THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 24, 1985. Zimbabwe: democratic choice

Press, 24 June 1985, Page 12

THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 24, 1985. Zimbabwe: democratic choice

Modern Africa is divided into almost 50 countries. Only two of them, Botswana and Mauritius, are ruled by systems that continue to resemble parliamentary democracies as these are understood in Western countries such as New Zealand. Almost all the rest are dictatorships, often run by the military, that use imprisonment and murder as a matter of course against their political opponents. A handful, however, including Egypt and South Africa, retain some of the qualities of free societies.

Among this handful of semi-democratic countries must be numbered Zimbabwe, which is about to hold a general election, spread over several days from June 27 to July 2. Zimbabwe’s last election, nearly five years ago, came on the eve of independence after years of bitter civil war when white settlers attempted to preserve their rule in what was then Rhodesia. The outcome of that election was largely determined by tribal allegiances, as factions of the black nationalist movement competed against one another. The group headed by Mr Robert Mugabe won 63 per cent of the black vote and 57 of the 80 black seats in Parliament. Dire predictions were made that the Z.A.N.U.-P.F. Government would dispossess the remaining whites, turn on its black rivals, and transform the country into a Left-wing, one-party State in the manner of many of its neighbours. Some of Mr Mugabe’s colleagues have behaved abominably towards political opponents; but the Government as a whole has shown marked restraint, at least by African standards. Faced with a rebellion by extreme supporters of the main opposition, known as P.F.-Z.A.P.U., Government troops and police have engaged in savage reprisals in the southwest of the country. Details have been hard to come by. Zimbabwe’s media are under close State control, and foreign journalists do not find it easy to report events in the rebel areas. Even so, Zimbabwe has not become a one-party State. Perhaps because he knows he enjoys the support of the most populous tribal grouping, Mr Mugabe continues to permit a degree of political activity and political opposition. After the war, at the time of independence; he preached reconciliation and, by African standards, Zimbabwe remains surprisingly tolerant.

The Government appears to be serious in saying it wants an election campaign in which opposition groups have an opportunity to be heard. It wants polling that is seen to be honest

and free from intimidation. Newspapers and the broadcasting media have been encouraged to accept advertising from opposition groups and to report the policies of all parties. A convenient escape into censorship is provided by an instruction not to report policies or statements likely to “inflame feelings”; the institutions of the State, and the personality of Mr Mugabe, must not be attacked in the media. In spite of these restrictions, there is good reason to believe that Zimbabwe will be conducting a poll that is recognisable as a genuine democratic election. Mr Mugabe can afford to appear generous. He and his supporters are likely to win by an even more handsome majority than they gained in 1980. Zimbabwe remains a prosperous country in a continent ravaged by natural disasters and political horrors. Even the remaining white people have found that they can live with black nationalist rule. Twenty seats in the 100-member Parliament are still reserved for whites- and many white members of Parliament support the Government, leaving the rump of Mr lan Smith’s old Rhodesia Front Party isolated and ineffective. White-owned farms and businesses are still the core of Zimbabwe’s economic success. Whites have found their lives have changed less than they expected. White voices no longer dominate politics, but Zimbabwe still offers a life that is sufficiently attractive to lure back some of those who fled to South Africa.

The whites have been the principal beneficiaries of the policy of reconciliation. This is probably the last election in which they will enjoy their entrenched electoral position. After 1987 the Government will be permitted to alter its independence constitution. This may not matter, provided that the Zimbabwe Government continues its practical approach to economic matters and recognises the importance of white enterprise to the country’s economy. The risk is rather that Mr Mugabe will use an outstanding electoral success as an excuse to suppress those who did not vote for him. On past performance, he is not likely to do so unless voting is marred by violence from opposition groups. Instead, once secure again for a further five years, the Zimbabwe Government will be in a strong position to be more magnanimous towards those who have been born into the wrong tribe. If it does so, it will set an example of decency and good sense that should shame countries from Algeria to South Africa.