For a while in the Zimbabwean political discourse, one topic has grown louder and more contentious: the synchronization of elections.
With the next election cycle looming, the question on everyone’s lips is, “Should Zimbabwe de-harmonize its elections?” Proponents argue it streamlines governance, while opponents claim it breeds chaos and confusion
Let’s dive into this electoral soap opera, shall we?
A Quick Recap
Back in the good old days of 2007, Zimbabwe decided to harmonize its elections. This means that local, parliamentary, and presidential elections are all held on the same day. Think of it as a political Super Bowl where voters get to cast ballots for everything from the president to local councilors in one go.
The idea was simple: make elections more efficient, increase voter turnout, and save money. And guess what? It worked! But now, some folks are saying it’s time to de-harmonize. They argue that holding local elections separately would allow voters to focus more on local issues without the distraction of national politics.
Enter the Protagonists: De-harmonization Advocates
The proponents of de-harmonization have their arguments neatly lined up. They believe that holding elections separately will:
Give local issues the attention they deserve.
Prevent voters from being overwhelmed by the sheer number of candidates.
Reduce administrative and logistical challenges.
But hold on a minute! According to the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), empirical data shows that harmonized elections have actually increased the competitiveness and profile of local elections.
Before harmonization, local elections were often a snooze fest dominated by the ruling party. Now, they’re more competitive and engaging. So, who’s got it right?
ZESN stepped into the ring with a knockout statement: Zimbabwe should stick to its harmonized election system.
According to ZESN, the current setup, where voters cast ballots for the president, MPs, and local councilors all at once, is working just fine, thank you very much.
ZESN also argue that de-harmonizing elections will lead to perpetual campaigning. They envision a dystopian future where Zimbabweans are constantly bombarded with political rallies, debates, and campaign promises. The cost of organizing multiple elections is another point of contention—more elections, more expense.
They also argue that synchronized elections foster a sense of unity and comprehensive decision-making. Voters, in one fell swoop, decide the fate of their nation, from the presidency down to local councils, ensuring a cohesive political vision.
However, Advocates for de-harmonizing Zimbabwe’s elections present a buffet of arguments, each more tantalizing than the last. They argue that holding elections separately allows for more focused campaigning and better voter education. Imagine trying to understand the nuances of a local council candidate’s manifesto while simultaneously grappling with the grand visions of presidential hopefuls—confusion galore!
Moreover, separate elections could mitigate voter fatigue. Picture this: one election season focused on national leadership, another on local governance. Each process receives undivided attention, ensuring voters are well-informed and enthusiastic, not merely ticking boxes out of sheer exhaustion.
The African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance (ACDEG)
Ah, the ACDEG, the continental gospel on democratic principles! This revered document extols the virtues of free, fair, and credible elections. Article 2 speaks eloquently of promoting adherence to democratic principles and human rights. Article 3 insists on the separation of powers, underscoring the importance of transparency and accountability in governance. How does this all tie into our de-harmonization debate? Quite snugly, actually.
Harmonized elections in Zimbabwe align perfectly with these ideals by increasing voter participation and making the electoral process more transparent.
The United Nations Convention on Elections
Enter the UN, with its conventions upholding the sanctity of democratic elections. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a cornerstone document, mandates in Article 25 the right to participate in public affairs, vote, and be elected. It insists on genuine periodic elections, conducted by universal and equal suffrage, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.
The UN’s stance dovetails with ACDEG’s, advocating for elections that are transparent, inclusive, and manageable for voters. Harmonizing elections, while logistically appealing, might undermine these principles by overwhelming the electoral system and voters alike. Hence, the UN’s doctrines subtly support a de-harmonized approach, prioritizing the quality of elections over mere convenience.
The Global Stage: What Are Other Countries Doing?
Zimbabwe isn’t the only country grappling with this issue. Take Indonesia, for example. With a whopping 200 million registered voters, they managed to pull off the world’s largest single-day elections in 2024. Voters cast their ballots across five levels of political office, proving that harmonised elections are not just feasible but also effective.
Meanwhile, in the United States, there’s an ongoing debate about harmonising federal, state, and local elections. The argument is that it could save money and increase voter turnout, much like what Zimbabwe has already achieved.
The Verdict: To Harmonise or Not to Harmonise?
The ZESN is clear in its stance: keep the elections harmonized. They argue that the system isn’t broken, so why fix it? Harmonized elections have brought financial savings, increased voter turnout, and made local elections more competitive. Plus, it’s harder for semi-authoritarian states to skip local elections when they’re synchronized with national ones.
So who’s right in this heated debate? ZESN certainly has a point – look at countries like Botswana, Zambia and Malawi, which have all embraced harmonized polls and seen impressive voter turnout as a result.
But the skeptics also raise valid concerns. After all, what’s the use of high turnout if voters are simply blindly following party cues rather than making informed choices? And the logistical headaches can’t be ignored – Ukraine’s recent election was marred by long lines and technical glitches.
At the end of the day, Zimbabwe must carefully weigh the pros and cons and chart a course that truly empowers its citizens. As the ACDEG states, democracy is about more than just elections – it’s about “transparent governance” and “equitable access to national resources.”
So while the election system debate rages on, perhaps Zimbabweans should keep the bigger picture in mind. After all, what good is a harmonized vote if it’s not accompanied by a genuine commitment to democratic ideals?
So, there you have it, folks. While ZESN is championing the status quo, ACDEG is playing devil’s advocate, and the UN is, well, being the UN.
Only time will tell if Zimbabwe’s harmonized elections will continue to be the toast of the town or if the system will need a major overhaul to keep the peace and maintain the trust of the voting public
