is whether people will be able to freely and without intimidation vote for the political party and or candidates of their choice. This is the crux of the matter. Political violence and intolerance currently define us as a people. We do not need a new constitution in our opinion to change these atavistic tendencies. They are bad for business plain and simple. ZANU PF needs to understand that violence is the source of our international estrangement, of the mass exodus of its best men and women, of the collapse of its infrastructure and also sadly of turning this once bread basket of the region to a basket case.

Local, regional and international observers cannot prevent our people from being killed by political thugs. Observers cannot expedite the process of announcing results and observers cannot compel the losing candidate to concede defeat if they refuse to do so. It is our belief as a nation in the sanctity of elections that the process of choosing who shall run the affairs of our country should be entrusted. None of that will be achieved as a result of a new constitution, desirable though it may be. It is a whole change of national psyche, a desire by all political leaders regardless of party affiliation to respect the will of the people. Until and unless that national moral turnaround is achieved we can have all the paper constitutions we need and the dictatorial tendencies among us will always rear their ugly heads. Unfortunately, people will die, needlessly and the country we all love so much will continue to bleed and provide, unfortunately, the unenviable moniker of how not to run the affairs of the state. Elections yes, but not over the citizens dead bodies.