God's Politics - Jim Wallis blog, faith blog, religion, christian, christianity, politics, values

The Zimbabwean tragedy continues. Presidential results were released after a record five-week delay! According to election law, a candidate must secure above 50% of the vote to be declared a winner. If there is no winner, a rerun must occur three weeks after the announcement of the results. There are loopholes in the election law that give the election commissioner powers to extend the time period for a rerun. The results are as follows:

Morgan Tswangirayi 47.9%
Mugabe 43.2%
Makoni 8.3%
Langton .6%

It appears that no candidate has won and that a rerun is inevitable. There are widespread concerns about the integrity of the election process. Although the opposition has reservations about the results, they have been placed in a difficult position. If they boycott the rerun, then the government will be declared winners. However, the ongoing post-election violence against opposition members has created a situation in which it is impossible for there to be free and fair elections. Another perspective that has been offered to explain the post-election violence is that it could be a ploy to intimidate the opposition from participating in the rerun so that the government could be declared winners by default. Either way, the use of violence as a weapon to thwart democracy and freedom should not be tolerated. The international community must act to ensure that the values of democracy and freedom are upheld in Zimbabwe. The denial of freedom and democracy to one nation is the denial of these values in all nations. Your prayers and support are deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Nontando Hadebe, a former Sojourners intern, is originally from Zimbabwe and is now pursuing graduate studies in theology in South Africa.

Comments

Nontando, as always thanks for the updated information regarding this situation. We continue to pray for this situation and all of the innocent victims of these senseless acts of intimidation and violence. And to think we have people "up in arms" over the way the Democratic Party nomination is going in the U.S. We are so blessed to have the electorial process that we have, even with all of it's minor flaws.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 5, 2008 3:19 PM

Something I'm sure the conservatives of this blog are going to be chuckling at is this: is it possible to advocate war against the Mugabe regime (not that anyone in the mainstream is pushing for it), while opposing the action in Iraq and still be consistent?

Those who oppose war on more principled grounds, it seems, must oppose the Iraq war and any potential adventure in Zimbabwe. I have no problem with peaceful protest and actions against the current Zimbabwe regime.

Posted by: Ngchen | May 5, 2008 4:25 PM

I continue to advocate the same solution for the oppressed in Zimbabwe as for the oppressed in Iraq, and Darfur, etc.
Let them move here.
I mean, in Christians want to do something meaningful to help these people, do not call upon the state to "the use of violence as a weapon to *create* democracy and freedom."
Instead they should realize that if there is good to be done they will have to do it themselves. Then they should pay to have oppressed peoples come live with them. That's what I call assumption of full responsibility. Anything less is just an excuse.
Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | May 6, 2008 12:56 AM

Nontando,
thank you for the update. Many American Christians, of all political persuasions, continue to pray for Zimbabwe.

Posted by: carl copas | May 6, 2008 12:00 PM

Violence isn't the answer yet just maybe someday in situations like this we (Democratic nations) can start leveraging other nations through UN resolutions to get more invlolvment with this type of process in order to bring about the people's will. Look at the following opportunities where we, the US is missing the boat. True, these countries may not be the best examples of nations to work on democratic election issues,(at least not until they clean up their own act)but the point is still a valid one.

Kuwait votes in OPPOSITION of the United States position 67% of the time on UN resolutions and articles - Qatar 67%, Morocco 70%, United Arab Emirates 70%, Jordan 71%, Tunisia 71%, Saudi Arabia 73%, Yemen 74%, Algeria 74%, Oman 74%, Sudan 75%, Pakistan 75%, Libya 76%, Egypt 79%, Lebanon 80%, India 81%, Syria 84%, and the country of Mauritania 87% of the time.

In comparison, here’s a breakdown of the U.S. Foreign Aid to those that so obviously disagree with our global position; Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States yet receives $192,814,000 each year. Pakistan votes 75% of the time against the United States but receives $6,721,000 annually. India votes 81% against the United States and still receives $143,699,000 every year. The amounts for the other countries listed above are smaller, yet our funding and subsidies to their governments is still proportionately high considering their staunch opposition to our position when it comes to worldly issues.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 6, 2008 3:06 PM

And foreign aid still represents less than 5% of the federal budget.

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | May 6, 2008 4:20 PM

D.E. Sharp, what do you think is the reason why the United States offers that foreign aid to nations who so often oppose resolutions supported by the U.S.?

And how many of those resolutions are related to Israel and the Palestinian question?

Posted by: carl copas | May 6, 2008 5:17 PM

The best way for America and the West to remove Mugabe is to apply pressure on the surrounding countries especially South Africa. Their support for this tyrant is unforgiveable and hard to understand considering the way their own economies are affected and the large numbers of refugees they nhave to host. Violence against Mugabe would only raise his status.

Posted by: John Spiers | May 7, 2008 5:39 AM

carl copas, I would like to think it is because of our adherence to the commandment to love others as ourselves, and to serve the needy, yet Im not so naive to believe this is the case. Some of this is simply us funding our share of aid that is decided by the UN and World Bank councils. To be quite honest I don't know how much of percentage of these opposing votes were relative to Israel and Palestine issues but I'll try and get that breakdown. My use of this information was to make the point that in my opinion we have the ability to leverage assistance to problem areas by having minimal expectations of the countries we assist to join with us to ensure human attrocities don't go unchallanged. I think we get deeper and deeper into the despised role of the world police my trying to do so much of the front line work ourselves. They don't have to vote along with us in order to recieve our money but they should hold to the simple and fundamental values that humans beings deserve fair treatment by their government. I know that is an unrealistic concept, but I want to believe it is possible somehow. I think we should work to get back to a behind the scenes type of global influence.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 7, 2008 7:41 AM

As the African saying goes, "When the elephants fight, the grass suffers."

Posted by: James Dette | May 8, 2008 4:39 PM

In Larry King's interview with Jon Stewart, Larry brought up

the subject of the primaries and asked him if America was

ready for a woman or a black president.

Jon looked at him quizzically and said, "This is such a non-

question....

Did anyone ask us in 2000 if Americans were ready for a moron?"

Posted by: justjoe | May 10, 2008 4:08 PM

Democracy Deferred in Zimbabwe (by Nontando Hadebe)

Comments

Post a Comment