The Zimbabwean opposition has announced it will not take part in a presidential runoff, assuming there is one.
This is hardly a surprise, given (relatively) independent claims that the opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangarai, actually won outright in the first round. Even if, as other independent sources suggest, Tsvangarai came up just short of 50%, it is difficult to plan for a runoff when the electoral commission has not even released “cooked” results of the first round (on 29 March).
Smart move? Dumb move? We do not talk much about election boycotts here at F&V.
Propagation: Seeds & scions (12)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBacks
To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=1637
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)
Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.
About the comment form
Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.
Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!
The soil is ready for planting:
`
I’d say dumb move. Morgan Tsvangirai is reported as having a tin ear for tactics.
Mugabe can now proceed with his runoff, and then claim to have been re-elected. The audience to whom MDC should be looking is the SADC presidents, and boycotting a runoff gives them a convenient excuse for not seeking Mugabe’s resignation.
Trying to form an alternative government in the face of an intransigent army and party and without international support will almost certainly be beyond MDC’s capacity.
Seed planted by Alan — 11 April 2008 @ 19:41
Well, since this last planting, a lot has changed. And nothing has changed. Morgan Tsvangirai, who subsequently had said he would participate in the runoff under protest, has now withdrawn with a less than a week till the scheduled vote.
Seed planted by MSS — 22 June 2008 @ 12:55
The major problem is Thabo Mbeki who on this, as on other matters, has taken a fairy eccentric line. Mugabe can survive indefinitely while Mbeki remains president of South Africa. Jacob Zuma, who defeated Mbeki for the ANC presidency last year, the ANC national committee, and COSATU, the SA labour congress, are all calling for Mbeki to take action and being ignored. The latest is that Mbeki, who is SADC mediator with Zimbabwe has refused to attend an SADC summit on ZImbabwe.
Seed planted by Alan — 25 June 2008 @ 13:48
“By handing victory to President Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai has sealed his reputation for vacillation, weakness and disastrous judgment” – David Blair, The Telegraph (22 June 2008).
Yes, MT is in a very difficult position and I neither envy nor blame him. If anything, this illustrates MSS’s and Alan’s point that the right of voters to be fairly represented should be decoupled from the right of a candidate to press or waive his/her own individual claims – as if s/he were a party in an adversarial hearing.
MT makes a (n entirely defensible) jugdment call not to risk his own life, or his family’s, by continuing to challenge Mugabe. That’s his right, but it leaves unrepresented those who supported him (and risked their own lives) and chose him as their standard-bearer.
A good argument for allowing a candidate’s nominators to select a replacement if the individual pulls out. There is precedent for this in, err, Weimar Germany (Hindenberg’s first presidential victory). Open to manipulation, yes (Exhibit A: Bob Torricelli), but less so than either cancelling and re-scheduling the election (especially in circumstances like Zimbabwe today) or declaring the remaining candidate elected unopposed (as has happened in some French parliamentary elections).
PS: I hadn’t realised Mbeki hadn’t yet stood down for Zuma. Seems a rather odd arrangement, although I suppose the US could well experience something similar – if, say, Reagan’s or Ted Kennedy’s challenges had won their party’s primary in 1976 or 1980 and left Ford/ Carter a lame duck for months rather than weeks. I believe this is not uncommon at State level – eg, Sarah Paulin defeated the previous Alaska Governor in the GOP primary – although non-Presidential primaries seem to take place much closer to the general election so the “lame duck” period is longer.
(This also happens in Australia when an MP loses his/her party’s preselection mid-term – eg, Andrew Thompson – or a Senator is demoted to a lower slot on the party ticket – eg, Neville Bonner).
Seed planted by Tom Round — 25 June 2008 @ 21:06
Mbeki’s term runs with the National Assembly, not his tenure as ANC president. The next assembly election is scheduled for April 2009. It is remotely possible the ANC will call an earlier election by directing its MPs to vote for a dissolution or terminate Mbeki’s presidency by directing its MPs to vote for a motion of confidence. Mbeki is term-limited by the constitution.
This is a lengthy interim, but it’s not unknown in parliamentary systems where the party leadership has a fixed term. In the Spanish election of 2004 the president (presidente del gobierno) had decided to retire and his party had a different leader and presidential candidate.
Seed planted by Alan — 26 June 2008 @ 05:14
The “dyarchy” whereby the incumbent head of government is not his or her party’s leader is not so unusual, nor necessarily anomalous, in a presidential system, but rather anomalous in a parliamentary system. As Alan’s example from Spain notes, it is not entirely unprecedented elsewhere than South Africa (where the head of government and head of state are the same–itself unusual for a parliamentary system). But it must be fairly rare and generally short term.
As for the boycott, and the rights of voters vs. those of the candidate, would any opposition leader in Tsvangarai’s situation be able to continue? I am not sure Tsvangarai is “handing victory” to Mugabe so much as the latter made it clear he was not going to let anything as mundane as an election determine who would rule Zimbabwe.
Seed planted by MSS — 26 June 2008 @ 13:40
When I first commented there was some chance that the regime would honour the election result or be forced to do so by SADC pressure. That chance is long gone and speaking as though Zimbabwe were having an actual election is now plainly wrong.
Seed planted by Alan — 26 June 2008 @ 14:26
In a more perfect world there would be an International Electoral Court and the international community would only recognise genuine elections. Some time shortly the media will report that Mugabe has been re-elected. That statement will be true only if the word ‘elected’ is devoid of all meaning.
Seed planted by Alan — 27 June 2008 @ 12:44
An International Election Court would be a terrific idea. Naturally, the USA would declare itself exempt.
Seed planted by MSS — 27 June 2008 @ 15:37
I’d guess you’d have the same trajectory as the Law of the Sea Tribunal where the US has declared a firm yah-boo for the last generation or so and has suddenly decided it’s quite a good idea. Naturally the judges would have to come from and be appointed by states that meet the Shugart definition in Presidents and Assemblies for functioning democracies.
Seed planted by Alan — 27 June 2008 @ 19:25
… the judges would have to come from and be appointed by states that meet the Shugart definition in Presidents and Assemblies for functioning democracies.
Given the funding to make it happen, such a body might not have to be government-sanctioned at all. It could be what Heather Gerken would call a shadow institution and Ed Foley would call an amicus court.
Whether government-sanctioned or not, it would be essentially a bully pulpit but valuable nonetheless.
Seed planted by Bob Richard — 30 June 2008 @ 12:44
A better model, in my view would the European Court of Human Rights (NB a different institution from the EU Court of Justice). States that adhere to the European Covenant on Human Rights must accept the court’s jurisdiction. The EU has successfully insisted that candidate countries, as well as EU members, accept the court’s jurisdiction and enforce its judments. Conditionality does not work just for banks.
Seed planted by Alan — 01 July 2008 @ 20:07