Two weeks ago, an election in the southern African nation of Zimbabwe pitted the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union party, headed by the long-standing incumbent Robert Mugabe, against the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Exit polls and surveys of public opinion showed that the MDC would probably win. The parliamentary section of the election’s results showed that the MDC had beat the ZANU. It seemed clear from these indications that President Robert Mugabe’s 28-year rule would come to an end, and that new leaders would take power. But, in an act of defiance, Mugabe has not allowed the results from the presidential section of the election to be released, citing concerns over how the votes were counted. This delay has upset many members of the opposition, who claim that the only reason Mugabe is keeping these results from becoming public is that they show a clear majority victory for Tsvangirai, and would, if released, force Mugabe to abandon the presidency. Critics contend that Mugabe, who at this stage isn’t even claiming to have actually won the elections, is trying to manipulate the results to the point where the opposition would have not won the necessary 50 percent to assume power, necessitating a runoff between the MDC and ZANU. In the meantime, Mugabe has begun a military takeover of Zimbabwe, with the army and police occupying major cities and villages. There have been reports that these soldiers and police have been attempting to coerce the populace into showing support for the incumbent president, in order to squeeze out a ZANU win in the anticipated second round of elections.
The reaction of the international community to this egregious affront to democracy in Africa has been mild. A coalition of African nations recently met in Zambia to discuss the matter, inviting Mugabe to their meeting in order to make some progress. Mugabe agreed to meet earlier last week but, on the day the conference was set to start, he backed out, claiming that other circumstances prevented him from attending. The other African countries took no meaningful action in his absence.
Sadly, there have been only marginal efforts made by countries outside Africa to help alleviate the situation. The governments of the U.S. and Great Britain, which claim to be advocates of free political expression, have confined themselves to harshly criticizing Mugabe without any threats to cancel aid. Even if they tried to stop the humanitarian flow, it is unlikely that it would have the necessary effect of stopping Mugabe’s reign of terror. Sadly, the only solution that seems likely to work in this situation is a threat of military force.
This, too, is an impracticable option. The countries bordering Zimbabwe would be very silly to risk all-out war with Zimbabwe over an election crisis that does not affect them to a great degree. The U.S. and Britain would also find it tough to convince their respective populaces that they should risk the lives of their countrymen to liberate a faraway, unfamiliar land. The experience of the Iraq war has made such crusades for liberty extremely unpopular in countries best equipped to do the job. Another option would be to use some sort of international organization to directly threaten Mugabe. But the only democratic international organization with any real manpower is the U.N. which is notoriously loath to get directly involved in international conflicts. It seems that Zimbabwe is a sad example of the limitations of international good will. The outbreak of political repression in this country displays how feeble the international community really is in dealing with the oppressive actions of a bona fide dictator. If any lesson is to be taken from this conflict, it is that the international community’s ability to forward a democratic agenda, where there is clear popular support for it, should be increased to make sure that injustices like the one in Zimbabwe can be prevented in the future.