Zimpapers Logo

IT was billed as the mother of all elections since Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, with mixed views about the main contenders fighting for the top job, President Mugabe of Zanu-PF and Mr Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC-T, being expressed. As usual, most people forgot that Harare, the seat of Government, represents a small section of Zimbabwe’s population and that the social media and the Internet are the global village and a majority of the citizens who reside there and give their opinions are not eligible to vote in Zimbabwe’s elections because they are not Zimbabweans.

With the final electoral mapping out, there is an undisputed demonstration of what the Shona people say: “Kudaidza musha wese kuuraya nyoka yakafa” (calling out the whole village to kill a dead snake).

In pursuit of international best practices for the holding of free, fair and credible elections, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission invited a coterie of referees: from international and regional observers to the international media — they were all here to witness what turned out to be nothing but a fruitless attempt to kill an already dead snake, just as the Shona people say.

The country went green before their very eyes and in the true sense of the environmental lingo; Zimbabweans demonstrated that they were re-greening the country by giving a five-year mandate to the revolutionary party, Zanu-PF.

With the exception of a few patches of red here and there that were taken by the MDC-T, Zanu-PF just re-greened the country. The so-called grand coalition between MDC-T and Dr Simba’s Makoni and Reketayi Semwayo produced yawning results.

So too the MDC and Zapu coalition! There was also nothing to write home about them as less than a thousand supporters voted for these parties in a majority of the 210 National Assembly constituencies.

This was despite some claims that Professor Welshman Ncube of MDC would emerge kingmaker because both President Mugabe and Tsvangirai would fail to garner the 50 percent plus 1 seat, which would lead to a run-off poll as happened in 2008.

But as it turned out, it was nothing but romancing the stone; what the Zanu-PF leader called, “zviroto, zviroto”.
I recall the Facebook postings by Tendai Biti of MDC-T and Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga of MDC at the Maputo summit. They were on cloud nine as they thought that Cde Patrick Chinamasa had deliberately crafted President Mugabe’s departure from politics and also damaged his legacy. Who now has the last laugh?

I always say that politics is a game where everything is possible and nothing is certain. They must be wondering what happened to the “old man” whom they thought that by abusing him at the Sadc summit, they would actually be sending him into oblivion.

Fast-tracking the events, it was a lie that some believed so well that towards the very end, it actually looked like those massive numbers that turned out at the Zanu-PF star rallies were nothing but fakes who were heeding the MDC-T leader’s encouragement to don Zanu-PF regalia, but come July 31, vote for his party.
They also believed that the crowds that voted during Zanu-PF’s primary elections were their people whom they allowed to vote for “weaker” candidates, which would make it easier for their candidates to romp to victory. But, who has now been left with egg on their face?

The other lie, which was bought by MDC-T hook, line and sinker, was the media attention that they have received since the formation of their party, especially the international media. To them, this translated to popularity and also meant that they were a brand that all and sundry wanted to buy.
It was also very easy to be fooled by the likes and dislikes on social media sites.

Going into an election with such a mindset where people think that being interviewed by the international media; having Western diplomats on their side and also having the so-called private media selling their agenda would translate to monumental votes for them was naïve and a show political immaturity.

On July 29, Tsvangirai, who believed that his “Cross-over” rally would end President Mugabe’s political career, wrote in the Washington Post: “Many have asked why my party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), would participate in elections that are so clearly rigged. The answer is simple: We are responding to the tidal wave of energy from the Zimbabwean people, who desperately want to replace this evil regime and rebuild our beloved country. If the people are allowed to exercise their constitutionally protected right to vote, the numbers will overwhelm the election-rigging machinery of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF), and the MDC will win in a landslide”.

Well, in his denial of the results, a denial he issued before the results were announced, Tsvangirai never realised that “the tidal wave of energy from the Zimbabwean people” he was telling the American people was that of people who wanted to seal their self-determination and protect the sovereignty of this nation through their ballot.

Whatever remains of the MDC-T must introspect on this if they want to remain relevant in Zimbabwe’s body politic.
Now I turn to the Fourth Estate, an estate of which I am a part. How did we fare in this electoral process: during, before and after? What do our actions mean? Are we for Zimbabwe or against Zimbabwe, which would mean that we want other nations to take charge of Zimbabwe’s affairs?

How do we also move the nation forward through the five critical questions that any journalist should answer: what, where, when, why and how? How well did we educate and inform the electorate about the electoral process? Would the 2013 media picture have obtained in 1980, where the media for purposes of self-aggrandisement want this nation to remain polarised? Is this the media’s role? How much have we learnt from the Rwanda genocide and the role of the media, which we should use now to move the nation toward bread and butter issue, and not bread crumbs?

Section 160J on the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] on the “Conduct of news media during election period” reads:
During an election period broadcasters and print publishers shall ensure that:
(a) all political parties and candidates are treated equitably in their news media, in regard to the extent, timing and prominence of the coverage accorded to them;
(b) reports on the election in their news media are factually accurate, complete and fair;
(c) a clear distinction is made in their news media between factual reporting on the election and editorial comment on it;
(d) inaccuracies in reports on the election in their news media are rectified without delay and with due prominence;
(e) political parties and candidates are afforded a reasonable right of reply to any allegations made in their news media that are claimed by the political parties or candidates concerned to be false;
(f) their news media do not promote political parties or candidates that encourage violence or hatred against any class of persons in Zimbabwe;
(g) their news media avoid language that:
(i) encourages racial, ethnic or religious prejudice or hatred; or
(ii) encourages or incites violence; or
(iii) is likely to lead to undue public contempt towards any political party, candidate or class of person in Zimbabwe.
An honest and objective analysis will show how the media fared. My personal assessment shows that it was a David and Goliath-like encounter with David fighting for the children of Israel and Goliath for the Philistines.

The so-called public media, which included the Zimpapers stable, had to fight it out and repel the arsenal unleashed on Zimbabwe to ensure that Tsvangirai (the West) would take this election easily.

Maybe the best way to analyse how the media fulfilled its obligations as stated by the law is to reflect on what American evangelist and political activist Norman Thomas said, and that is, “If you want a symbolic gesture, don’t burn the flag; wash it”. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/normanthom101644.html>

Some sections of the media made that symbolic gesture by burning the flag. In other instances the media realised that it had a critical role to play in protecting the national interest, and in that instance, they deliberately chose to wash the flag.

However, the major question to ask is when some sections of the media decided to burn the flag, whose flag was it they were burning, and do they actually understand what it means to follow the flag and protect the national interest?

The Western media can attack their institutions, choose who to support, but burning the flag, they never do because they realise the importance of protecting the national interest.

We still have a long way to go, especially now when it is so clear that Tsvangirai and his MDC-T lost the election dismally, but some sections of the media would want to continue to burn the Zimbabwean flag.