It is a brutalised country in the grip of a dictator. Half the population struggles to eat and a third has fled abroad

It is a tribute to the fortitude of the people of Zimbabwe that, after all their long and miserable experiences of national and international politics, there is still a chance they might vote in large numbers against Robert Mugabe in the presidential run-off on 27 June. Most foreign observers rate it as a possibility, and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) continues to campaign for it. Clearly Mugabe himself still fears it, as his desperate actions demonstrate.

We can hardly dare wish for such an outcome. The campaign of intimidation, under way since the indecisive first round of voting in March, has been, as Mark Ashurst and Gugulethu Moyo report on page 24, both systematic and brutal. In a horrible parody of the activities of real democratic parties, Mugabe's Zanu-PF appears to have plotted the electoral map of the country, identified all the marginal districts and all the pockets of swing voters, and then set about terrorising them.

Even to be suspected of having voted against Mugabe last March - being a "sell-out" as the Zanu-PF enforcers call them - is to be in danger. You may not be killed, because murders attract attention, but broken bones, mutilation, the loss of home or job or food, a spell in jail - these are all being dished out every day. Human Rights Watch has catalogued thousands of victims. In such conditions, how much courage will it take for ordinary Zimbabweans to vote for the MDC?

We can offer them little support. If our words could make any difference they would have done so long ago, but Mugabe is impervious to criticism. Worse, when the criticism comes from Britain he turns it to his own advantage, for it sustains the fantasy he propagates that the old colonial ruler is itching to enslave Zimbabweans again. Our government has learned to keep quiet rather than make things worse.

As for action, it is possible that Zimbabwe might once have been considered a candidate for humanitarian intervention. It is a brutalised country in the grip of a dictator, where half the population struggles to eat and a third has fled abroad, where the government prevents aid agencies doing their work, where there is no longer an economy, where only more brutality and hardship awaits. International military action could be justified if it put an end to all that, it might be argued. But no one talks of humanitarian intervention any more; Iraq put paid to that. What remains is diplomacy, though not direct diplomacy with Harare. Zimbabwe's neighbours still have some influence over Mugabe, perhaps more than they have been prepared to use, and Britain has good relations with these countries, notably South Africa.

Those connections should be employed to urge extreme caution, if talks between the MDC and the Mugabe regime on the possible formation of a government of national unity, reported this week, go any further.

Some may draw comparisons with the recent experience of Kenya, where, it is argued, the creation of just such a government rescued the country from chaos. But even if one accepts that interpretation, Zimbabwe is not Kenya; their stories are dramatically different. And, as the MDC itself has often pointed out, any partnership with a politician as long-established, ruthless and power-crazed as Mugabe could be extremely dangerous.

The perspective of those brave Zimbabweans who plan to defy the intimidators and vote against him again later this month must also be considered. They might be prepared to risk their lives doing the one thing they can do to get rid of this hateful man, only to find that, thanks to a political fix, he is allowed to retain his power over them.

These elections are already so debased, thanks to the activities of Zanu-PF, that it is hard to think of them as a democratic process, and whatever the outcome we should not expect Mugabe to go quietly.

But many, many Zimbabweans still see them as an opportunity. Their votes should not be traded away in advance, in some fudge that saves the man who has tyrannised them.

An impartial verdict

Readers of the New Statesman may be interested to hear of an adjudication by Ofcom over a Channel 4 Dispatches programme presented by our political editor, Martin Bright. The regulator received 12 complaints about The Court of Ken, broadcast this January, which looked into Ken Livingstone's record as Mayor of London and presented the findings of a six-month investigation. Accusations of bias and of making unsubstantiated allegations against Livingstone were levelled against Bright and Channel 4.

The former mayor publicly denounced the programme as "ludicrous" and a "hatchet job" - but neither he nor his representatives formally complained to Ofcom; which meant their criticisms could not be considered. Ofcom did, however, clear Bright of failing to be duly impartial. In short, none of the complaints was upheld.

Some were of the opinion that when Labour needed all the friends it could get, and the prize of the mayoralty was at stake, the appropriate course was to still all criticism, legitimate or not. Both Bright's work in these pages and the New Statesman itself were included in the reproach.

The NS challenged this view. The role of good journalism is to hold those in public office, particularly the very powerful, up to scrutiny regardless of their political persuasion. Readers can be assured that, when necessary, the NS will not hesitate to call London's new mayor to account, just as we did the last.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website