By Cyrus Kinyungu and Agencies
As the world waits with bated breath to see which way Zimbabwe will go after President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party lost majority seats in parliament, analysts were already drawing parallels with Kenya.
Although the size of population in the two countries differs, they both have 210 constituencies.
Like in Kenya, Zimbabweans voted for presidential, parliamentary and civic elections.
Map of Zimbabwe — Click PIC For Larger Image
And like Kenya, the release of results in Zimbabwe has dragged on for days, heightening tensions between ruling party and opposition supporters.
Zimbabwe had three presidential candidates — President Robert Mugabe (Zanu-PF), Mr Morgan Tsivangirai (MDC) and Mr Simba Makoni (independent).
Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change at some point threatened to release its own results following a delay by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to announce the official results.
The opposition later announced it had defeated Mugabe in presidential and parliamentary elections, but said they would accept a runoff vote. MDC Secretary-General, Mr Tendai Biti, told a news conference that tallies based on totals posted at polling stations showed that party leader, Tsvangirai, had won 50.3 per cent of the vote, while Mugabe had 43.8 per cent.
He appealed to Mugabe, 84, to concede defeat to avoid embarrassment. But the government immediately rejected the MDC victory claim as “mischievous”.
Deputy Information minister, Mr Bright Matonga, told journalists: “President Mugabe is going nowhere. We are not going to be pressurised into anything.”
He said such victory claims would be regarded as a coup d’etat, insisting that the army and the police were fully behind Mugabe.
Four days after the election, the electoral commission is yet to release official results of the presidential poll. Biti claimed that MDC tallies showed it had also won the parliamentary vote, taking 99 seats to the ruling Zanu-PF’s 96.
The latest official results gave Zanu-PF 93 seats to MDC’s 91 and five for a breakaway opposition faction.
The prospect of a runoff has raised fears that the hiatus before a new vote would spark violence between security forces and militia loyal to Mugabe on the one side and MDC supporters on the other.
Zimbabwean leaders had threatened during the election campaign to “go the Kenyan way” should they suspect foul play.
Last December, the Election Commission of Kenya delayed announcing the presidential poll results. When it finally did three days after the December 27 election, the leading opposition party, ODM, claimed that their leader, Mr Raila Odinga, was ahead of President Kibaki.
Then ethnic violence erupted in different parts of the country as members of some communities believed to have voted for the President were attacked and evicted from certain regions.
In Zimbabwe, the Human Rights Watch, a US group, said in a report that the electoral commission was partisan towards Zanu-PF and that it lacked expertise and resources to run elections properly.
Similar allegations had been made about ECK’s bias towards PNU, especially in the appointment of commissioners.
Allegations of widespread irregularities characterised elections in the two countries, prompting the opposition to allege rigging.
An MDC official said this week that leaked correspondence from the electoral commission showed it had asked for 3.3 million more ballots than the number of registered voters, including 250,000 extra postal ballots for soldiers and police.
A similar allegation had been made in Kenya, with ODM alleging that an ECK commissioner had gone to print counterfeit ballot papers.
Opposition candidates in both countries were psychologically prepared to win the election following favourable opinion polls that showed they were ahead of the incumbents.
A projection by Zimbabwe Support Network had suggested that Tsvangirai would win by 49.4 per cent, Mugabe 41.8 per cent and Makoni would trail with 8.2 per cent.
In Kenya, opinion polls had showed Raila leading with a slight margin against Kibaki, while ODM-Kenya’s Mr Kalonzo Musyoka would get about 10 per cent.
The two countries had three serious contenders each. And the elections became a tight two-horse race between the incumbent and the leading opposition figure.
Raila and Kalonzo were Kibaki’s ministers before they were sacked. In Zimbabwe, Makoni had been Mugabe’s Finance minister until a few months to the election.
Like in Kenya, pollsters’ projections in Zimbabwe were used to justify why Mugabe would lose.
The election irregularities cited in Zimbabwe were nearly similar to those in Kenya. In Zimbabwe, Biti said there was “massive” deployment of soldiers and police at most polling stations.
Journalists reported heavy presence of the army and police.
In Kenya, there were allegations that Administration Police officers were used as PNU polling agents to rig in its favour.
In both countries, the allegations were dismissed as “propaganda” by the opposition to win voters’ sympathy.
Anxiety in the two countries during the vote counting was at its highest as the electoral commissions continued to announce trickling parliamentary results, yet citizens were more keen on the presidential results.
Indeed, it appears that like in Kenya, Zimbabwe’s parliamentary results were largely acceptable to the masses, while the presidential results may not be.
Currently in Zimbabwe, anxiety is at its highest as it becomes apparent that a re-run between Mugabe and Tsivangirai could be unavoidable. None of the two leaders had a clear lead by the time we went to press.
In Kenya, some politicians had calling for a repeat election between Kibaki and Raila following the stalemate.
The delay in releasing the presidential election results in both countries was interpreted to have been a ploy to buy time to “cook figures” in favour of the incumbent.
Zimbabwe, like Kenya, also recorded differences in results announced on the ground and those at the tallying headquarters.
In Zimbabwe, the opposition has threatened to go to court to challenge some results, which they argue contradicted what was posted at polling stations.
Perhaps noting the striking similarities with the Kenyan scenario, the government of Zimbabwe has warned the opposition not to release its own results, saying that could spark violence “of the kind seen in Kenya after last year’s elections”.
Despite the striking similarities in the two countries’ elections, there are also glaring contrasts. In Kenya, the media covered the election in a relatively free atmosphere and they exposed some irregularities.
In Zimbabwe, however, the media are under tight censorship, with most of the international Press covering the election from neighbouring countries.
Live coverage in Kenya was possible and events were beamed to Kenyans live as they unfolded.
But this is not possible in Zimbabwe.
Unlike Zimbabwe, the military in Kenya remained neutral. In fact, the military had already rehearsed and waited either for the return of Kibaki or a change of guard ceremony.
However, the Zimbabwean military was quoted saying it would resist a change of guard. The military chief said he would not accept the presidency of any other candidate but Mugabe.
Unlike Kenya, election observers from the West were persona non-grata.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Sphere: Related ContentRelated Posts
