BY DR MASIMBA MAVAZA | Zimbabwe is once again preparing for by elections. These are coming after the members who were representing the constituencies in question where either recalled by their party or died.
After the announcement of the election dates the country is once more plunged in the election mode. Citizens have asked valid questions
How do we ensure that political campaigns don’t rely on lies and misinformation? In future we should consider changing election campaign law to prohibit knowingly false political statements by campaigners, and suggests that involving voters, via a citizens’ assembly, could be one way to ensure the quality of political information improves in any referendum.
Another public vote or a general election is not going to resolve the deep political divides in Zimbabwe today. At least not yet. Not without at fresh approach to the quality of political debate during political campaigns.
Misleading and inaccurate information during political campaigns is widespread. It reduces the quality of public debate and manipulates voters. This undermines the legitimacy of results and contributes to the social divisiveness of voting.
ZEC should consider tabling a new electoral law and greater citizen participation to change the culture of lying during campaigns.
The CCC is making large numbers of misleading claims which are polluting public debate prior to elections.
The focus in electoral law is on ‘vote rather than voice’ on the fairness of the vote process, rather than on having a fair, accurate campaign. In the UK the law only prohibits statements about ‘personal character or conduct but do not say anything about lying to the citizens.The law needs to regulate the accuracy of political statements as well.
This change to the law is essential to increase trust in the democratic process, to have well-informed voters, and to hold politicians to account more effectively. In turn, this should lead to a greater number of ‘happy losers’ in elections and referendums, and reduce the type of political and social divisiveness Zimbabwe has seen since the formation of the MDC now called CCC.
CCC is putting a false narrative that the sanctions have no impact in Zimbabwe. This lie is very angering
As a country we need a Criteria that make it clear when a false/misleading statement is just part of robust political campaigning, and when it is so misleading and/or inaccurate that it should be banned. The threshold for banning misleading statements needs to be low enough to have an impact on the quality of information during campaigns, but not so low as to reduce freedom of expression during political campaigns, or drag the courts excessively in to politically subjective decision making.
Contrary to the false narrative that sanctions are not harmful, sanctions have the immediate effect of preventing the target country’s exports from being purchased overseas. This has been catastrophic depending on our economic reliance on the exported goods or services. The sanctions against Zimbabwe have resulted in political and economic instability, leading to a more economic decay. This presents a challenge to all Zimbabweans. The pain of the Zimbabwean population is ultimately endured by the citizens, who have strengthened rather than destroy the ruling government in times of crisis. A damaged country can become a breeding ground for extremism, which is a scenario that the starting country would most likely avoid. The situation in Zimbabwe now is not as the result of miss management. We do appreciate that corruption is indeed another enemy of our economy. We shall not forget that the sanctions feed the corruption.
Looking at this on the round the opposition which brought sanctions paved the ugly route for corruption.
So the campaign basing on the perceived incompetence of the government is misleading and sets the election on an unfair and uneven ground. So taking advantage of a situation which you have created against your own country is demonic and clear witchcraft.
This is an objectively verifiable claim about current, ongoing practice, not a prediction. Opposition Politicians use it regularly and deliberately throughout the campaign labelling the government corrupt and incompetent. Causality between any specific campaign slogan and voting decisions is difficult to prove, but the corruption and incompetence rhetoric claim is likely to significantly manipulate voters. It is the most remembered slogan from the campaign. For these reasons, the law should prohibit this type of false statement.This is a misleading, well-remembered claim that is likely to distort public confidence and influence people’s voting decisions. It is also based on an inaccurate presentation of the legal and political reality at the time.
The law should prohibit statements if they are likely to deceive the voters and cause them to vote for those they would not otherwise have considered. If election campaign law followed this broader approach, the opposition will not accuse the government without proof.
ZEC should create an independent Office of Electoral Integrity to judge whether statements are false according to the new law, and to order swift retractions and public corrections during a campaign.
Personal liability is a strong incentive to stop opposition politicians using false statements during campaigns.
We should all know that sanctions are a penalty levied on another country, or on individual citizens of another country. It is an instrument of foreign policy and economic pressure that can be described as a sort of carrot-and-stick approach to dealing with international trade and politics.
A country has a number of different types of sanctions at its disposal. While some are more widely used than others, the general goal of each is to force a change in behavior.
The idea is that “the population gets angry, and will demand from its own government to do something to rectify the situation.” So sanctions are made to influence citizens to rebel,revolt or strike against their government.
Because the target nation is unable to acquire products, sanctions can raise costs for consumers and companies in the countries that issue them, resulting in economic loss through unemployment and output loss. Furthermore, the issuing nation will limit local customers’ choices of products and services, thus raising the cost of doing business for firms that must source supply overseas.
Blocking a country’s exports through an import sanction increases the possibility that the target country will experience a substantial economic burden. For example, the U.S. passed the ZIDERA bill which basically blocked the world from contracting business with Zimbabwe. If countries don’t import the target country’s products, the target economy can face industry collapse and unemployment, which can put significant political pressure on the government. This is the real situation which does nit need false promises from chamisa.
While the goals of sanctions are to force a country to alter its behavior, there is much variation as to how the sanctions are leveled and whom they target. Sanctions can target a country as a whole, as in the case of an embargo on a country’s exports They can target specific industries, such as an embargo on the sale of weapons of petroleum. In the case of Zimbabwe the sanctions targeted the owners of industries effectively affecting the whole citizens.
Sanctions can also target individuals, such as political figures or business leaders – such as the aforementioned. E.U. and U.S. sanctions on Zimbabwe is designed to cause financial difficulties which will flow to the whole country.
The opposition has always supported the sanctions against Zimbabwe. So it is really unfair that those with weapons directed at our country are allowed to campaign. They are the architects of grief and strife yet they use our pain to campaign.