Zimpapers Logo

Supporters of Edgar Lungu celebrate after he narrowly won re-election on Monday

Hildegarde The Arena

. . . for whoever entered his biography on Wikipedia summed it all up for him: “On August 11, 2016, he (Hichilema) was retired from politics by Edgar Lungu who defeated him in the presidential poll.”

The Zambian election has come and gone. Incumbent President Edgar Lungu of the Patriotic Front was re-elected, and some media outlets are claiming that his inauguration, slated for August 23, might have to wait a bit, since the opposition is challenging the result.

On Monday, the Electoral Commission of Zambia declared Lungu winner of the closely contested August 11 general election where he polled 1,860,877 votes (50.35 percent), while his main challenger Hakainde Hichilema of the United Party for National Development (UPND) got 1,760,347 votes (47,67 percent).

Even before the final announcement of the final results, the Hichilema camp was claiming that the delays in the announcement was ominous, as they thought that the PF machinery was working with the electoral commission to steal the election from them.

When the result was eventually announced, they called it “a coup on Zambia’s democratic process”, claiming that UPND had “submitted evidence before the declaration of the results regarding the gross irregularities that have taken place. That is why we will not accept the result.” They also said they had evidence indicating that Hichilema, on Saturday was ahead of Lungu, by a “clear margin”.

Claims and counter-claims from people who seek to represent the people, but make a U-turn when those people reject them, never mind by what margin, for the recently amended constitution of Zambia said that the winner had to get 50 percent plus one of the vote, and Lungu did that.

Nineteen months ago, Lungu won the presidency over Hichilema by just over 27 000.

However, last week’s elections were too close to call, if one solely depends on the reportage from the Western media, which had put its money on the UPND leader.

However, the claims by Hichilema were doused by reports from the international observer missions, that included the Southern African Development Community, African Union, Comesa, Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA), the Commonwealth, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the European Union and the Carter Centre, who all declared the elections free and fair, but also expressed regret over the few incidences of violence, and the polarised media environment.

Former Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan, who was leading the AU Election Observer Mission said, “The AU concludes that the elections have been conducted in a peaceful atmosphere within the framework that satisfactorily meets the continental and regional principles of democratic elections. The AU encourages all parties to resort to legally established channels should there be a dispute on the outcome of the process.”

EISA noted in its report: “The elections were conducted in a context of open competition, where Zambians were given the opportunity to express their will freely, in a generally peaceful atmosphere, albeit on an unlevelled playing field.”

Why bother having observer missions if you only want them to say what you want to hear, and not what they saw on the ground? All these missions could not have colluded to produce positive reports of what they saw, and in also pointing out areas of concern.

Hichilema should act virtuously, concede defeat and allow the people of Zambia to move on and ensure that they work on the economy, for whoever entered his biography on Wikipedia summed it all up for him: “On August 11, 2016, he was retired from politics by Edgar Lungu who defeated him in the presidential poll.”

The polls could not surely be rigged the five times he has contested the presidency! The United Nations Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-moon has already congratulated the people of Zambia for the peaceful and orderly presidential, parliamentary and local elections, as well as the referendum on the Bill of Rights.

But in Africa, opposition parties never lose elections, so they claim, but when they do lose like they do in most cases, the election would have been stolen from them by the ruling party.

The allegation is usually given credence by their Western handlers. Most of them participate in general elections with those pre-conceived ideas that they would sing the “we was robbed” song, when they lose.

In 2008, Stephen T Maimbodei (The Herald) made the following observations about Africa’s opposition politics and the rigging mentality, and interestingly it was on Zambia:

“An election in Africa has once again ended with the opposition rejecting the final results and claiming that the election was rigged.

I have always wondered whether the cry about election fraud, which almost always comes soon after election results are announced, is an indictment on our young and fledgling democracies and their ability to successfully administer elections

I have also wondered if this actually is a plus sign in nation state building. And I also question, administer them for whom, and in whose interests? Are the people ever a factor in all these? Are the underlying issues as simplistic as I am making them to be?

There seems to be an unwritten African code, which says that a strong opposition party pitting itself against the ruling party should win any election, whether parliamentary or presidential. If they fail to win, then the election and the electoral system are condemned, and the denunciation carries more weight if the Western media champions it.

For years now, we have witnessed that any opposition defeat automatically becomes electoral fraud, accompanied by the usual jibe that the election has been stolen, and claims that the poll was not free and fair and that these are a potent enough mix to produce a rigged poll. This is a script whose template has been replicated all over Africa when opposition parties lose to ruling parties.

It is tired copy, but one which is happily accepted in the West, and one which reinforces the stereotypical images of undemocratic election processes in Africa, and the inability to govern.

The next step is for the opposition to reject the results, take the matter to the courts, and demand a recount. Zimbabwe is currently in a political malaise because of this phenomenon.

On October 30, Zambians went to the polls to elect a president to replace the late Levy Mwanawasa who passed on last August. Four contestants vied for the post although at the end only two remained major contenders, then acting President Rupiah Banda of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy and Michael Sata of the Patriotic Front.

Out of a population of 11 477 447, more than 3 million are, according to the Electoral Commission of Zambia, registered voters, and 1 768 210 people cast valid votes, which is less than 50 percent of the total number of registered voters. It is quite clear then that voter turnout was low. However, when all was said and done, Sata rejected the result, alleging malpractices, demanded a recount and announced his intention to challenge the results in court.

As if to give credence to Sata’s claims, the Western media made an issue of the fact that President Banda won the election by a narrow margin, and went on to be sworn in barely two hours after the announcement of the final result.

President Banda beat his rival by 35 209 votes. One wonders why winning an election with a narrow margin, where the difference between the two is greater than the number of votes grossed by the fourth contestant who polled 13 683 votes, would be an issue. According to election observers — local, regional and international — the elections were conducted in a free and fair manner in accordance with the sadc guidelines on the conduct of elections.

Sata had initially asked the Electoral Commission of Zambia to delay announcing the full result since he believed that his initial lead was going to be maintained. However, his request was denied and he claimed in an interview that “a bunch of thieves have stolen (his) votes”.

This was the second time Sata claimed electoral fraud. In the previous poll that pitted him against the late Mwanawasa, he did the same and took the case up to the Zambian courts. What is disturbing in this trend, which seems to be quite unique to African politics, is the number of times election fraud cases arise in most elections. And it is almost like a given that the opposition has to win an election in order for the election to be accepted as free and fair. Why?

Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and many others have had these problems, whether genuine or not genuine. These are problems that stall national development and make it difficult for incoming governments to implement developmental projects as time and scarce resources are wasted in what President Banda has described as “petty squabbles”.

Who also says that if a candidate is initially leading, then it is a given that they should emerge the ultimate winner? Who also says that if one wins by a small margin, then the results are questionable?

Why, therefore, did the opposition claim electoral fraud if the process was transparent and was endorsed by various observers?

Is electoral fraud being institutionalised even in cases where it is unwarranted in order to diminish Africa’s electoral systems? Who stands to benefit each time people refuse to accept the results of a process they would have participated in? Not the people obviously!”