There is a very interesting process which I have been so privileged to observe from a front row seat. As I write, election results are being announced from difference races across the country, they are appearing slowly, but surely. I think it is important to give a context to how this election has been set up:
There are 4 different elections happening simultaneously: local council elections, lower house parliamentary seats [House of Assembly], the Upper House of parliament [The Senate] and the Presidency. There are 1 958 local council seats up for election in 1 958 wards around the country, there are 210 House of Assembly seats up for grabs, there are sixty senate seats and one presidential seat. Now each one of these positions has at least two candidates contesting, with some having as many as seven candidates (and in other cases more). So there are a lot of people involved in contesting for all the elected offices in zimbabwe.

The post-voting electoral process

The process itself, that has come about out of a series of negotiations between the government and the opposition over the course of the past 12 months has meant that significant changes have been made to the electoral law in the country. New law requires that every polling station counts their ballots AT the station – this is in order to avoid rigging or tampering with ballot boxes in transit to any other location. This has been done in accordance with the law in every case. In a ward, you can get up to 3 or 4 polling stations depending on population data. In a constituency, you can get as many as 15 wards. This means that per constituency you get about 60 polling stations.

When the voting is done in that polling station, counting for all four seats begins – the local council, the lower house, the upper house and the presidency. For each candidate, there is a polling agent present to preside over the counting and to contest what they may deem to be deviations from due process or law. A result is only official when all the polling agents agree to it; hence in the case where there are disputes, this can take a while. Now remember, that this is happening for every single ballot, and every candidate's representatives can argue their cause. When a final result is reached and agreed upon by all parties and everyone signs to confirm such, the result for that polling station is posted on the entry way to that station. The official result is then sent to the 'Command Center' of that constituency. So in each constituency, they would have to wait for all sixty or so polling stations to reach that agreement, and then send the results to a central place where they are collated, and again agreed upon by all the Chief Election Agents of the candidates [if they chose to have agents represent them] and then a final result is reached. So in these cases, you can imagine how long this process may take given that (i) this is the first time that this was done in Zimbabwe; (ii) as in a big sporting game, the world cup final or something, every possession is contested – the same with these elections.; (iii) in some of the rural constituencies [actually, in most of them] the roads are horrendous. In some cases, non-existent. So moving a distance of 30 kilometres can actually take as long as an hour and a half to two hours. So movement is slow and complicated. And there are no telephones or electronic communications.

So the process is a slow one, and I think most people are doing the best to get these results out as fast as possible.

I observed the process in three electoral constituencies in rural Matabeleland. In VERY rural places so I am writing about all of this from first hand experience. The polls closed Saturday at 7pm. In the one constituency we only got a final result (after the process above was complete and all agreed upon) on Monday morning. Another one only by Monday afternoon. Others are not yet complete.

The mistake most people are making is that they see the result outside one polling station, take that as the overall result and then cry "that results are out. Why are they not being announced" and are completely ignorant of the process that must be taken to ensure that all parties involved at that local level are satisfied.

Allegations of Rigging etc

The international news media is buzzing with stories about how these delays are being caused by the government trying to buy time and rig the election. I think that is all the elections I have participated in and observed in Zimbabwe, this has been the most free, fair and competitive election. There was almost no violence leading up to the election. For the first time, you actually had a lot of oppositions parties using main stream including government controlled media to campaign and having access to the electorate almost on par with the government [I saw almost, because the government always has the advantage of incumbency. If a government minister is commissioning a new project for example, that is a 'national duty' and not a political meeting so the electoral rules don't necessarily apply, but any smart operator would use that platform to plug for their cause]. This doesn't mean that everything about the period leading up to the election was fair, but I think the environment really has allowed for people to express their will.

Even the post-election process I feel has provided for much more fairness than before. What is really surprising to me is the extent to which immediately after the election was done, the main opposition (the MDC party led by Morgan Tsvangirai) went on a global media blitz claiming the election is being rigged and already setting up an environment for those who are either not really aware of the details of the process, or who are far removed from it to prejudge all that is happening. I was really surprised by this and think it to be a really sleazy tactic.

Rigging, if it is taking place, is not happening with people stuffing boxes full of paper etc. It is happening on very technical grounds where those who are least informed on electoral law and procedure don't know how to play the game fully.

Most people reading this will be surprised by what I am about to say, but in my observations, I saw the greatest cases of foul play [call it rigging if you will] coming from the opposition. And their methodology for this is very sophisticated. Let me try and explain…

When we were children, there was a tactic where if there was a dispute between us as kids playing together, lets say, one kid hits another, the initiator of the transgression would run to an adult and cry the loudest and claim they were hit. The adult would run out in response and to the surprise of everyone watching would lash out at the person who actually was smacked in the first place, but it was too late, the initiative had been lost by the 'victim'. It was a smart tactic which worked most of the time, but it left the person who was really hit feeling very, very unjustly treated.

A similar thing has happened in this election from what I have seen. The MDC has run out screaming that we've been cheated, there is rigging etc. they've smartly managed tog et everyone watching the wrong place while they smugly cook the books where they can. It's a very close election in most cases so every point counts. Let me give you examples of what I mean, without mentioning specific locations and situations as this could have legal implications.

The widespread belief is that the government will rig the election because it is so popular that it cannot win the election fairly. They say it will rig it because it has deployed civil servants to oversee the election. In reality, the people who have the greatest animosity towards the government are civil servants. Teachers, Nurses, Police etc. they are the lowest paid people in the country and yet have the most expected from them. So we found in 3 places, and I think this is a sample behavior of what you would find nation wide, whereby you had electoral officials, employed by the government trying to work things in favor of the opposition.
In one polling station, where a government candidate had won and the papers confirming this were signed at that station, the delivery note meant to go to the Command Centre with the result 'disappeared.' There was a recount and a revisiting of the whole process I've described, the result again came out in favor of the government. Again, the delivery note disappeared. Eventually, the culprit was identified and arrested and the processes repeated once again and the result eventually went through. In that constituency, the government representative for that seat won, and there were incredible delays in releasing that data over endless, undescribed technicalities. Eventually, representatives from the electoral commission from the region's capital had to be called in to settle it.
Another incident, there was a case whereby a person standing for office of the government had a comfortable lead in their constituency with a margin of over 1000 votes. Two wards were still outstanding [about 6 polling stations]. When results came in, the ZANU PF [the governing party] representative won one constituency, and lost the other. The margin of the loss was significantly smaller than one thousand. The candidate's polling agent left the scene assuming victory. This was on Monday morning. Monday afternoon, we heard the results announced that the ZANU PF candidate has lost by over 2000 votes. Mathematically, this is not possible. There was most certainly an 'accounting error' in that case and the result will most probably be legally challenged.
The opposition has set up all of these 'parallel' structures to feed the word election results as 'they' see them. Some of them are so grossly wrong its disturbing. Yesterday they projected that out of 210 Lower House seats, the government has won only 50, the opposition 117 and the balance going to independents – which would of course mean a land slide for the opposition. As I type, about 90 results for the House of Assembly have been announced with 43 going to ZANU PF, 41 going to one faction of the MDC (Tsvangirai's faction) and the balance to independents and the smaller MDC Faction.

One thing that is being done which could be seen as controversial is that the results in the early stages are being announced almost in a balanced manner – i.e., you announce one victory for the opposition, one for the government etc. one reason for doing this may be so that you don't raise expectations of one side and then have a Kenya-type dispute when the final results swings in contradiction to early results. I think this makes sense because you do want to maintain calm in such a tense situation. Those advocating for this to be done "as results appear" seem to not have learned from what happened just north of Zimbabwe a few months ago.

I am sure there are cases of government (ZANU PF) rigging happening too, but I think ZANU's mischief would more have been done before the election, in the process leading up to it rather than during or post the election. But I am sure others elsewhere have their own reports and perspectives to share on this, especially those participating or observing the election for places that overwhelmingly support ZANU PF, of which Matabeleland isn't traditionally one of them.

Contrary to 'popular' expectations
Most commentators outside the country expect the ruling party and president to lose the election. The economic situation and an environment that actually allows more of a freer expression of people's will are cited as some of the influencing factors in those calculations. This is plausible thinking to some degree. I did not expect the president to have any support in Matabeleland at all. Given the history of this region, given the economic situation and the strong support the opposition has always had here, I was surprised to see the results in some places.

You would see results in a polling station where the president won by a significant margin over his opponents. You would get some where he lost by a very wide margin, and others that were close. I certainly expected him to lose everywhere in this part of the country. It's not turning out that way. In most areas here where I observed things up close, except for Bulawayo and urban centers, the presidential contest seems to have been between Robert Mugabe and Simba Makoni. Surprisingly, there is not much traction for Morgan Tsvangirai (which may be different in the northern and eastern regions of the country). In one entire constituency, Robert Mugabe beat Simba Makoni in the final tally of about 55 polling stations! It was a small margin but extremely surprising. In general, I think he will lose Matabeleland, but not by the wide margins people predict.

Where there is the greatest volatility in the election has been the local councils. That's where you get the most surprising results with many, many incumbents being thrown out. In retrospect, it makes sense because those are the candidates they know the best, that have the most direct contact and influence and that people have some form of control over. Again, that surprised me, given that the elections have always been billed as a presidential contest primarily.

The funny thing is that, you have external commentators surprised by the victories that the government achieves despite the situation economically. I feel that most people who vote for the president or governing party candidates have really done so out of their will. Many have chosen not to vote [hence the low voter turn out] for whatever reasons. When you have a 'democratic' election, and the candidate that outsiders don't prefer wins, there is always a problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Mise à jour d'élection du Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Il y a un processus très intéressant que j'ai été ainsi favorisé pour observer d'un siège avant de rangée. Comme j'écris, des résultats d'élection sont annoncés des courses de différence à travers le pays, ils apparaissent lentement, mais sûrement. Je pense qu'il est important de donner un contexte vers le haut derrière à la façon dont cette élection a été placée :
Il y a 4 élections différentes se produisant simultanément : élections locales de conseil, sièges parlementaires de Chambre [Chambre d'Assemblée], la Chambre supérieure du parlement [le sénat] et la présidence. Il y a sièges locaux de 1 958 conseil vers le haut pour l'élection dans 1 958 salles dans le pays, il y a la Chambre 210 des sièges d'Assemblée vers le haut pour des encavateurs, il y a soixante sièges de sénat et un siège présidentiel. Maintenant chacune de ces positions a au moins deux candidats contester, avec certains qui ont l'autant d'en tant que sept candidats (et dans d'autres cas davantage). Donc il y a un bon nombre de gens impliqués dans la contestation pour tous bureaux élus au Zimbabwe.

Le processus électoral de poteau-vote

Le processus lui-même, cela a sorti environ une série de négociations entre le gouvernement et l'opposition en 12 mois derniers a signifié que des changements cruciaux ont été faits à la loi électorale dans le pays. La nouvelle loi exige que chaque station de vote compte leurs votes à la station - c'est afin d'éviter de caler ou trifouiller des urnes de vote en transit à n'importe quel autre endroit. Ceci a été fait dans tous les cas selon la loi. Dans une salle, vous pouvez se lever à 3 ou 4 stations de vote selon des données de population. Dans un collège électoral, vous pouvez obtenir autant d'en tant que 15 salles. Ceci signifie que par collège électoral vous obtenez environ 60 stations de vote.

Quand le vote est fait du fait la station de vote, comptant pour chacun des quatre sièges commence - le conseil local, la Chambre, la maison supérieure et la présidence. Pour chaque candidat, il y a un agent de vote actuel pour présider excédent le compte et pour contester ce que considérer elles peuvent être des déviations du processus dû ou de la loi. Un résultat est seulement officiel quand tous agents de vote sont d'accord sur lui ; par conséquent dans le cas où il y a des conflits, ceci peut prendre un moment. Rappelez-vous maintenant, ce ceci se produit pour chaque vote simple, et les représentants de chaque candidat peuvent discuter leur cause. Quand un résultat final est atteint et convenu par toutes les parties et chacun signe pour confirmer tels, le résultat pour cette station de vote est signalé sur le chemin d'entrée à cette station. Le résultat officiel est alors envoyé au « centre de commande » de ce collège électoral. Ainsi dans chaque collège électoral, ils devraient attendre chacun des soixante environ des stations de vote pour conclure cet accord, et puis envoient les résultats à un endroit central où ils sont assemblés, et encore convenu par tous agents d'élection en chef des candidats [s'ils choisissaient de faire les représenter à des agents] et alors un résultat final est atteint. Ainsi dans ces cas, vous pouvez imaginer combien de temps ce processus peut prendre étant donné que (i) c'est la première fois que ceci a été fait au Zimbabwe ; (ii) comme dans un grand jeu sportif, la finale de tasse du monde ou quelque chose, chaque possession est contesté - les mêmes avec ces élections. ; (iii) dans certains des collèges électoraux ruraux [réellement, dans la plupart d'entre elles] les routes sont affreux. Dans certains cas, inexistant. Déplacer ainsi une distance de 30 kilomètres peut réellement prendre tant que une heure et une moitié à deux heures. Ainsi le mouvement est lent et compliqué. Et il n'y a aucun téléphone ou communication électronique.

Ainsi le processus est lent, et je pense que la plupart des personnes font le meilleur pour obtenir ces résultats dehors aussi rapides comme possible.

J'ai observé le processus dans trois collèges électoraux électoraux dans Matabeleland rural. Dans les endroits TRÈS ruraux ainsi moi écris au sujet de toute la ceci d'une expérience de première main. Les scrutins samedi fermé à 7pm. Dans l'un collège électoral nous avons seulement obtenu un résultat final (après que le processus ci-dessus était complet et tous convenus) lundi matin. Encore seulement par lundi après-midi. D'autres ne sont pas encore complets.

L'erreur que la plupart des personnes font est qu'elles voient le résultat en dehors d'une station de vote, la prise que comme résultat global et pleurent alors « ce les résultats sont dehors. Pourquoi sont ils n'étant pas annoncé " et sont complètement ignorants du processus qui doit être pris pour s'assurer que toutes les parties concernées à ce niveau local sont satisfaites.

Allégations du calage etc.

Les médias de nouvelles internationaux bourdonne avec des histoires au sujet de la façon dont ceux-ci retarde sont provoqués par le gouvernement essayant d'acheter le temps et de caler l'élection. Je pense qui est toutes élections que j'ai participées dedans et observé au Zimbabwe, ceci a été l'élection la plus libre, la plus juste et concurrentielle. Il n'y avait presque aucune violence amenant à l'élection. Pour la première fois, vous avez eu réellement beaucoup de parties d'oppositions employant le jet principal comprenant des médias commandés par gouvernement pour faire campagne et ayant accès à l'électorat presque sur le pair avec le gouvernement [je scie presque, parce que le gouvernement a toujours l'avantage de la titularisation. Si un ministre de gouvernement commissionne un nouveau projet par exemple, c'est « un devoir national » et pas une réunion politique ainsi les règles électorales ne s'appliquent pas nécessairement, mais n'importe quel opérateur habile avait l'habitude cette plateforme pour brancher pour leur cause]. Ceci ne signifie pas que tout au sujet de la période amenant à l'élection était juste, mais je pense que l'environnement vraiment a tenu compte pour que les personnes expriment leur volonté.

Même le processus après les élections que je me sens a prévu beaucoup plus d'equitabilité qu'avant. Ce qui étonne vraiment à moi est le point auquel juste après que l'élection a été faite, l'opposition principale (la partie de MDC menée par Morgan Tsvangirai) est allée sur des médias globaux que l'attaque éclaire réclamant l'élection est calée et déjà installant un environnement pour ceux qui se rendent ou pas vraiment compte des détails du processus, ou qui sont loin enlevés de lui pour préjuger le tout ce qui se produit. J'ai été vraiment étonné par ceci et le pense pour être une tactique vraiment legère.

Le calage, s'il a lieu, ne se produit pas avec des personnes bourrant des boîtes complètement de papier etc. Il se produit pour les raisons très techniques où ceux qui sont moins au courant sur la loi et le procédé électoraux ne savent pas jouer le jeu entièrement.

La plupart des personnes lisant ceci seront étonnées par ce que je suis sur le point de dire, mais dans mes observations, je scie les plus grands cas du jeu fétide [appel il calage si vous] venant de l'opposition. Et leur méthodologie pour ceci est très sophistiquée. Laissez-moi essayer et expliquer…

Quand nous étions des enfants, il y avait une tactique où s'il y avait un conflit entre nous comme les enfants jouant ensemble, laisse la parole, un enfant frappe des autres, l'initiateur de la transgression courrait à un adulte et pleurerait le plus fort et la réclamation qu'elles ont été frappées. L'adulte s'épuiserait dans la réponse et à la surprise de chacun l'observation fouetterait dehors à la personne qui réellement a été claquée en premier lieu, mais il était trop tard, l'initiative avait été perdu par la « victime ». C'était une tactique futée qui a fonctionné la majeure partie du temps, mais lui à gauche la personne qui était sentiment très vraiment frappé, très unjustly traitée.

Une chose semblable s'est produite dans cette élection de ce que j'ai vu. La MDC s'est épuisée des cris ces nous ont été trichées, là sont le calage etc. ils ont vivement contrôlé tog et chacun observant l'endroit faux tandis qu'ils font cuire d'un air suffisant les livres où ils peuvent. C'est une élection très étroite dans la plupart des cas ainsi des comptes de chaque point. Laissez-moi te donner les exemples de ce que veux dire je, sans mentionner des endroits et des situations spécifiques car ceci pourrait avoir des implications légales.

La croyance répandue est que le gouvernement calera l'élection parce qu'il est si populaire qu'il ne puisse pas gagner l'élection assez. Ils disent qu'il le calera parce qu'il a déployé les fonctionnaires pour surveiller l'élection. En réalité, le peuple qui ont la plus grande animosité vers le gouvernement est les fonctionnaires. Professeurs, infirmières, police etc. ils sont les plus basses personnes payées dans le pays mais ont plus prévu de eux. Ainsi nous avons trouvé dans 3 endroits, et je pense que c'est un comportement d'échantillon de ce que vous trouveriez répandu par tout le pays, par lequel vous ayez eu les fonctionnaires électoraux, utilisé par le gouvernement essayant de travailler des choses en faveur de l'opposition.
Dans une station de vote, où un candidat de gouvernement avait gagné et les papiers confirmant ceci ont été signés à cette station, le bulletin de livraison censé pour aller au centre de commande avec le résultat « disparu. » Il y avait un recompte et revisiter du processus entier que j'ai décrit, le résultat a encore sorti en faveur du gouvernement. Encore, le bulletin de livraison a disparu. Par la suite, le coupable a été identifié et a arrêté et les processus ont répété de nouveau et le résultat est par la suite intervenu. Dans ce collège électoral, le représentant de gouvernement pour ce siège gagné, et là étaient incroyable retarde en libérant cet excédent de données sans fin, technicités indécrites. Par la suite, des représentants de la commission électorale du capital de la région ont dû s'appeler dedans pour l'arranger.
Un autre incident, il y avait un cas par lequel une personne se tenant pour le bureau du gouvernement ait eu une avance confortable dans leur collège électoral avec une marge de plus de 1000 voix. Deux salles étaient encore en suspens [environ 6 stations de vote]. Quand les résultats sont entrés, le représentant de ZANU pf [la partie régissante] a gagné un collège électoral, et a perdu l'autre. La marge de la perte était sensiblement plus petite que mille. L'agent du vote du candidat a laissé à la scène la victoire arrogante. C'avait lieu lundi matin. Lundi après-midi, nous avons entendu que les résultats ont annoncé que le candidat de ZANU pf a perdu près plus de 2000 voix. Mathématiquement, ce n'est pas possible. Il y avait le plus certainement une « erreur de comptabilité » du fait le cas et le résultat seront légalement défiés le plus probablement.
L'opposition a établi toutes ces structures « parallèles » pour alimenter les résultats d'élection de mot comme « ils » les voient. Certains d'entre eux sont tellement excessivement mal son déranger. Hier ils ont projeté que sur 210 sièges de Chambre, le gouvernement a gagné seulement 50, l'opposition 117 et l'équilibre allant aux indépendants - qui naturellement voudraient dire une glissière de terre pour l'opposition. Pendant que je dactylographie, environ 90 résultats pour la Chambre de l'Assemblée ont été annoncés avec 43 allant à ZANU pf, 41 allant à une faction de la MDC (la faction de Tsvangirai) et l'équilibre aux indépendants et à la faction plus petite de MDC.

Une chose qui est faite qui pourrait être vu en tant que controversé est que les résultats aux parties sont annoncés presque d'une façon équilibrée - c.-à-d., toi annoncent une victoire pour l'opposition, une pour le gouvernement etc. une raison de faire ceci peut être de sorte que vous ne souleviez pas des espérances d'un côté et puis n'ayez pas un Kenya-type conflit quand les résultats finals balance en contradiction à de premiers résultats. Je pense que le ce se comprend parce que vous voulez maintenir le calme dans une situation si tendue. Ceux préconisant pour que ceci soit fait « comme résultat apparaissent » semblent ne pas avoir appris de ce qui s'est produit nord juste du Zimbabwe il y a quelques mois.

Je suis sûr il y a des cas du calage du gouvernement (ZANU pf) se produisant aussi, mais je pense que la sottise de ZANU davantage aurait été fait avant l'élection, dans le processus amenant à lui plutôt que pendant ou signaler l'élection. Mais je suis sûr que d'autres ailleurs ont leurs propres rapports et perspectives pour partager sur ceci, particulièrement ceux qui participent ou qui observent l'élection pour les endroits qui soutiennent primordialement ZANU pf, dont Matabeleland n'est pas traditionnellement l'un d'entre eux.

Contraire aux espérances « populaires »
La plupart des commentateurs en dehors du pays s'attendent à ce que la partie et le président régnants perdent l'élection. La situation économique et un environnement qui laisse réellement plus d'une expression plus libre de la volonté des personnes sont cités en tant que certains des facteurs influençants dans ces calculs. C'est pensée plausible à un certain degré. Je ne me suis pas attendu à ce que le président ait quels appui dans Matabeleland du tout. Etant donné l'histoire de cette région, donnée la situation économique et l'appui fort que l'opposition a toujours eu ici, j'était étonné de voir les résultats dans quelques endroits.

Vous verriez des résultats dans une station de vote où le président a gagné par une marge significative au-dessus de ses adversaires. Vous en obtiendriez où il a perdu par une marge très large, et d'autres qui étaient étroits. Je me suis certainement attendu à ce qu'il perde partout dans la présente partie du pays. Il ne s'avère pas de cette façon. Dans la plupart des secteurs ici où j'ai observé les choses se ferment vers le haut, excepté Bulawayo et les centres urbains, le concours présidentiel semble avoir été entre Robert Mugabe et Simba Makoni. Étonnamment, il n'y a pas beaucoup de traction pour Morgan Tsvangirai (qui peut être différent dans les régions nordiques et orientales du pays). Dans un collège électoral entier, battement de Robert Mugabe Simba Makoni dans le contrôle final d'environ 55 stations de vote ! Il était une petite marge mais étonner extrêmement. Généralement je pense qu'il perdra Matabeleland, mais pas par les personnes larges de marges prévoyez.

Là où il y a la plus grande volatilité dans l'élection a été les conseils locaux. C'est où vous obtenez les résultats les plus étonnants avec beaucoup, beaucoup de candidats sortants étant jetés dehors. Dans la rétrospection, il se comprend parce que tels sont les candidats qu'elles savent les meilleurs, qui ont le contact le plus direct et l'influencent et qui peuplent ont une certaine forme de contrôle de. Encore, cela m'a étonné, étant donné que les élections ont été toujours affichées comme concours présidentiel principalement.

La chose drôle est celle, vous font étonner les commentateurs externes par les victoires que le gouvernement réalise en dépit de la situation économiquement. Je me sens que cela la plupart des personnes qui votent pour le président ou les candidats régissants de partie ont vraiment fait ainsi hors de leur volonté. Beaucoup ont choisi de ne pas voter [par conséquent la basse alerte d'électeur] pour quelque raisons. Quand vous avez une élection « démocratique », et le candidat que les étrangers ne préfèrent pas des victoires, il y a toujours un problème. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Actualización de la elección de Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
Hay un proceso muy interesante que me han privilegiado tan para observar de un asiento delantero de la fila. Como escribo, los resultados de elección se están anunciando de las razas de la diferencia a través del país, están apareciendo lentamente, pero seguramente. Pienso que es importante dar un contexto encima a cómo esta elección se ha fijado:
Hay 4 diversas elecciones que suceden simultáneamente: elecciones locales del consejo, asientos parlamentarios más Bajos [casa de la asamblea], la casa superior del parlamento [el senado] y la presidencia. Hay asientos locales de 1 958 consejo para arriba para la elección en 1 958 salas alrededor del país, hay la casa 210 de los asientos de la asamblea para arriba para los ganchos agarradores, hay sesenta asientos del senado y un asiento presidencial. Ahora cada uno de estas posiciones tiene por lo menos dos candidatos el disputar, con alguno teniendo tanto como siete candidatos (y en otros casos más). Tan hay muchos de gente implicada en disputar para todas las oficinas elegidas en Zimbabwe.

El proceso electoral de poste-votación

El proceso sí mismo, eso ha salido alrededor una serie de negociaciones entre el gobierno y la oposición sobre el curso de los últimos 12 meses ha significado que los cambios significativos se han realizado a la ley electoral en el país. La nueva ley requiere que cada estación de la interrogación cuente sus balotas EN la estación - ésta es para evitar de aparejar o de tratar de forzar con las cajas de balota en tránsito a cualquier otra localización. Esto se ha hecho de acuerdo con la ley en todos los casos. En una sala, usted puede levantarse a 3 o 4 estaciones de la interrogación dependiendo de datos de la población. En un distrito electoral, usted puede conseguir tanto como 15 salas. Esto significa que por el distrito electoral usted consigue cerca de 60 estaciones de la interrogación.

Cuando la votación se hace en que la estación de la interrogación, contando para los cuatro asientos comienza - el consejo local, más Bajo, la casa superior y la presidencia. Para cada candidato, hay un agente de la interrogación presente presidir excedente la cuenta y disputar lo que pueden juzgar para ser desviaciones del proceso debido o de la ley. Un resultado es solamente oficial cuando todos los agentes de la interrogación convienen él; por lo tanto en el caso donde hay conflictos, esto puede tomar un rato. Ahora recuerde, ese esto está sucediendo para cada sola balota, y los representantes de cada candidato pueden discutir su causa. Cuando se alcanza un resultado final y convenido en por todos los partidos y cada uno firma para confirmar tales, el resultado para esa estación de la interrogación se fija en la manera de la entrada a esa estación. El resultado oficial entonces se envía al “centro del comando” de ese distrito electoral. Tan en cada distrito electoral, tendrían que esperar el sesenta o las estaciones de la interrogación para alcanzar tan ese acuerdo, y después envían los resultados a un lugar central en donde se compaginan, y convenido en otra vez por todos los principales agentes de elección de los candidatos [si eligieron hacer que los agentes los representen] y entonces un resultado final se alcanza. Tan en estos casos, usted puede imaginarse cuánto tiempo este proceso puede tomar dado que (i) éste es la primera vez que esto fue hecha en Zimbabwe; (ii) como en un juego que se divierte grande, el final de taza del mundo o algo, cada posesión se disputa - iguales con estas elecciones. ; (iii) en algunos de los distritos electorales rurales [realmente, en la mayor parte de ellos] los caminos es horrendo. En algunos casos, no existente. Tan la mudanza de una distancia de 30 kilómetros puede llevar realmente mientras una hora y una mitad dos horas. El movimiento es tan lento y complicado. Y no hay teléfonos o comunicaciones electrónicas.

El proceso es tan lento, y pienso que la mayoría de la gente está haciendo el mejor para conseguir estos resultados hacia fuera tan rápidos como sea posible.

Observé el proceso en tres distritos electorales electorales en Matabeleland rural. En lugares MUY rurales así que mí están escribiendo sobre todo el esto de experiencia de primera mano. Las encuestas sábado cerrado en 7pm. En el un distrito electoral conseguimos solamente un resultado final (después de que el proceso arriba era completo y todo convenido en) el la mañana de lunes. Otro solamente por la tarde de lunes. Otros no son todavía completos.

El error que la mayoría de la gente está haciendo es que ella ve el resultado fuera de una estación de la interrogación, la toma que como el resultado total y entonces gritan “ese los resultados están hacia fuera. Porqué son que no son anunciados " y son totalmente ignorantes del proceso que se debe tomar para asegurarse de que todos los partidos implicados en ese nivel local están satisfechos.

Alegaciones del aparejo etc

Los medios de noticias internacionales están zumbando con historias sobre cómo éstos retrasan están siendo causados por el gobierno que intenta comprar tiempo y aparejar la elección. Pienso que es todas las elecciones que he participado adentro y observado en Zimbabwe, esto he sido la elección más libre, más justa y competitiva. No había casi violencia que conducía a la elección. Por primera vez, usted tenía realmente muchos de partidos de las oposiciones que usaban la corriente principal incluyendo medios controlados gobierno casi para hacer campaña y teniendo acceso al electorado en igualdad con el gobierno [yo sierra casi, porque el gobierno tiene siempre la ventaja del incumbency. Si un ministro del gobierno está comisionando un nuevo proyecto por ejemplo, eso es un “deber nacional” y no una reunión política así que las reglas electorales no se aplican necesariamente, pero cualquier operador elegante utilizaría esa plataforma para tapar para su causa]. Esto no significa que todo sobre el período que conducía a la elección era justo, pero pienso que el ambiente realmente ha permitido para que la gente exprese su voluntad.

Incluso el proceso post-election que me siento ha previsto mucho más imparcialidad que antes. Qué realmente está sorprendiendo a mí es el grado a el cual inmediatamente después que la elección fue hecha, la oposición principal (el partido del MDC conducido por Morgan Tsvangirai) fue en los medios globales que el bombardeo que demanda la elección se está aparejando y ya setting-up un ambiente para los que estén o no realmente enterados de los detalles del proceso, o que se quitan lejos de él para prejuzgar todo el que esté sucediendo. Realmente fui sorprendido por esto y lo pienso para ser una táctica realmente de mala calidad.

El aparejar, si está ocurriendo, no está sucediendo con la gente que rellena las cajas por completo del papel etc. Está sucediendo en los argumentos muy técnicos donde los que son lo más menos posible informados en ley y procedimiento electorales no saben jugar el juego completamente.

La mayoría de la gente que lee esto será sorprendida por cuál estoy a punto de decir, pero en mis observaciones, yo sierra los casos más grandes del juego asqueroso [llamada él aparejo si usted] que vienen de la oposición. Y su metodología para esto es muy sofisticada. Déjeme intentar y explicar…

Cuando éramos niños, había una táctica donde si había un conflicto entre nosotros como los cabritos que juegan juntos, dejan la opinión, un cabrito golpea a otro, el iniciador de la transgresión funcionaría a un adulto y gritaría el más ruidoso y la demanda que los golpearon. El adulto funcionaría hacia fuera en respuesta y a la sorpresa de cada uno el mirar azotaría hacia fuera en la persona que estaba realmente smacked en el primer lugar, pero era demasiado atrasado, la iniciativa había sido perdido por la “víctima”. Era una táctica elegante que trabajó la mayor parte del tiempo, solamente él a la izquierda la persona que era sensación realmente muy golpeada, muy unjustly tratada.

Una cosa similar ha sucedido en esta elección de lo que he visto. El MDC ha funcionado hacia fuera el griterío ese nosotros se ha engañado, allí es el aparejo etc. han manejado elegante tog et cada uno que miraban el lugar incorrecto mientras que cocinan con aire satisfecho los libros donde pueden. Es una elección muy cercana en la mayoría de los casos así que cuentas de cada punto. Déjeme darle los ejemplos de lo que significo, sin mencionar localizaciones y situaciones específicas pues esto podría tener implicaciones legales.

La creencia extensa es que el gobierno aparejará la elección porque es tan popular que no puede ganar la elección bastante. Dicen que lo aparejará porque ha desplegado a funcionarios para supervisar la elección. En realidad, la gente que tiene la animosidad más grande hacia el gobierno es funcionarios. Profesores, enfermeras, policía etc. son la gente pagada más baja del país pero tienen esperado más de él. Encontramos tan en 3 lugares, y pienso que éste es un comportamiento de la muestra de lo que usted encontraría a escala nacional, por el que usted tuviera funcionarios electorales, empleado por el gobierno que intenta trabajar cosas a favor de la oposición.
En una estación de la interrogación, donde un candidato del gobierno había ganado y los papeles que confirmaban esto fueron firmados en esa estación, la nota de entrega significada para ir al centro del comando con el resultado “desaparecido.” Había un recuento y una nueva visita del proceso entero que he descrito, el resultado salió otra vez a favor del gobierno. Una vez más la nota de entrega desapareció. Eventual, identificaron y arrestó al culpable y los procesos repitieron de nuevo y el resultado fue eventual a través. En ese distrito electoral, el representante del gobierno para ese asiento ganado, y allí era increíble retrasa en lanzar ese excedente de los datos sin fin, undescribed tecnicidades. Eventual, los representantes de la comisión electoral del capital de la región tuvieron que ser llamados adentro para colocarlo.
Otro incidente, había un caso por el que una persona que estaba parada para la oficina del gobierno tuviera un plomo cómodo en su distrito electoral con un margen sobre de 1000 votos. Dos salas eran aún en mora [cerca de 6 estaciones de la interrogación]. Cuando vinieron los resultados adentro, el representante de ZANU PF [el partido que gobierna] ganó a un distrito electoral, y perdió a otro. El margen de la pérdida era perceptiblemente más pequeño de mil. El agente de la interrogación del candidato salió la escena de la victoria asumida. Esto era el la mañana de lunes. Tarde de lunes, oímos que los resultados anunciaron que el candidato de ZANU PF ha perdido cerca sobre 2000 votos. Matemáticamente, esto no es posible. Había lo más ciertamente posible un “error de la contabilidad” en que el caso y el resultado serán desafiados lo más probablemente posible legalmente.
La oposición ha instalado todas estas estructuras “paralelas” para alimentar los resultados de elección de la palabra como “” los consideran. Algunos de ellos son tan grueso mal el su disturbar. Proyectaron ayer que fuera de 210 asientos más Bajos, el gobierno ha ganado solamente 50, la oposición 117 y el equilibrio que iba a las independientes - que por supuesto significarían una diapositiva de la tierra para la oposición. Mientras que mecanografío, cerca de 90 resultados para la casa de la asamblea se han anunciado con 43 que iban a ZANU PF, 41 que iban a una facción del MDC (facción de Tsvangirai) y el equilibrio a las independientes y a la facción más pequeña del MDC.

Una cosa se está haciendo que que se podría ver como polémico es que los resultados en los primeros tiempos casi se están anunciando de una manera equilibrada - es decir, usted anuncia una victoria para la oposición, una para el gobierno etc. una razón de hacer esto puede ser de modo que usted no levante expectativas de un lado y después no tenga un Kenia-tipo conflicto cuando los resultados finales hacen pivotar en la contradicción a los resultados tempranos. Pienso que este tiene sentido porque usted desea mantener calma en una situación tan tensa. Ésos que abogan para que éste sea hecho “pues aparecen los resultados” se parecen no haber aprendido de qué sucedió norte justo de Zimbabwe hace unos meses.

Soy seguro hay casos del aparejo del gobierno (ZANU PF) que sucede también, pero pienso que la travesura de ZANU habría sido hecho más antes de la elección, en el proceso que conduce a él más bien que durante o fijar la elección. Pero soy seguro que otros a otra parte tienen sus propios informes y perspectivas para compartir en esto, especialmente ésas que participan o que observan la elección para los lugares que apoyan de forma aplastante ZANU PF, de el cual Matabeleland no es tradicionalmente uno de él.

Contrario a las expectativas “populares”
La mayoría de los comentaristas fuera del país esperan que el partido y el presidente predominantes pierdan la elección. La situación económica y un ambiente que permite realmente más de una expresión más libre de la voluntad de la gente se citan como algunos de los factores que influencian en esos cálculos. Éste es pensamiento plausible a un cierto grado. No esperé que el presidente tuviera cualesquiera ayuda en Matabeleland en todos. Dado la historia de esta región, dada la situación económica y la ayuda fuerte que la oposición ha tenido siempre aquí, yo fue sorprendido ver los resultados en algunos lugares.

Usted vería resultados en una estación de la interrogación donde el presidente ganó por un margen significativo sobre sus opositores. Usted conseguiría alguno donde él perdió por un margen muy ancho, y otros que estaban cercanos. Esperé ciertamente que él perdiera por todas partes en esta parte del país. No está resultando esa manera. En la mayoría de las áreas aquí donde observé las cosas para arriba se cierran, a excepción de Bulawayo y los centros urbanos, la competencia presidencial se parecen haber estado entre Roberto Mugabe y Simba Makoni. Asombrosamente, no hay mucha tracción para Morgan Tsvangirai (que pueda ser diferente en las regiones norteñas y del este del país). ¡En un distrito electoral entero, golpe Simba Makoni de Roberto Mugabe en la cuenta final de cerca de 55 estaciones de la interrogación! Era un margen pequeño pero extremadamente el sorprender. Pienso generalmente que él perderá Matabeleland, pero no por la gente ancha de los márgenes prediga.

Donde hay la volatilidad más grande de la elección ha sido los consejos locales. Aquí es adonde usted consigue los resultados que sorprenden lo más con muchos, muchos titulares que son lanzados hacia fuera. En la retrospección, tiene sentido porque ésos son los candidatos que saben el mejores, que tienen el contacto más directo y lo influencian y que puebla tiene cierta forma de control sobre. Una vez más eso me sorprendió, dado que las elecciones se han mandado la cuenta siempre como competencia presidencial sobre todo.

La cosa divertida es ésa, usted hace comentaristas externos sorprender por las victorias que el gobierno alcanza a pesar de la situación económicamente. Me siento que eso la mayoría de la gente que vota por el presidente o los candidatos del partido que gobernaban realmente han hecho así que fuera de su voluntad. Muchos han elegido no votar [por lo tanto la producción baja del votante] por cualesquiera razones. Cuando usted tiene una elección “democrática”, y el candidato que los forasteros no prefieran triunfos, hay siempre un problema. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Aggiornamento di elezione dello Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Ci è un processo molto interessante che così sono stato privilegiato per osservare da una sede anteriore di fila. Come scrivo, i risultati di elezione stanno annunciandi dalle corse di differenza attraverso il paese, stanno comparendo lentamente, ma certamente. Penso che sia importante dare un contesto a come questa elezione è stata regolata:
Ci sono 4 elezioni differenti che accadono simultaneamente: elezioni locali del consiglio, sedi parlamentari della Camera [Camera dell'Assemblea], la Camera superiore del Parlamento [il senato] e la presidenza. Ci sono sedi locali del 1 958 consiglio in su per l'elezione in 1 958 quartieri intorno al paese, ci è Camera 210 delle sedi dell'Assemblea in su per le gru a benna, ci è sessanta sedi del senato ed una sede presidenziale. Ora ogni di queste posizioni ha almeno due candidati contestare, con alcuno che ha altretanto come sette candidati (ed in altri casi più). Così ci è gente molto addetta alla contestazione per tutti gli uffici scelti nello Zimbabwe.

Il processo elettorale divoto

Il processo in se, quello ha uscito da circa una serie di trattative fra il governo e l'opposizione durante i 12 mesi scorsi ha significato che i cambiamenti significativi sono stati fatti alla legge elettorale nel paese. La nuova legge richiede che ogni stazione di votazione conta le loro schede elettorali alla stazione - questa è per evitare di attrezzare o alterare le scatole di scheda elettorale in transito a qualunque altra posizione. Ciò è stata fatta in conformità con la legge in ogni caso. In un quartiere, potete alzarti a 3 o 4 stazioni di votazione secondo i dati della popolazione. In un collegio elettorale, potete ottenere altretanti come 15 quartieri. Ciò significa che per il collegio elettorale ottenete circa 60 stazioni di votazione.

Quando il voto è fatto in quanto la stazione di votazione, contante per tutte e quattro le sedi comincia - il consiglio locale, Camera, la casa superiore e la presidenza. Per ogni candidato, ci è un agente di votazione presente presiedere eccedenza il conteggio e contestare che cosa possono ritenere per essere deviazioni dal processo dovuto o dalla legge. Un risultato è soltanto ufficiale quando tutti gli agenti di votazione accosentono ad esso; quindi nel caso dove ci sono dispute, questo può occorrere un istante. Ora ricordi di, quel questo sta accadendo per ogni singola scheda elettorale e rappresentanti di ogni candidato possono discutere la loro causa. Quando un risultato finale è raggiunto ed accordato su da tutti i partiti e da tutto firma per confermare tali, il risultato per quella stazione di votazione è inviato sul senso dell'entrata a quella stazione. Il risultato ufficiale allora è trasmesso “al centro di ordine„ di quel collegio elettorale. Così in ogni collegio elettorale, dovrebbero aspettare tutto e sessanta le circa stazioni di votazione per raggiungere quell'accordo ed allora trasmettono i risultati ad un posto centrale in cui sono fascicolati ed accordato su ancora da tutti gli agenti di elezione principali dei candidati [se scegliessero fare rappresentarli agli agenti] ed allora un risultato finale è raggiunto. Così in questi casi, potete immaginare quanto tempo questo processo può prendere poichè (i) questo è la prima volta che questo è stato fatto nello Zimbabwe; (ii) come in un gioco di sport grande, nel finale di tazza del mondo o in qualcosa, ogni possesso è contestato - lo stessi con queste elezioni. ; (iii) in alcuni dei collegi elettorali rurali [realmente, in la maggior parte di loro] le strade è horrendous. In alcuni casi, inesistente. Così spostare una distanza di 30 chilometri può realmente prendere finchè un'ora e una metà a due ore. Così il movimento è lento e complicato. E non ci sono telefoni o comunicazioni elettroniche.

Così il processo è lento e penso che la maggior parte della gente stia facendo il la cosa migliore per ottenere questi risultati fuori veloci come possibile.

Ho osservato il processo in tre collegi elettorali elettorali in Matabeleland rurale. Nei posti MOLTO rurali in modo da nell'io stanno scrivendo circa tutto il questo da esperienza di prima mano. Lo scrutinio sabato chiuso a 7pm. Nell'un collegio elettorale abbiamo ottenuto soltanto un risultato finale (dopo che il processo qui sopra fosse completo e tutto accordato su) sulla mattina di lunedì. Altro soltanto entro il pomeriggio di lunedì. Altri non sono ancora completi.

L'errore che la maggior parte della gente sta facendo è che vedono il risultato fuori di una stazione di votazione, introito che poichè il risultato generale ed allora grida “il quel risultati è fuori. Perchè sono che non sono annunciati " e sono completamente ignari del processo che deve essere preso per accertarsi che tutte le parti in causa a quel livello locale siano soddisfatte.

Allegazioni di sartiame ecc

I mezzi di informazione internazionali stanno ronzando con le storia circa come questi fanno ritardare stanno causandi dal governo che prova a comprare il tempo ed attrezzare l'elezione. Penso che è tutte le elezioni che ho partecipato dentro ed osservato nello Zimbabwe, questo sono stato l'elezione più libera, più giusta e competitiva. Non ci era quasi violenza che porta all'elezione. Per la prima volta, realmente avete avuti partiti molto di opposizioni che usando il flusso principale compreso i mezzi controllati governo per fare una campagna ed avendo accesso all'elettorato quasi sul par con il governo [io sega quasi, perché il governo presenta sempre il vantaggio del incumbency. Se un ministro di governo sta incaricando un nuovo progetto per esempio, quella è “un dovere nazionale„ e non una riunione politica in modo da le regole elettorali necessariamente non si applicano, ma tutto l'operatore astuto userebbe quella piattaforma per tappare per la loro causa]. Ciò non significa che tutto circa il periodo che porta all'elezione era giusto, ma penso che l'ambiente realmente abbia tenuto conto affinchè la gente esprima la loro volontà.

Anche il processo che post-election ritengo ha previsto la molto più imparzialità che prima. Che cosa realmente sta sorpresendo a me è il limite a cui subito dopo che l'elezione è stata fatta, l'opposizione principale (il partito del MDC condotto da Morgan Tsvangirai) è andato sull'mezzi che globali il blitz che esige l'elezione sta attrezzando e già installando un ambiente per coloro che è o non realmente informato dei particolari del processo, o che lontano sono rimossi da esso per giudicare prematuramente il tutto che stia accadendo. Realmente sono stato sorprendo da questo e lo penso per essere una tattica realmente sleazy.

L'attrezzatura, se sta avvenendo, non sta accadendo con la gente che farcisce le scatole in pieno di carta ecc. Sta accadendo per i motivi molto tecnici in cui coloro che è il più minimo informed su legge e sulla procedura elettorali non sanno giocare il gioco completamente.

La maggior parte della gente che legge questa sarà sorprenda da che cosa sto circa per dire, ma nelle mie osservazioni, io sega i casi più grandi del gioco di fallo [chiamata esso sartiame se] che vengono dall'opposizione. E la loro metodologia per questa è molto specializzata. Lascilo provare e spiegare…

Quando eravamo bambini, ci era una tattica dove se ci fosse una disputa fra noi come i capretti che giocano insieme, lascia l'opinione, un capretto colpisce un altro, l'iniziatore della trasgressione funzionerebbe ad un adulto e griderebbe il più forte ed il reclamo che fossero colpiti. L'adulto si esaurirebbe nella risposta e con sorpresa di tutto guardare frusterebbe fuori alla persona che realmente era smacked in primo luogo, ma era troppo tardi, l'iniziativa era stato perso “dalla vittima„. Era una tattica astuta che ha funzionato la maggior parte del tempo, ma esso a sinistra la persona che era sensibilità molto realmente colpita, molto unjustly curata.

Una cosa simile è accaduto in questa elezione da che cosa ho visto. Il MDC ha esaurito i grida quei noi è stato truffato, là è sartiame ecc. hanno controllato astuto tog et tutto che guardano il posto errato mentre cucinano smugly i libri in cui possono. È un'elezione molto vicina nella maggior parte dei casi in modo da conteggi di ogni punto. Lascilo fornirgli gli esempi di che cosa significo, senza accennare le posizioni specifiche e le situazioni poichè questo potrebbe avere implicazioni legali.

La credenza diffusa è che il governo attrezzerà l'elezione perché è così popolare che non può vincere l'elezione ragionevolmente. Dicono che lo attrezzerà perché ha schierato i funzionari per sorvegliare l'elezione. In realtà, la gente che ha la animosità più grande verso il governo è funzionari. Insegnanti, infermiere, polizia ecc. sono la gente paid più bassa nel paese ma hanno più atteso da loro. Così abbiamo trovato in 3 posti e penso che questo sia un comportamento del campione di che cosa trovereste nazionale, per cui avete avuti funzionari elettorali, impiegato dal governo che prova a funzionare le cose per l'opposizione.
In una stazione di votazione, in cui un candidato di governo aveva vinto e le carte che confermano questa sono state firmate a quella stazione, la nota di consegna significata per andare al centro di ordine con il risultato “sparito.„ Ci era un conteggio e rivisitare del processo che intero ho descritto, il risultato ha uscito ancora per il governo. Di nuovo, la nota di consegna è sparito. Finalmente, il colpevole è stato identificato ed arrestato ed i processi hanno ripetuto ancora una volta ed il risultato finalmente è andato attraverso. In quel collegio elettorale, il rappresentante di governo per quella sede vinta e là era incredibile fa ritardare nel liberare quell'eccedenza di dati infinita, undescribed le tecnicità. Finalmente, i rappresentanti dalla commissione elettorale dal capitale della regione hanno dovuto essere denominati dentro per depositarlo.
Un altro avvenimento, ci era un caso per cui una persona che si leva in piedi per l'ufficio del governo ha avuta un cavo comodo nel loro collegio elettorale con un margine oltre di 1000 voti. Due quartieri erano non ancora pagati [circa 6 stazioni di votazione]. Quando i risultati sono entrato, il rappresentante di ZANU IL pf [il partito governante] ha vinto un collegio elettorale ed ha perso l'altro. Il margine della perdita era significativamente più piccolo di mille. L'agente di votazione del candidato ha lasciato alla scena la vittoria assuming. Ciò aveva luogo sulla mattina di lunedì. Pomeriggio di lunedì, ci siamo sentiti che i risultati hanno annunciato che il candidato di ZANU pf ha perso vicino oltre 2000 voti. Matematicamente, questo non è possibile. Ci era il più certamente “un errore di contabilità„ in quanto il caso ed il risultato il più probabilmente saranno sfidati legalmente.
L'opposizione ha installato tutte queste strutture “parallele„ per alimentare i risultati di elezione di parola come “„ li vedono. Alcuni di loro sono così grossolanamente torto il relativo disturbo. Ieri si sono proiettati che su 210 sedi della Camera, il governo ha vinto soltanto 50, l'opposizione 117 e l'equilibrio che va ai independents - che naturalmente significherebbero uno scorrevole della terra per l'opposizione. Mentre scrivo, circa 90 risultati per la Camera dell'Assemblea sono stati annunciati con 43 che vanno a ZANU pf, 41 che vanno ad una fazione del MDC (fazione del Tsvangirai) e l'equilibrio ai independents ed alla più piccola fazione del MDC.

Una cosa che sta facenda che potrebbe essere visto come discutibile è che i risultati nelle fasi iniziali stanno annunciandi quasi in un modo equilibrato - cioè, voi annuncia una vittoria per l'opposizione, una per il governo ecc. un motivo per fare questo può essere in modo che non non alimentare lle aspettative di un lato ed allora non abbiate un Kenia-tipo disputa quando i risultati finali oscilla nella contraddizione ai risultati iniziali. Penso che il questo abbia il significato perché desiderate effettuare la calma in così situazione tesa. Quelli che sostengono affinchè questo siano fatti “poichè i risultati compaiono„ sembrano non imparare da che cosa è accaduto alcuni mesi fa nord giusto dello Zimbabwe.

Sono sicuro ci sono casi di sartiame di governo (ZANU pf) che accade anche, ma penso che furberia dello ZANU di più sia stato fatto prima dell'elezione, nel processo che porta ad esso piuttosto che durante o inviare l'elezione. Ma sono sicuro che altri altrove hanno i loro propri rapporti e prospettive per ripartire su questo, particolarmente quelle che partecipano o che osservano l'elezione per i posti che in modo schiacciante sostengono ZANU pf, di cui Matabeleland non è tradizionalmente una di loro.

Contrario alle aspettative “popolari„
La maggior parte dei commentatori fuori del paese invitare il partito ed il presidente di regolamento a perdere l'elezione. La situazione economica e un ambiente che realmente concede più di un'espressione più libera della volontà della gente si citano come alcuni dei fattori d'influenza in quei calcoli. Ciò è pensare plausibile ad un certo grado. Non ho non invitare il presidente ad avere c'è ne supporto in Matabeleland affatto. Dato la storia di questa regione, data la situazione economica ed il supporto che forte l'opposizione ha avuta sempre qui, io è stato sorpreso vedere i risultati in alcuni posti.

Vedreste i risultati in una stazione di votazione in cui il presidente ha vinto da un margine significativo sopra i suoi avversari. Otterreste alcuno dove ha perso da un margine molto largo ed altri che fossero vicini. Certamente lo ho invitare a perdere dappertutto in questa parte del paese. Non sta risultando quel senso. Nella maggior parte delle zone qui dove ho osservato le cose in su si chiudono, tranne Bulawayo e le agglomerazioni urbane, il concorso presidenziale sembra essere fra Robert Mugabe e Simba Makoni. Sorprendentemente, ci non è molta trazione per Morgan Tsvangirai (che può essere differente nelle regioni nordiche ed orientali del paese). In un intero collegio elettorale, battimento Simba Makoni del Robert Mugabe nel riscontro finale di circa 55 stazioni di votazione! Era un piccolo margine ma estremamente sorpresere. Generalmente, penso che perda Matabeleland, ma non dalla gente larga dei margini predica.

Dove ci è la volatilità più grande nell'elezione è stata i consigli locali. Quello è dove ottenete i risultati di sorpresa con molti, molti incumbents che sono gettati fuori. Nella riesaminazione, ha il significato perché quelli sono i candidati che conoscono il la cosa migliore, che abbiano il contatto più diretto ed influenzino e che popola ha certa forma di controllo sopra. Di nuovo, quello lo ha sorprendo, dato che le elezioni sono state fatturate sempre come concorso presidenziale soprattutto.

La cosa divertente è quella, voi fa sorpresere i commentatori esterni dalle vittorie che il governo realizza economicamente malgrado la situazione. Ritengo che quello la maggior parte della gente che vota per il presidente o i candidati governanti del partito realmente hanno fatto in modo da dalla loro volontà. Molti hanno scelto non votare [quindi la produzione bassa dell'elettore] per che cosa motivi. Quando avete un'elezione “democratica„ ed il candidato che gli stranieri non preferiscono le vittorie, ci è sempre un problema. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Zimbabwe Wahl-Update
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
Es gibt einen sehr interessanten Prozeß, den ich so privilegiert worden bin, um von einem vorderen Reihe Sitz zu beobachten. Wie ich schreibe, werden Wahlergebnisse von den Unterschiedrennen über dem Land verkündet, erscheinen sie langsam, aber sicher. Herauf ich daß denke, es ist wichtig, zu geben einen Kontext zu, wie diese Wahl eingestellt worden ist:
Es gibt 4 unterschiedliche Wahlen, die gleichzeitig geschehen: lokale Ratwahlen, parlamentarische Sitze des Unterhauses [Haus der Versammlung], das obere Haus des Parlaments [der Senat] und der Vorsitz. Es gibt Sitze mit 1 958 lokale Räten oben für Wahl in 1 958 Bezirke um das Land, gibt es Haus 210 der Versammlung Sitze oben für Zupacken, gibt es sechzig Senatsitze und einen Präsidentensitz. Now each one of these positions has at least two candidates contesting, with some having as many as seven candidates (and in other cases more). So es gibt eine Menge Leute, die mit dem Wetteifern für alle gewählten Büros in Zimbabwe beschäftigt gewesen werden.

Der Pfosten-wählende Wahlprozeß

Der Prozeß selbst, das ist ungefähr aus einer Reihe Vermittlungen heraus zwischen die Regierung gekommen und die Opposition über dem Kurs der letzten 12 Monate hat bedeutet, daß bedeutende änderungen am Wahlgesetz im Land vorgenommen worden sind. Neues Gesetz erfordert, daß jede Wahlstation ihre Stimmzettel an der Station zählt - diese ist, um mit, Wahlurneen bei dem Transport zu jeder möglicher anderen Position in Ordnung zu bringen oder sich abzugeben zu vermeiden. Dieses ist in übereinstimmung mit dem Gesetz auf jeden Fall getan worden. In einem Bezirk können Sie zu 3 oder 4 Wahlstationen abhängig von Bevölkerung Daten aufstehen. In einem Wahlkreis können Sie so viel wie 15 Bezirke erhalten. Dies heißt, daß pro Wahlkreis Sie ungefähr 60 Wahlstationen erhalten.

Wenn das Wählen dadurch erfolgt ist, daß die Wahlstation, zählend für alle vier Sitze anfängt - der lokale Rat, das Unterhaus, das obere Haus und der Vorsitz. Für jeden Anwärter gibt es ein Wahlmittel, das, vorzusitzen überschuß das Zählen und zu wetteifern vorhanden ist, was sie meinen können, um Abweichungen vom passenden Prozeß oder vom Gesetz zu sein. Ein Resultat ist nur amtlich, wenn alle Wahlvertreter ihm zustimmen; folglich im Fall, in dem es Debatten gibt, kann dieses dauern wann. Erinnern Sie jetzt sich, dieses geschieht dieses für jeden einzelnen Stimmzettel, und Repräsentanten jeder Anwärters können ihre Ursache argumentieren. Wenn ein abschließendes Resultat erreicht wird und vereinbart durch alle Parteien und jeder unterzeichnet, um so zu bestätigen, das Resultat für diese Wahlstation wird auf der Eintragung Weise zu dieser Station bekanntgegeben. Das amtliche Resultat wird dann zur „Befehl Mitte“ dieses Wahlkreises geschickt. So in jedem Wahlkreis, würden sie warten müssen, daß alles sechzig oder so Wahlstationen diese Vereinbarung erreichen und dann die Resultate zu einem zentralen Platz schicken, in dem sie sortiert werden, und wieder vereinbart durch alle Hauptwahlvertreter der Anwärter [wenn sie beschlossen, Vertreter sie darstellen zu lassen] und dann wird ein abschließendes Resultat erreicht. So in diesen Fällen, können Sie dich vorstellen, wie lang dieser Prozeß nehmen kann angenommen, (i) dieser das erste mal ist, daß dieses in Zimbabwe getan wurde; (ii) wie in einem grossen sporting Spiel, im Weltpokalspiel oder in etwas, jeder Besitz wird - die selben mit diesen Wahlen gewetteifert. ; (iii) in einigen der landwirtschaftlichen Wahlkreise [wirklich, in die meisten ihnen] die Straßen sind horrend. In einigen Fällen nicht vorhanden. Einen Abstand von 30 Kilometern so verschieben kann solange eine Stunde und eine Hälfte zu zwei Stunden wirklich nehmen. So ist Bewegung langsam und schwierig. Und es gibt keine Telefone oder elektronischen Kommunikationen.

So ist der Prozeß ein langsames, und ich denke, daß die meisten Leute das beste tun, um diese Resultate so schnell heraus zu erhalten, wie möglich.

Ich beobachtete den Prozeß in drei Wahlwahlkreisen in landwirtschaftlichem Matabeleland. In den SEHR landwirtschaftlichen Plätzen also in mir schreiben über die ganze dieses von der aus erster Hand bezogenen Erfahrung. Die Abstimmungen geschlossener Samstag an 7pm. Im einem Wahlkreis erhielten wir nur eine abschließende Auswirkung (nachdem der Prozeß oben komplett und vereinbarte alle war), auf Montag Morgen. Ein anderes nur bis zum Montag Nachmittag. Andere sind nicht noch komplett.

Der Fehler, den die meisten Leute bilden, ist, daß sie das Resultat außerhalb einer Wahlstation sehen, Nehmen, das als das gesamte Resultat und dann „dieses Resultate sind heraus schreien. Warum sie nicht verkündend " sind und vom Prozeß vollständig unwissend sind, der genommen werden muß, um sicherzugehen, daß alle Parteien, die auf diesem lokalen Niveau mit einbezogen werden, erfüllt sind.

Behauptungen der Takelung usw.

Die internationalen Nachrichtenmedien summen mit Geschichten über, wie diese werden verursacht durch die Regierung verzögert, die versucht, Zeit zu kaufen und die Wahl in Ordnung zu bringen. Ich denke, der alle Wahlen ist, die, ich innen und beobachtet an Zimbabwe teilgenommen habe, dieses bin gewesen die freieste, angemessenste und konkurrierende Wahl. Es gab fast keine Gewalttätigkeit, die bis zur Wahl führt. Zum ersten Mal hatten Sie wirklich eine Menge Oppositionen Parteien, die Hauptstrom einschließlich Regierung gesteuerte Mittel verwenden, um fast zu werben und Zugang zu den Wählerschaften auf Gleichheit mit der Regierung haben [ich Säge fast, weil die Regierung immer den Vorteil von Incumbency hat. Wenn ein Regierung Minister ein neues Projekt zum Beispiel beauftragt, ist die eine „nationale Aufgabe“ und nicht eine politische Sitzung, also treffen die Wahlrichtlinien nicht notwendigerweise zu, aber jeder intelligente Operator würde diese Plattform benutzen, um für ihre Ursache zu verstopfen]. Dieses bedeutet nicht, daß alles über die Periode, die bis zur Wahl führt, angemessen war, aber ich denke, daß das Klima wirklich gedurft hat, damit Leute ihren Willen ausdrücken.

Sogar hat der nach der Wahl Prozeß, den ich glaube, für viel mehr Gerechtigkeit als vorher zur Verfügung gestellt. Was wirklich zu mir ist zu dem der Umfang überrascht, sofort nachdem die Wahl erfolgt war, ging die Hauptopposition (die MDC fap Partei geführt von Morgan Tsvangirai) auf globale Mittel, die der überraschungsangriff, der die Wahl behauptet, und gründend in Ordnung gebracht wird bereits, ein Klima für die, die entweder die Details des Prozesses nicht wirklich berücksichtigen oder die weit von ihm entfernt werden, um alles vorschnell zu beurteilen, das geschieht. Ich wurde wirklich durch dieses überrascht und es denke, um eine wirklich leichte Taktik zu sein.

Das In Ordnung bringen, wenn es stattfindet, geschieht nicht mit den Leuten, die voll Kästen Papier etc. anfüllen. Es geschieht auf sehr technischem Boden, in dem die, die auf Wahlgesetz und Verfahren wenig informiert sind, nicht das Spiel völlig spielen können.

Die meisten Leute, die dieses lesen, werden überrascht durch, was ich imbin Begriff, zu sagen, aber in meinen Beobachtungen, ich Säge die größten Fälle regelwidrigen Spiels [Anruf es Takelung, wenn Sie werden], kommend von der Opposition. Und ihre Methodenlehre für dieses ist sehr hoch entwickelt. Lassen Sie mich versuchen und erklären…

Als wir Kinder waren, gab es eine Taktik, in der, wenn es eine Debatte zwischen uns gab, wie die Zicklein, die zusammen spielen, Sagen läßt, ein Zicklein andere schlägt, der Initiator des Transgression würde laufen zu einem Erwachsenen und schreien das lauteste und der Anspruch, die sie geschlagen wurden. Der Erwachsene würde heraus in Antwort laufen und zur überraschung von jeder würde das Aufpassen heraus an der Person peitschen, die wirklich smacked an erster Stelle war, aber es, die Initiative war verloren worden vom „Opfer“ zu spät war. Es war eine intelligente Taktik, die die meisten der Zeit bearbeitete, aber es nach links die Person, die wirklich geschlagenes Gefühl sehr war, sehr unjustly behandelt.

Eine ähnliche Sache ist in dieser Wahl geschehen von, was ich gesehen habe. Das MDC fap hat heraus schreien dieses wir sind betrogen worden, dort sind Takelung etc. laufen gelassen. sie haben intelligent tog und jeder den falschen Platz aufpassend gehandhabt, während sie d'un air suffisant die Bücher kochen, in denen sie können. Es ist eine sehr nahe Wahl in den meisten Fällen also Zählimpulse jedes Punktes. Lassen Sie mich Ihnen Beispiele von was ich bedeute, ohne spezifische Positionen und Situationen zu erwähnen geben, da dieses rechtliche Konsequenzen haben könnte.

Der weitverbreitete Glaube ist, daß die Regierung die Wahl in Ordnung bringt, weil es so populär ist, daß sie nicht die Wahl ziemlich gewinnen kann. Sie sagen, daß es es in Ordnung bringt, weil es Staatsbeamte entfaltet hat, um die Wahl zu beaufsichtigen. In der Wirklichkeit sind die Leute, die die größte Animosität in Richtung zur Regierung haben, Staatsbeamte. Lehrer, Krankenschwestern, Polizei etc. sie sind, die niedrigsten zahlenden Leute im Land und doch haben am meisten erwartet von ihnen. So fanden wir in 3 Plätzen, und ich denke, daß dieses ein Beispielverhalten ist von, was Sie national, hingegen Sie Wahlbeamte hatten, beschäftigt durch die Regierung finden würden, die versucht, Sachen zugunsten der Opposition zu bearbeiten.
In einer Wahlstation in der ein Regierung Anwärter gewonnen hatte und die Papiere, die dieses bestätigen, an dieser Station unterzeichnet wurden, der Lieferschein bedeutet, um zur Befehl Mitte mit dem Resultat zu gehen „verschwunden.“ Es gab eine Nachzählung und ein Nochmals besuchen des vollständigen Prozesses, den ich, das Resultat beschrieben habe, kam wieder zugunsten der Regierung heraus. Wieder verschwand der Lieferschein. Schließlich wurde der Angeklagte gekennzeichnet und festgehalten und die Prozesse wiederholten noch einmal und das Resultat machte schließlich durch. In diesem Wahlkreis waren der Regierung Repräsentant für diesen Sitz, der und dort gewonnen wurde, verzögert unglaublich, wenn er diesen endlosen Datenüberschuß freigab, undescribed Techniken. Schließlich mußten Repräsentanten von der Wahlkommission vom Kapital der Region innen benannt werden, um es zu vereinbaren.
Ein anderes Ereignis, gab es einen Fall, hingegen eine Person, die für Büro der Regierung steht, eine bequeme Leitung in ihrem Wahlkreis mit einem Seitenrand von über 1000 Stimmen hatte. Zwei Bezirke waren noch ausstehend [ungefähr 6 Wahlstationen]. Als Resultate hereinkamen, gewann der ZANU Leistungsfaktor [die regelnPartei] Repräsentant einen Wahlkreis und verlor den anderen. Der Seitenrand des Verlustes war erheblich kleiner als tausend. Das Wahlmittel des Anwärters verließ der Szene anmaßenden Sieg. Dieses war auf Montag Morgen. Montag Nachmittag, hörten wir, daß die Resultate verkündeten, daß der ZANU Leistungsfaktor Anwärter vorbei über 2000 Stimmen verloren hat. Mathematisch ist dieses nicht möglich. Es gab zweifellos eine „Buchhaltungstörung“ dadurch, daß Fall und das Resultat vermutlich erlaubterweise herausgefordert werden.
Die Opposition hat alle diese „parallelen“ Strukturen aufgestellt, um die WortWahlergebnisse einzuziehen, wie „sie“ sie sehen. Einige von ihnen sind so grob Unrecht sein Stören. Gestern projizierten sie, daß aus 210 Unterhaussitzen heraus, die Regierung nur 50 gewonnen hat, die Opposition 117 und die Balance, die zu den Unabhängigen geht - die selbstverständlich ein Landdia für die Opposition bedeuten würden. Während ich schreibe, sind ungefähr 90 Resultate für das Haus der Versammlung mit 43 gehend zu ZANU Leistungsfaktor verkündet worden, 41 gehend bis eine Partei des MDC fap (Partei Tsvangirais) und der Balance zu den Unabhängigen und zur kleineren MDC fap Partei.

Eine Sache, die erfolgt wird, das als umstrittenes gesehen werden könnte, ist, daß die Resultate in den frühen Stadien fast in einer ausgeglichenen Weise - d.h. verkündet werden, Sie verkünden einen Sieg für die Opposition, einen für die Regierung etc. ein Grund für das Tun dies kann sein, damit Sie nicht Erwartungen von einer Seite aufwerfen und dann eine Kenia-Art Debatte haben, wenn die abschließenden Resultate im Widerspruch zu den frühen Resultaten schwingt. Ich denke, daß dieses sinnvoll ist, weil Sie Ruhe in solch einer angespannter Situation beibehalten möchten. Die, die damit dieses getan werden kann „befürworten, während Resultate“ scheinen, erlernt zu haben nicht erscheinen von, was gerechter Norden von Zimbabwe vor einigen Monaten geschah.

Ich bin sicher, es Fälle Regierung (ZANU Leistungsfaktor) von der Takelung gibt, die auch geschieht, aber ich denke, daß Unfug ZANUS mehr vor der Wahl, im Prozeß getan worden sein würde, der bis zu ihm anstatt während oder die Wahl bekanntzugeben führt. Aber ich bin sicher, daß andere anderwohin ihre eigenen Reports und Perspektiven, zum auf diesem haben, besonders die zu teilen teilnehmend oder die Wahl für Plätze beobachtend, die überwältigend ZANU Leistungsfaktor stützen, von dem Matabeleland nicht traditionsgemäß einer von ihnen ist.

Gegenteil „zu den populären“ Erwartungen
Die meisten Kommentatoren außerhalb des Landes erwarten die regierende Partei und den Präsidenten, die Wahl zu verlieren. Die wirtschaftliche Lage und ein Klima, das wirklich mehr eines freieren Ausdruckes des Willen der Leute gewährt, werden als einige der beeinflussenden Faktoren in jenen Berechnungen zitiert. Dieses ist plausibles Denken zu irgendeinem Grad. Ich erwartete nicht den Präsidenten zu haben irgendwelche Unterstützung in Matabeleland an allen. Die Geschichte dieser Region gegeben, die wirtschaftliche Lage und die starke Unterstützung gegeben, welche die Opposition immer hier, ich gehabt hat, war überrascht, die Resultate in einigen Plätzen zu sehen.

Sie würden Resultate in einer Wahlstation sehen, in der der Präsident durch einen bedeutenden Seitenrand über seinen Konkurrenten gewann. Sie würden einiges, wo er durch einen sehr breiten Seitenrand verlor, und andere erhalten, die nah waren. Ich erwartete ihn zweifellos, in diesem Teil des Landes überall zu verlieren. Es fällt nicht so aus. In den meisten Bereichen hier, wo ich beobachtete, schließen Sachen oben, außer Bulawayo und städtische Mitten, der Präsidentenwettbewerb scheint, zwischen Robert Mugabe und Simba Makoni gewesen zu sein. Überraschend gibt es nicht viel Zugkraft für Morgan Tsvangirai (der in den Nord- und östlichen Regionen des Landes unterschiedlich sein kann). In einem gesamten Wahlkreis Robert Mugabe Schlag Simba Makoni im abschließenden Tally von ungefähr 55 Wahlstationen! Es war ein kleiner Seitenrand aber extrem überraschen. Im allgemeinen denke ich, daß er Matabeleland verliert, aber nicht durch die breiten Seitenrandleute voraussagen Sie.

Wo es gibt, ist die größte Flüchtigkeit in der Wahl die lokalen Räte gewesen. Das ist, wohin Sie die überraschendsten Resultate mit vielen erhalten, viele Amtsinhaber, die heraus geworfen werden. Im Rückblick ist es sinnvoll, weil die die Anwärter sind, die sie die besten kennen, die den direktesten Kontakt haben und beeinflussen und das bevölkeren, irgendeine Form der Steuerung über haben. Wieder überraschte das mich, angenommen, die Wahlen immer als Präsidentenwettbewerb hauptsächlich berechnet worden sind.

Die lustige Sache ist die, Sie lassen externe Kommentatoren durch die Siege überraschen, daß die Regierung trotz der Situation ökonomisch erzielt. Ich glaube, daß das die meisten Leute, die für den Präsidenten wählen, oder regelnParteianwärter wirklich getan haben, also aus ihrem Willen heraus. Viele haben, beschlossen [folglich das niedrige Wählerausschalten] nicht für zu wählen, was Gründe. Wenn Sie eine „demokratische“ Wahl und den Anwärter haben, denen Außenseiter nicht Gewinne bevorzugen, gibt es immer ein Problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Update da eleição de Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
Há um processo muito interessante que eu seja privilegiado assim para observar de um assento dianteiro da fileira. Como eu escrevo, os resultados de eleição estão sendo anunciados das raças da diferença através do país, estão aparecendo lentamente, mas certamente. Eu penso que é importante dar um contexto a como esta eleição foi ajustada acima:
Há 4 eleições diferentes que acontecem simultaneamente: eleições locais do conselho, assentos parliamentary da casa mais baixa [casa do conjunto], a casa superior do parliament [o Senate] e o Presidency. Há assentos locais de 1 958 conselho acima para a eleição em 1 958 divisões em torno do país, há a casa 210 de assentos do conjunto acima para garras, há sessenta assentos do senate e um assento presidencial. Agora cada destas posições tem pelo menos dois candidatos contestar, com o algum que tem o tanto como como sete candidatos (e em outros casos mais). Assim há uns muitos dos povos envolvidos em contestar para todos os escritórios eleitos em zimbabwe.

O processo electoral borne-votando

O processo próprio, isso veio aproximadamente fora de uma série das negociações entre o governo e a oposição sobre o curso dos 12 meses passados significou que as mudanças significativas estiveram feitas à lei electoral no país. A lei nova requer que cada estação da votação conta suas cédulas na estação - esta é a fim evitar de equipar ou alterar as caixas de cédula no trânsito a toda a outra posição. Isto foi feito de acordo com a lei em cada caso. Em uma divisão, você pode levantar-se a 3 ou 4 estações da votação dependendo dos dados da população. Em um círculo eleitoral, você pode começar tanto como como 15 divisões. Isto significa que por o círculo eleitoral você começa aproximadamente 60 estações da votação.

Quando votar for feito que a estação da votação, contando para todos os quatro assentos começa - o conselho local, a casa mais baixa, a casa superior e o presidency. Para cada candidato, há um agente da votação atual para preside excesso a contagem e para contestar o que podem julgar para ser desvios do processo devido ou da lei. Um resultado é somente oficial quando todos os agentes da votação lhe concordam; daqui no caso onde há umas disputas, isto pode fazer exame de um quando. Recorde agora, esse isto está acontecendo para cada única cédula, e os representantes de cada candidato podem discutir sua causa. Quando um resultado final for alcançado e concordado por todos os partidos e por todos assinar para confirmar tais, o resultado para essa estação da votação é afixado na maneira da entrada a essa estação. O resultado oficial é emitido então do “ao centro comando” desse círculo eleitoral. Assim em cada círculo eleitoral, teriam que esperar todos os sessenta ou estações da votação para alcançar assim esse acordo, e emitem então os resultados a um lugar central onde fossem ordenados, e concordado outra vez por todos os agentes de eleição principais dos candidatos [se escolheram mandar agentes os representar] e um resultado final é alcançado então. Assim nestes casos, você pode imaginar quanto tempo este processo pode fazer exame dado que (i) este é a primeira vez que este estêve feito em Zimbabwe; (ii) como em um jogo ostentando grande, o final de copo do mundo ou algo, cada possessão são contestados - o mesmos com estas eleições. ; (iii) em alguns dos círculos eleitorais rurais [realmente, em a maioria deles] as estradas são horrendous. Em alguns casos, inexistentes. Assim mover uma distância de 30 quilômetros pode realmente fazer exame contanto que uma hora e uma metade a duas horas. Assim o movimento é lento e complicado. E não há nenhuma telefone ou comunicação eletrônica.

Assim o processo é lento, e eu penso que a maioria de povos estão fazendo o mais melhor para começar para fora estes resultados tão rápidos como possível.

Eu observei o processo em três círculos eleitorais electoral em Matabeleland rural. Em lugares MUITO rurais assim que no mim estão escrevendo sobre toda a este da experiência firsthand. As votações sábado closed em 7pm. No um círculo eleitoral nós começamos somente um resultado final (depois que o processo acima era completo e todos concordados) na manhã de segunda-feira. Outro somente pela tarde de segunda-feira. Outro não está ainda completo.

O erro que a maioria de povos estão fazendo é que vêem o resultado fora de uma estação da votação, a tomada que como o resultado total e gritam então “esse os resultados estão para fora. Porque são que não estão sendo anunciados " e são completamente ignorant do processo que deve ser feito exame para se assegurar de que todos os partidos envolvidos nesse nível local estejam satisfeitos.

Allegations do equipamento etc.

Os meios de notícia internacionais estão zumbindo com histórias sobre como estes atrasam estão sendo causados pelo governo que tenta comprar o tempo e equipar a eleição. Eu penso que é todas as eleições que eu participei dentro e observado em Zimbabwe, isto fui a eleição a mais livre, a mais justa e do competidor. Não havia quase nenhuma violência que conduz à eleição. Para a primeira vez, você teve realmente muitos dos partidos das oposições que usam o córrego principal including meios controlados governo fazer campanha quase e tendo o acesso ao eleitorado no par com o governo [mim serra quase, porque o governo tem sempre a vantagem do incumbency. Se um ministro do governo comissão um projeto novo por exemplo, aquela é “um dever nacional” e não uma reunião política assim que as réguas electoral não se aplicam necessariamente, mas todo o operador esperto usaria essa plataforma plug para sua causa]. Isto não significa que tudo sobre o período que conduz à eleição era justo, mas eu penso que o ambiente realmente permitiu para que os povos expressem sua vontade.

Mesmo o processo que post-election eu sinto forneceu para muito mais fairness do que antes. O que me está surpreendendo realmente é a extensão a que imediatamente depois que a eleição foi feita, a oposição principal (o partido do CDM conduzido por Morgan Tsvangirai) foi no meios que globais o blitz que reivindica a eleição está sendo equipado e já se ajustando - acima de um ambiente para aquelas que estão ou não realmente cientes dos detalhes do processo, ou que são removidas distante dele para prejudge o todo o que está acontecendo. Eu realmente fui surpreendido por este e penso d para ser uma tática realmente sleazy.

Equipar, se estiver ocorrendo, não está acontecendo com os povos que enchem caixas completamente do papel etc. Está acontecendo nas terras muito técnicas onde aqueles que são o mais menos informed na lei e no procedimento electoral não sabem jogar inteiramente o jogo.

A maioria de povos que lêem este serão surpreendidos por o que eu estou a ponto de dizer, mas em minhas observações, mim serra os exemplos os mais grandes do jogo sujo [chamada ele equipamento se você] que vêm da oposição. E sua metodologia para esta é muito sofisticada. Deixe-me tentar e explicar…

Quando nós éramos crianças, havia uma tática onde se houvesse uma disputa entre nós como os miúdos que jogam junto, deixam a palavra, um miúdo batesse outro, o iniciador do transgression funcionaria a um adulto e gritaria o mais alto e a reivindicação que foi batido. O adulto funcionaria para fora na resposta e à surpresa de todos prestar atenção chicotearia para fora na pessoa que era realmente smacked no primeiro lugar, mas estava demasiado atrasado, a iniciativa tinha sido perdido pela “vítima”. Era uma tática esperta que trabalhasse na maioria das vezes, mas ele à esquerda a pessoa que era sentimento muito realmente batido, tratada muito unjustly.

Uma coisa similar aconteceu nesta eleição de o que eu vi. O CDM funcionou para fora gritar esse nós foi feito batota, lá é o equipamento etc. controlaram esperta tog et todos que prestam atenção ao lugar errado quando cozinharem smugly os livros onde podem. É uma eleição muito próxima em a maioria do cada ponto de contagens dos casos assim que. Deixe-me dar-lhe os exemplos de o que eu significo, sem mencionar posições e situações específicas porque isto poderia ter implicações legais.

A opinião difundida é que o governo equipará a eleição porque é assim popular que não pode ganhar a eleição razoavelmente. Dizem que o equipará porque desdobrou empregados civis para oversee a eleição. Na realidade, os povos que têm o animosity o mais grande para o governo são empregados civis. Professores, enfermeiras, polícias etc. são os povos pagos os mais baixos no país no entanto têm esperado mais dele. Assim nós encontramos em 3 lugares, e eu penso que este é um comportamento da amostra de o que você encontraria a nação larga, por meio de que você teve oficiais electoral, empregado pelo governo que tenta trabalhar coisas no favor da oposição.
Em uma estação da votação, onde um candidato do governo tinha ganhado e os papéis que confirmam este foram assinados nessa estação, a nota de entrega significada ir ao centro do comando com o resultado “desaparecido.” Havia um recount e revisitar do processo que inteiro eu descrevi, o resultado veio outra vez para fora no favor do governo. Outra vez, a nota de entrega desapareceu. Eventualmente, o culpado foi identificado e prendido e os processos repetiram uma vez outra vez e o resultado foi eventualmente completamente. Nesse círculo eleitoral, o representante do governo para esse assento ganhado, e lá era incredible atrasa em liberar esse excesso dos dados infinito, undescribed technicalities. Eventualmente, os representantes do commission electoral do capital da região tiveram que ser chamados dentro para estabeleci-lo.
Um outro incident, havia um caso por meio de que uma pessoa que está para o escritório do governo teve uma ligação confortável em seu círculo eleitoral com uma margem sobre de 1000 votos. Duas divisões eram ainda - proeminentes [aproximadamente 6 estações da votação]. Quando os resultados vieram dentro, o representante de ZANU picofarad [o partido governando] ganhou um círculo eleitoral, e perdeu o outro. A margem da perda era significativamente menor de mil. O agente da votação do candidato saiu a cena de vitória presumida. Isto realizava-se na manhã de segunda-feira. Tarde de segunda-feira, nós ouvimo-nos que os resultados anunciaram que o candidato de ZANU picofarad perdeu perto sobre 2000 votos. Matematicamente, isto não é possível. Havia o mais certamente da “um erro contabilidade” que o caso e o resultado estarão desafiados o mais provavelmente legalmente.
A oposição ajustou acima todas estas estruturas “paralelas” para alimentar os resultados de eleição da palavra como “” os vêem. Alguns deles são assim bruta erro seu perturbar. Ontem projetaram-se que fora de 210 assentos de uma casa mais baixa, o governo ganhou somente 50, a oposição 117 e o contrapeso que vai aos independents - que naturalmente significariam uma corrediça da terra para a oposição. Enquanto eu datilografo, aproximadamente 90 resultados para a casa do conjunto estiveram anunciados com os 43 que vão a ZANU picofarad, os 41 que vai a um faction do CDM (faction de Tsvangirai) e o contrapeso aos independents e ao Faction menor do CDM.

Uma coisa que está sendo feita que poderia ser visto como controverso é que os resultados nos estágios adiantados estão sendo anunciados quase em uma maneira equilibrada - isto é, você anuncia uma vitória para a oposição, uma para o governo etc. uma razão para fazer isto pode ser de modo que você não levante expectativas de um lado e não tenha então um Kenya-tipo disputa quando os resultados finais balançam no contradiction aos resultados adiantados. Eu penso que o este faz o sentido porque você quer manter a calma em uma situação tão tensa. Aqueles que advogam para que este seja feito “porque os resultados aparecem” parecem não ter aprendido de o que aconteceu norte justo de Zimbabwe há alguns meses atrás.

Eu sou certo há uns casos do equipamento do governo (ZANU picofarad) que acontece demasiado, mas eu penso que mischief de ZANU estaria feito mais antes da eleição, no processo que conduz a ele melhor que durante ou para afixar a eleição. Mas eu sou certo que outro em outra parte tem de seus próprios relatórios e perspectives para compartilhar neste, especialmente aqueles que participam ou que observam a eleição para os lugares que suportam overwhelmingly ZANU picofarad, de que Matabeleland não é tradicional um dele.

Contrário às expectativas “populares”
A maioria de comentadores fora do país esperam o partido e o presidente governando perder a eleição. A situação econômica e um ambiente que reserve realmente mais de uma expressão mais livre da vontade do pessoa cited como alguns dos fatores influenciando naqueles cálculos. Este é pensar plausible a algum grau. Eu não esperei o presidente ter alguns sustentação em Matabeleland em tudo. Dado a história desta região, dada a situação econômica e a sustentação que forte a oposição teve sempre aqui, mim foi surpreendido ver os resultados em alguns lugares.

Você veria resultados em uma estação da votação onde o presidente ganhasse por uma margem significativa sobre seus oponentes. Você começaria algum onde perdeu por uma margem muito larga, e outro que era próximo. Eu esperei-o certamente perder em toda parte nesta parte do país. Não está girando para fora essa maneira. Em a maioria de áreas aqui onde eu observei as coisas fecham-se acima, à exceção de Bulawayo e os centros urbanos, a competição presidencial parecem ter estado entre Robert Mugabe e Simba Makoni. Surprisingly, não há muita tração para Morgan Tsvangirai (que pode ser diferente nas regiões do norte e orientais do país). Em um círculo eleitoral inteiro, batida Simba Makoni de Robert Mugabe no registro final de aproximadamente 55 estações da votação! Era uma margem pequena mas extremamente surpreender. No general, eu penso que perderá Matabeleland, mas não pelos povos largos das margens prediga.

Onde há a volatilidade a mais grande na eleição foi os conselhos locais. Isso é o lugar aonde você começa os resultados surpreendendo com muitos, muitos encarregados que estão sendo jogados para fora. No retrospect, faz o sentido porque aqueles são os candidatos que sabem o mais melhores, que têm o contato o mais direto e o influenciam e que povoa tem algum formulário do controle sobre. Outra vez, isso surpreendeu-me, dado que as eleições estiveram faturadas sempre como uma competição presidencial primeiramente.

A coisa engraçada é aquela, você tem comentadores externos surpreendidos pelas vitórias que o governo consegue apesar da situação economicamente. Eu sinto que isso a maioria de povos que votam para o presidente ou os candidatos governando do partido fizeram realmente assim que fora de sua vontade. Muitos escolheram não votar [daqui a volta baixa do eleitor para fora] para o que razões. Quando você tem uma eleição “democrática”, e o candidato que os outsiders não prefiram vitórias, há sempre um problema. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Zimbabwe valuppdatering
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
Det finns ett mycket intressant bearbetar som jag har varit, så privilegierat för att observera från en första rad placera. Som jag skriver, meddelas valresultat från skillnadraces över landet, visas de långsamt, men säkert. Funderare I är det viktigt att ge ett sammanhang till hur detta val har varit fastställdt övre:
Det finns 4 olika val som samtidigt händer: lokalrådval, det parlamentariska underhuset placerar [huset av enheten], övrehuset av parlamentet [senaten] och presidentsämbetet. Det finns 1 958, lokal sområdet placerar för val i 1 958 avvärjer upp runt om landet, finns det 210 huset av enheten placerar upp för hastigt grepp, finns det den sextio senaten placerar, och presidents- man placerar. Nu placerar varje av dessa har åtminstone två kandidater att bekämpa, med något som har så många som sju kandidater (och i andra fall mer). Så det finns folk för en radda som är involverat, i att bekämpa för alla valda kontor i zimbabwe.

Den val- posta-röstningen bearbetar

Det processaa sig själv, det har skett ut ur en serie av förhandlingar mellan regeringen och oppositionen över jaga av förflutnan har 12 månader betytt att viktiga ändringar har gjorts till den val- lagen i landet. Ny lag kräver att varje vallokal räknar deras sluten omröstning PÅ postera - denna är för att undvika rigging, eller tampering med valurnor genomresa in till något annat läge. Detta har gjorts i överensstämmelse med lagen i varje fall. I en avvärja kan du få upp till 3 eller 4 vallokaler beroende av befolkningdata. I en valkrets kan du få så många, som 15 avvärjer. Detta hjälpmedel som per valkretsen du får omkring 60 vallokaler.

När röstningen är den gjorda däri vallokalen som räknar för alla fyrana, placerar börjar - lokalrådet, underhuset, övrehuset och presidentsämbetet. För varje kandidat finns det en röstningmedelgåva som varar ordförande över räkna och som bekämpar vad de kan ansa för att vara avsteg från rakt processaa eller lag. Ett resultat är endast officiellt, när alla röstningmedel instämm till det; hence i fallet, var det finns tvister, kan detta ta en stund. Minns nu, det händer detta för varje singelsluten omröstning, och varje kandidat tekniker kan argumentera deras orsakar. När ett finalresultat är nått, och avgjort upon vid alla partier och alla undertecknar för att bekräfta sådan, resultatet för den vallokal postas på tillträdeet till det posterar långt. Det officiella resultatet överförs därefter till ”befaller centrerar” av den valkrets. Så i varje valkrets, skulle de måste väntan för all sextio eller så vallokaler att nå den överenskommelse och överför därefter resultaten till en central förlägger var de sorteras, och igen avgjort upon vid alla högsta valmedel av kandidaterna [om de valde att ha medel att föreställa dem], och därefter nås ett finalresultat. Så i dessa fall, kan du föreställa hur long detta processaa kan ta givet att (I) denna är den första tiden att denna gjordes i Zimbabwe; (ii) som i en stor sportslig lek, bekämpas världscupfinalen eller något, varje besittning - samma med dessa val. ; (iii) i några av de lantliga valkretsarna [faktiskt, i mest av dem] är vägarna fasansfulla. I vissa fall icke existerande. Så flyttning som en distansera av 30 kilometer kan faktiskt ta så länge som en timme och en halva till två timmar. Så är rörelse långsam och invecklad. Och det finns inget ringer eller elektroniska kommunikationer.

Så är det processaa långsam, och I-funderare mest folk gör det bäst för att få dessa resultat ut som fastar som möjlighet.

Jag observerade det processaa i tre val- valkretsar i lantliga Matabeleland. I MYCKET lantligt förlägger, så I-förmiddaghandstil om allt denna från firsthand erfar. Den stängda lördagen för röstningar på 7pm. I den en valkretsen fick vi endast ett finalresultat (efter det processaa ovannämnt var allt färdigt och överens upon), på den Måndag morgonen. Ett annat endast vid den Måndag eftermiddagen. Andra är inte ännu färdiga.

Missförstå som mest folk är danande, är, att de ser resultatet utanför en vallokal, taken som som det total- resultatet och gråter därefter ”det resultat är ut. Varför är de som inte meddelas " och, är fullständigt okunniga av det processaa som måste tas för att se till att allt festar involverat på den jämna lokal, tillfredsställs.

Beskyllningar av Rigging etc.

Landskampnyhetsmedian surrar med berättelser om hur dessa fördröjningar orsakas av regeringen som är pröva till den köptid och riggen valet. I funderare, som är alla val som, jag har deltagit in och observerat i Zimbabwe, detta har varit det friast, mässan och det konkurrenskraftiga valet. Det fanns inte nästan något våld som upp till leder valet. För den första tiden hade du faktiskt använda för raddaoppositionspartier som var huvudsakligt att strömma inklusive regerings- kontrollerat massmedia för att delta i en kampanj, och ha ta fram till väljarkåren nästan på par med regeringen [jag sågar nästan, därför att regeringen har alltid fördelen av ämbetstid. Om en regerings- minister   bemyndigar ett nytt projekterar for example, är det ”en medborgarearbetsuppgift” och, inte ett politiskt möte så det val- härskar applicerar inte nödvändigtvis, men några ilar operatören skulle bruk den plattform att plugga för deras orsakar]. Detta betyder inte att allt om perioden som leder valet var upp till mässan, men I-funderare miljön har egentligen tillåtet för folk till uttryckligt ska deras.

Även har den post-election processaa I-känselförnimmelsen git för mycket mer opartiskhet än för. Vad förvånar egentligen till mig, är graden som omgående, efter valet gjordes, gick till den huvudsakliga oppositionen (MDC-partit ledde vid Morgan Tsvangirai), på globalt massmedia som blitz som fordrar valet, riggeds och ställa redan in - upp en miljö för de, som är endera inte egentligen medvetna av, specificerar av det processaa, eller, som tas långt bort från det för att döma på förhand allt, som händer. Jag förvånades egentligen av detta och funderare det för att vara en egentligen sjabbig taktik.

Rigging, om den äger rum, händer inte med folk som att stoppa boxas mycket av pappers- Etc. Det händer på mycket teknisk jordning var de, som är least informed på val- lag och tillvägagångssätt, inte vet hur man leker leken fullständigt.

Mest folk läsning som denna ska, förvånas av vad I-förmiddagen omkring till något att säga, men i min observationer, mig sågar de mest stora fallen av ruff [appell det rigging, om du ska] som är kommande från oppositionen. Och deras methodology för denna är mycket sofistikerad. Låt mig försök och förklara…,

Då vi var barn, fanns gråter fordrar det en taktik, var, om det fanns en tvist mellan oss, som ungar som tillsammans leker, låter något att säga, en unge slår another, igångsättaren av transgressionen skulle körningen till en vuxen människa och det mest hög och dem sloggs. Vuxen människa skulle körning ut i svar, och till överrrakningen av alla förlägger hade den hållande ögonen på skulle snärten ut på personen, som faktiskt smiskades i första, men den var för sen, insatsen varit borttappad vid ”offer”. Det var en smart taktik som fungerade mest av tiden, men den lämnade personen, som var egentligen slågen känsla mycket som behandlades mycket unjustly.

Ett liknande ting har händt i detta val från vad jag har sett. Mdcen har kört ut att skrika som är det oss, har fuskats, där är rigging Etc. de smartly har smartly klarat av tog, et alla som håller ögonen på fel, förlägger stunder som de lagar mat självbelåtet bokar var de kan. Det är ett mycket nära val ofta, så varje peka räkningar. Låt mig ge dig exempel av vad jag betyder, utan att nämna specifika lägen och lägen, som detta kunde ha lagliga implikationer.

Den utbredda tron är att regeringen ska riggen valet, därför att det är så populärt att det kan inte segra valet ganska. De något att säga det ska riggen det, därför att det har utplacerat tjänstemän för att ha uppsikt över valet. I verkligheten är folket, som har den mest stora animosityen in mot regeringen, tjänstemän. Lärare, sjuksköterskor, polis Etc. de är det lowest betalade folket i landet och yet har som förväntas mest från dem. Så grundar vi i 3 förlägger, och I-funderare detta är ett ta provuppförande av vad du skulle fyndnationsned boll, whereby du hade val- representanter som användes av den pröva regeringen för att fungera saker i favör av oppositionen.
I en vallokal var en regerings- kandidat hade segrat och legitimationshandlingar som bekräftar denna undertecknades på det posterar, noterar leveransen betytt att gå till befalla centrerar med det försvunna resultatet ”.”, Det fanns en omräkning, och återbesöka av den processaa helheten har jag beskrivit, resultatet kom igen ut i favör av regeringen. Igen noterar leveransen försvunnet. Slutligen identifierades gärningsmannen, och arresterat och bearbetar upprepat ytterligare en gång, och resultatet gick slutligen igenom. Däri placerar valkretsen, regeringen som är representativ för det segrat, och det fanns oerhörda fördröjningar, i att frigöra att data över ändlöst, undescribed technicalities. Slutligen måste tekniker från den val- kommissionen från regionens huvudstad att kallas in för att sätta den.
En annan incident, fanns det ett fall, whereby en person som anseende för kontoret av regeringen hade ett bekvämt bly- i deras valkrets med en förse med marginal av över 1000, röstar. Två avvärjer var stilla - utstående [omkring 6 vallokaler]. När resultat kom in som representativ för ZANU PF [reglerande partit] segras en valkrets och borttappad annan. Förse med marginal av förlusten var markant mindre än ettusen. Kandidat röstningmedlet lämnade platsen assuming seger. Detta ägde rum på den Måndag morgonen. Den Måndag eftermiddagen, hörde vi att resultaten meddelade att kandidaten för ZANU PF har borttappadt över 2000 röstar by. Matematiskt är denna inte möjligheten. Det fanns bestämdast ”redogöra fel” isåfall, och resultatet ska antagligen utmanas lagligt.
Oppositionen har uppsättningen upp alla dessa ”parallellen” strukturerar för att mata uttryckavalresultaten, som ”de” ser dem. Några av dem är så kraftigt fel dess störa. Igår projekterade har de det ut ur 210 som underhuset placerar, regeringen segrat endast 50, oppositionen 117 och balansera som går till vildar - som skulle naturligtvis medel en landglidbana för oppositionen. Som jag skrivar, har omkring 90 resultat för huset av enheten meddelats med 43 som går till ZANU PF, 41 som går till en fraktion av MDCEN (Tsvangirais fraktion) och balansera till vildar och den mindre MDC-fraktionen.

Ett ting, som göras, som kunde ses som kontroversiellt, är, att resultaten i tidigt stadium meddelas nästan i ett allsidigt sätt - dvs., dig meddelar en seger för oppositionen, en för regeringen Etc. man resonerar för att göra detta kan vara, så att du inte lönelyftförväntningar av en sida, och därefter att ha Kenya-skriva tvist, när finalen resulterar gungor i motsättning till tidig sortresultat. Denna funderare I gör avkänning, därför att du önskar att underhålla ett sådan spänt läge för stillhet in. De som förespråkar för att detta göras ”, som resultat visas” verkar för att inte ha lärt från vad händde den rättvisa norden av Zimbabwe några månader sedan.

Säker förmiddag I där är fall av regerings- (ZANU PF) rigging som för händer, men mischief för I-funderare ZANUS skulle mer har gjorts för valet, i det processaa leda upp till det i stället för under eller postar valet. Men I-förmiddagen säkra andra någon annanstans har deras egna rapporter, och perspektiv som ska delas på detta, speciellt det deltagande eller observation av valet för, förlägger att på ett överväldigande sätt service ZANU PF, som Matabeleland inte är traditionellt ett av av dem.

Tvärtemot ”populära” förväntningar
Mest kommentatorer utanför landet förväntar styrande parti och presidenten för att förlora valet. Det ekonomiska läget och en miljö, som låter faktiskt mer av ett friare uttryck av det ska folket, citeras som någon av påverkan dela upp i faktorer i de beräkningar. Detta är sannolikt tänkande till någon grad. Jag förväntade inte presidenten för att ha några service i Matabeleland alls. Givet historien av denna region som gavs det ekonomiska läget och starkt stöd, oppositionen har haft alltid här, mig, förvånades för att se att resultaten i något förlägger.

Du skulle ser att resultat i en vallokal var presidenten segrade vid ett viktigt förse med marginal över hans motståndarear. Du skulle får något, var han som är borttappad vid ett mycket brett förser med marginal, och andra som var nära. Jag förväntade bestämt honom att förlora överallt i denna del av landet. Det är inte roterande ut ditåt. I mest områden här, var jag observerade saker upp slut, bortsett från Bulawayo och stads- centrerar, den presidents- striden verkar för att ha varit mellan Robert Mugabe och Simba Makoni. Förvånansvärt finns det inte mycket dragkraft för Morgan Tsvangirai (som kan vara olik i de nordliga och östliga regionerna av landet). I en hel valkrets Robert Mugabe takt Simba Makoni i finaletiketten av omkring 55 vallokaler! Det var ett litet förser med marginal men förvåna extremt. I allmänhet I-funderare som han ska förlorar Matabeleland, men inte vid sned boll förser med marginal folk förutsäger.

Var det finns, har den mest stora flyktigheten i valet varit lokalråden. Det är, var du får de mest överraska resultaten med många, många kyrkoherden som ut kastas. I återblick gör det avkänning, därför att de är kandidaterna som de vet det bäst, som har den mest direktkontakten och påverkan, och, som bemannar, har något att bilda av kontrollerar över. Igen förvånade det mig, givet att valen alltid har fakturerats som en presidents- strid i första hand.

Det roliga tinget är det, dig har yttre kommentatorer att förvånas av segrarna att regeringen uppnår illvilja läget economically. Känselförnimmelse I som mest folk, som röstar för presidenten eller de reglerande partikandidaterna, har gjort egentligen så ut ur ska deras. Många har valt att inte rösta [hence den låga väljarevänden ut] för, allt vad resonerar. När du har ”ett demokratiskt” val och kandidaten att icke-favorit inte föredrar segrar, finns det alltid ett problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Уточнение избрания Зимбабве
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo
Будет очень интересный процесс я так был дан привилегии для того чтобы наблюдать от переднего места рядка. По мере того как я пишу, результаты выборов объявляются от гонок разницы по всей стране, они появляются медленно, но уверенно. Я думаю важно дать смысл к как это избрание было установлено вверх по:
4 по-разному избрания случаясь одновременно: местные избрания совету, парламентския места более низкой дома [дом агрегата], верхнее парламенто Великобритании [сенат] и президентство. Мест 1 958 местных совету вверх для избрания в 1 958 палат вокруг страны, будут дом 210 мест агрегата вверх для самосхватов, 60 мест сената и одно президентского место. Теперь каждое одно из этих положений имеет по крайней мере 2 выбранного оспорить, при некоторое имея так много как 7 выбранных (и в другие случаи больше). Настолько будут множество людей, котор включили в оспаривать для всех избранных офисов в Зимбабве.

Столб-голосуя электоральный процесс

Процесс сам, то приходил около из серии переговоров между правительством и противовключением над курсом прошлых 12 месяцев намеревает что значительные изменения были сделаны к избирательному праву в стране. Новый закон требует что каждая станция полинга подсчитывает их ballots НА станции - это должна избежать оснастить или tampering с коробками ballot в переходе к любому другому положению. Это было сделано в соответствии с законом in every case. В палате, вы можете get up до 3 или 4 станции полинга в зависимости от данных по населенности. В constituency, вы можете получить так много как 15 палат. Это намеревается что в constituency вы получаете около 60 станций полинга.

Когда голосовать сделан в что станция полинга, подсчитывая для всех 4 мест начинает - местный совет, более низкая дом, верхняя дом и президентство. Для каждого выбранного, будет вещество полинга присытствыющее председательствовать над подсчитывать и оспорить они могут считать, что были отступлениями от должных процесса или закона. Результат только официальн когда все вещества полинга согласовывают он; следовательно в случай где будут споры, это может принять промежуток времени. Теперь вспомните, т это случается для каждого выборы с одной баллотировкой, и представители каждого выбранного могут поспорить их причина. Когда окончательный результат достигается и согласовано всеми партиями и каждым подписывает для того чтобы подтвердить такие, результат для той станции полинга вывешивает на дорогу входа к той станции. Официальный результат после этого послан к «центр управления» того constituency. Так в каждом constituency, они ждать все 60 или так станции полинга для того чтобы достигнуть то согласование, и после этого посылают результаты к центральному месту где они collated, и снова после того как я согласовано всеми главными агентами кандидата по проведению выборов [если они выбрали иметь вещества представить их] и после этого окончательный результат достигается. Так в эти случаи, вы можете представить сколько времени этот процесс может принять после того как он дал что (I) это the first time что это было сделано в Зимбабве; (ii) как в большой резвясь игре, оспорены кубок мира окончательное или что-то, каждое владение - эти же с этими избраниями. ; (cIii) в некоторых из сельских constituencies [фактическ, в большом части из их] дороги horrendous. In some cases, non-existent. Так двигать расстояние 30 километров может фактическ принять покуда час с половиной до 2 часа. Так движение медленно и осложненн. И не будут телефонов или электронных сообщений.

Так процесс медленное одним, и я думаю большинств люди делают самое лучшее для того чтобы получить эти результаты вне как можно быстро.

Я наблюдал процессом в 3 электоральных constituencies в сельском Matabeleland. В ОЧЕНЬ населенных пунктах сельского типа поэтому мне пишите о всем из этого от firsthand опыта. Списки избирателей закрытая суббота на 7pm. В одном constituency мы только получили окончательный результат (после того как процесс выше был закончен и согласован вс) на утре понедельника. Другое одно только к после полудня понедельника. Другие не пока законченн.

Ошибка большинств, котор люди делают что они видят результат вне одной станции полинга, взятие которое как общий результат и после этого заплачьте «что результаты вне. Почему будучи объявлянными они " и вполне невежественны процесса необходимо принять для того чтобы обеспечить что удовлетворяются все партии, котор включили на тот местный уровень.

Заявления такелажирования etc

Средства международные новости жужжат с рассказами о как эти задерживают причиняются правительством пытаясь купить время и оснастить избрание. Я думаю будет всеми избраниями, котор я участвовал внутри и после того как я наблюдал в Зимбабве, это был свободно, самым справедливым и конкурсным избранием. Не было почти расправы lead up к избранию. For the first time, вы фактическ имели множество оппозиционная партия используя коренное течение реки включая средства контролируемые правительством для того чтобы агитировать и имеющ доступ к electorate почти на равенстве с правительством [мной пила почти, потому что правительство всегда имеет преимущество incumbency. Если министр правительства поручает новый проект например, то то будет «национальной обязанностью» и не политической встречей поэтому электоральные правила обязательно не применяются, но любой франтовской оператор использовал бы ту платформу для того чтобы заткнуть для их причины]. Это не намеревается что все о периоде lead up к избранию было справедливо, но я думаю окружающая среда реально позволяла людей для того чтобы выразить их волю.

Даже процесс столб-избрания, котор я чувствую обеспечил для очень больше fairness чем раньше. Реально удивляет к мне будет размером к immediately after избрание было сделано, GLAVNое противовключение (партия MDC водить Morgan Tsvangirai) пошло на глобальные средства, котор blitz требуя избрание оснащается и уже устанавливающ - вверх по окружающей среде для тех которые или реально осведомленны деталей процесса, или которые далеко извлекается от его для того чтобы prejudge все которое случается. Я реально был удивлен этим и думаю оно для того чтобы быть реально sleazy тактикой.

Оснащать, если оно осуществляет, то не случается при люди коробки вполне cEtc бумаги. Оно случается на очень технически землях где те наиболее меньше informed на избирательном праве и процедуре не умеют как сыграть игру полно.

Большинств люди читая это будут удивлены я должны около сказать, но в моих замечаниях, я пила большие случаи протухшая игра [звонок оно такелажирование если вы будете], то приходя от противовключения. И их методология для этого очень изощренна. Препятствуйте мне попытаться и объясниться…

Когда мы были дет, была тактика где если был спор между нами, то по мере того как малыши играя совместно, препятствуют мнению, один малыш ударяет другие, инициатор законопреступления побежали бы к взрослому и заплакали бы самая громкая и заявка, котор они была ударена. Взрослый побежал бы вне в реакции и к сярпризу каждого наблюдать хлестал бы вне на персоне фактическ была smacked во-первых, но она была слишком последней, инициатива была потеряна «жертвой». Оно было франтовской тактикой работала большое часть из времени, только им налево unjustly обработанная персона которая была реально ударенным ощупыванием очень, очень.

Подобная вещь случалась в этом избрании от я видел. Был обжулен, там будет MDC бежал вне screaming тот мы cEtc такелажирования. они франтовск управляли tog et каждым наблюдая неправильное место пока они smugly варят книги где они могут. Будет очень близким избранием in most cases поэтому отсчетами каждого пункта. Препятствуйте мне дать вам примеры я намереваюсь, без упоминать специфически положения и ситуации по мере того как это смогло иметь правовые последствия.

Widespread верование что правительство оснастит избрание потому что оно настолько популярно что оно не может выиграть избрание справедливо. Они говорят оно оснастит оно потому что оно раскрывало гражданских служащих для того чтобы надзирать избрание. В реальности, люди которые имеют большой animosity к правительству будут гражданскими служащими. CEtc учителей, нюнь, полиций. они будут самыми низкими paid людьми в стране and yet имеют больше всего предпологаемое от их. Так мы нашли в 3 местах, и я думаю это будет поведение образца вы считали бы нацию широко, whereby вы имели электоральных должностных лиц, после того как вы использованы правительством пытаясь работать вещи in favour of противовключение.
В одной станции полинга, где выбранный правительства выиграл и бумаги подтверждая это были подписаны на той станции, примечание поставки намереваемое пойти к центр управления при исчезли результат «, котор.» Был recount и revisiting всего процесса, котор я описывал, результат опять пришл вне in favour of правительство. Опять, примечание поставки исчезло. Окончательн, виновница была определена и после того как я арестованы и процессы повторяли еще раз и результат окончательн пошел до конца. В том constituency, представитель правительства для того выигранного места, и там был неимоверн задерживает в выпускать те данные над бесконечным, undescribed technicalities. Окончательн, представители от электоральной комиссии от столицы зоны должны быть вызваны внутри для того чтобы установить она.
Другой случай, был случай whereby персона стоя для офиса правительства имела удобное руководство в их constituency с допустимым пределом над 1000 вотумов. 2 палаты были все еще - выдающими [около 6 станций полинга]. Когда результаты пришли внутри, представитель ZANU пикофарады [управляя партии] выиграл один constituency, и потерял другое. Допустимый предел потери был значительно более мал чем тысяча. Вещество полинга выбранного вышло месту assuming победа. Это находилось на утре понедельника. После полудня понедельника, мы услышали результаты объявили что выбранный ZANU пикофарады терял мимо над 2000 вотумами. Математически, это не по возможности. Была само некоторо «ошибка бухгалтерии» в что случай и результат само вероятно законно будут брошены вызов.
Противовключение устанавливало вверх всю из этих «параллельных» структур для того чтобы подать результаты выборов слова как «они» видят их. Некоторые из их будут настолько больш неправдой свой нарушать. Вчера они запроектировали что из 210 мест более низкой дома, правительство выигрывало только 50, противовключение 117 и баланс идя к independents - которые of course намеревались бы скольжение земли для противовключения. По мере того как я печатаю на машинке, около 90 результатов для дома агрегата были объявлены с 43 идя к ZANU пикофараде, 41 идя до одна факция MDC (факции Tsvangirai) и балансом к independents и более малой факции MDC.

Одна вещь делается смогло быть увидено как состязательное что результаты в предыдущих этапах объявляются почти в balanced образе - т.е., вами объявляет одну победу для противовключения, одну для cEtc правительства. одна причина для делать это может быть TAK, CTO вы не поднимете ожиданности одной стороны и после этого не имеете спор Кени-типа когда окончательные результаты отбросят в несоответствии к предыдущим результатам. Я думаю это делает чувство потому что вы хотите поддерживать затишье в такой напряженнейшей ситуации. Те защищая для этого, котор нужно сделать «по мере того как кажется, что учат результаты появляются» от случилось справедливый север Зимбабве несколько месяцев тому назад.

Я уверен будут случаи такелажирование правительства (ZANU пикофарады) случаясь слишком, но я думаю mischief ZANU больше было сделано перед избранием, в процессе lead up к ему rather than во время или вывесить избрание. Но я уверен другие в другом месте имеет их собственные рапорты и перспективы для того чтобы делить на этом, специально те участвуя или наблюдая избранием для мест которые overwhelmingly поддерживают ZANU пикофараду, of which Matabeleland не традиционно одним из их.

Противоположность к «популярным» ожиданностям
Большинств commentators вне страны ожидают, что правящую партию и президент теряет избрание. Экономическое положение и окружающая среда фактическ позволяет больше из более свободно выражения воли людей процитированы как некоторые из влияя на факторов в тех вычислениях. Это правдоподобный думать к некоторому STEPENи. Я не ожидал, что президент имел любые поддержка в Matabeleland на всех. Дали историю этой зоны, котор дали экономическое положение и сильную поддержку, котор противовключение всегда имело здесь, я удивил увидеть результаты в некоторых местах.

Вы увидели бы результаты в станции полинга где президент выиграл значительно допустимым пределом над его противницами. Вы получили бы некоторое где он потерял очень значительным перевесом, и другие которые были близки. Я некоторо ожидал, что он потеряло везде в этой части страны. Оно turn out та дорога. В большинств OBLASTях здесь где я наблюдал вещи вверх закрывают, за исключением Bulawayo и кажется, что находят урбанизированные центры, президентское состязание между Роберт Mugabe и Simba Makoni. Удивительно, не будет много тракции для Morgan Tsvangirai (которое может быть по-разному в северных и восточных зонах страны). В одном всем constituency, удар Simba Makoni Роберт Mugabe в окончательной бирке около 55 станций полинга! Оно было малым допустимым пределом но весьма удивлять. In general, я думаю он потеряет Matabeleland, но не людьми значительных перевесов предскажите.

Где большой улетучиваемостью в избрании были местные советы. То куда вы получаете удивляя результаты с много, много incumbents будучи бросанными вне. В ретроспективе, оно делает чувство потому что те будут выбранными, котор они знают самые лучшие, которые имеют большинств непосредственный контакт и влияют на и который населяет имеет некоторую форму управления над. Опять, то удивило меня, после того как оно дало что избрания всегда были представлены счет как президентское состязание главным образом.

Funny вещь то, вы имеет внешние commentators быть удивленным победами что правительство достигает несмотря на ситуацию экономично. Я чувствую то большинств люди голосуют для президента или управляя выбранные партии реально делали поэтому из их воли. Много выбрали не проголосовать [следовательно низкое turn out избирателя] для любые причины. Когда вы имеете «демократическое» избрание, и выбранный которому аутсайдеры не предпочитают выигрыши, будет всегда проблема. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

De Update van de Verkiezing van Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
Er is een zeer interessant proces dat ik zo ben bevoorrecht om van een voorrijzetel waar te nemen. Zoals ik schrijf, worden de verkiezingsresultaten aangekondigd van verschilrassen over het land, zeker verschijnen zij langzaam, maar. Ik denk het belangrijk is om een context aan hoe te geven deze verkiezing is opgezet:
Er zijn 4 verschillende verkiezingen die gelijktijdig gebeuren: lokale raadsverkiezingen, lagere huis parlementaire zetels [Huis van Assemblage], het Hogere Huis van het parlement [de Senaat] en het Voorzitterschap. Er zijn 1 958 lokale raadszetels omhoog voor verkiezing in 1 958 afdelingen rond het land, is er Huis 210 omhoog van de zetels van de Assemblage voor grepen, zijn er zestig senaatszetels en één presidentiële zetel. Nu heeft elke één van deze posities minstens twee kandidaten die, met wat die wel hebben zeven kandidaten (en in andere gevallen meer) betwisten. Zo er zijn heel wat mensen betrokken bij het betwisten voor alle verkozen bureaus in Zimbabwe.

Het post-stemt kiesproces

Het proces zelf, dat uit een reeks onderhandelingen tussen de overheid en de oppositie in de loop van de afgelopen 12 maanden is gebeurd heeft betekend dat de significante veranderingen in de kieswet in het land zijn aangebracht. De nieuwe wet vereist dat elke opiniepeilingspost hun stemmingen BIJ de post telt - dit moet om vermijden monterend of knoeiend met stembussen in doorgang aan een andere plaats. Dit is in elk geval gedaan overeenkomstig de wet. In een afdeling, kunt u tot 3 of 4 het krijgen posten afhankelijk van bevolkingsgegevens krijgen. In een kiesdistrict, kunt u wel krijgen 15 afdelingen. Dit betekent dat per kiesdistrict u ongeveer 60 het krijgen posten krijgt.

Wanneer de stemming in die opiniepeilingspost wordt gedaan, begint het tellen voor alle vier zetels - de lokale raad, het lagere huis, het hogere huis en het voorzitterschap. Voor elke kandidaat, is er een aanwezige opiniepeilingsagent om het tellen voor te zitten en te betwisten wat zij kunnen achten om afwijkingen van gepaste proces of wet te zijn. Een resultaat is slechts officieel wanneer alle opiniepeilingsagenten met het akkoord gaan; vandaar in het geval waar er geschillen zijn, kan dit een tijdje nemen. Herinner me nu, dat dit voor elke enige stemming gebeurt, en de elke kandidaatvertegenwoordigers kunnen hun oorzaak debatteren. Wanneer een definitief resultaat wordt bereikt en op door alle partijen goedgekeurd en iedereen ondertekent om zulke te bevestigen, het resultaat voor die opiniepeilingspost wordt gepost op de ingangsmanier aan die post. Het officiële resultaat wordt dan verzonden naar het „Centrum van het Bevel“ van dat kiesdistrict. Zo in elk kiesdistrict, zouden zij op alle zestig of zo het krijgen posten moeten wachten om een dat akkoord te bereiken, en dan de resultaten te verzenden naar een centrale plaats waar zij gebij elkaar bracht, en opnieuw akkoord gegaan op door alle Belangrijkste Agenten van de Verkiezing van de kandidaten [als zij verkozen om agenten te hebben hen] vertegenwoordigen en dan wordt een definitief resultaat bereikt. Zo in deze gevallen, kunt u veronderstellen hoe lang dit proces kan duren gezien (i) dit de eerste keer is dat dit in Zimbabwe werd gedaan; (ii) zoals in een groot sportief spel, def. van de wereldkop of iets, wordt elk bezit betwist - het zelfde met deze verkiezingen. ; (iii) in enkele landelijke bevolking [eigenlijk, in de meesten van hen] de wegen zijn horrendous. In sommige gevallen, onbestaand. Zo kan het bewegen van een afstand van 30 kilometers eigenlijk zolang een uur en de helft aan twee uren nemen. Zo is de beweging langzaam en ingewikkeld. En er zijn geen telefoons of elektronische communicatie.

Zo is het proces langzame, en ik denk de meeste mensen het beste deze resultaten uit zo snel mogelijk doen krijgen.

Ik nam het proces in de drie kiesbevolking in landelijke Matabeleland waar. In ZEER landelijke plaatsen zodat schrijf ik over elk van dit vanuit ervaring uit de eerste hand. De opiniepeilingen die Zaterdag bij 7pm worden gesloten. In het één kiesdistrict werden wij slechts een definitief resultaat (nadat het proces hierboven volledig was en iedereen op) akkoord ging op Maandag ochtend. Een andere één slechts door Maandag middag. Anderen zijn nog niet volledig.

De fout de meeste mensen maken is dat zij het resultaat buiten één opiniepeilingspost zien, dat als algemene resultaat en dan schreeuw „nemen dat de resultaten uit zijn. Waarom zij die niet " zijn en volledig onwetend van het proces worden aangekondigd zijn dat moet worden genomen om ervoor te zorgen dat alle partijen die op dat plaatselijk niveau worden geïmpliceerd) tevreden zijn.

Beweringen van Optuigen enz.

De internationaal nieuwsmedia zoemen met verhalen over hoe deze vertragingen door de overheid veroorzaakt worden die tijd probeert te kopen en de verkiezing te monteren. Ik denk die alle verkiezingen ben ik binnen heb deelgenomen en in Zimbabwe waargenomen, is dit de meest vrije, eerlijke en concurrerende verkiezing geweest. Er was bijna geen geweld dat aan de verkiezing leidt. Voor het eerst, had u eigenlijk heel wat oppositiespartijen gebruikend hoofdstroom met inbegrip van overheid gecontroleerde media aan campagne en hebbend toegang tot het electoraat bijna op pari met de overheid [ik zag bijna, omdat de overheid altijd het voordeel van incumbency heeft. Als een overheidsminister een nieuw project bijvoorbeeld opdraagt, is dat een „nationale plicht“ en niet een politieke vergadering zodat zijn de kiesregels niet noodzakelijk van toepassing, maar om het even welke slimme exploitant zou dat platform gebruiken voor hun oorzaak] te stoppen. Dit betekent niet dat alles over de periode die aan de verkiezing leidt eerlijk was, maar ik denk het milieu werkelijk voor mensen heeft toegestaan om hun wil uit te drukken.

Zelfs het post-verkiezingsproces dat ik voorzien=heeft= veel meer billijkheid dan voordien heb gevonden. Wat aan me werkelijk verrassend is is de mate waarin onmiddellijk nadat de verkiezing werd gedaan, de belangrijkste oppositie (de partij MDC die door Morgan Tsvangirai wordt geleid) op globale media blitz die ging de verkiezing en reeds vestiging een milieu voor hen eist wordt gemonteerd die of niet zich werkelijk bewust van de details van het proces zijn, of die uit het veel verwijderd zijn om op dat alles vooruit te lopen gebeurt. Ik werd werkelijk verrast door dit en denk het om een werkelijk dunne tactiek te zijn.

Het monteren, als het plaatsvindt, gebeurt niet met mensen die vakjes hoogtepunt van document enz. vullen. Het gebeurt op zeer technische gronden waar zij die over kieswet en procedure meest minst geïnformeerdn zijn niet het weten hoe te om het spel volledig te spelen.

De meeste mensen die dit lezen zullen door wat worden verrast ik op het punt sta te zeggen, maar in mijn observaties, zag ik de grootste gevallen van vuil spel [vraag het optuigen als u] zal komend uit de oppositie. En hun methodologie voor dit is zeer verfijnd. Laat me proberen en verklaren…

Toen wij kinderen waren, was er een tactiek waar als er een geschil tussen ons was aangezien de jonge geitjes die, laat zeggen samen spelen, één jong geitjeklappen een andere, de initiatiefnemer van de overtreding aan een volwassene zou lopen en luidst en de eis zou schreeuwen zij werden geraakt. De volwassene zou uit in reactie lopen en aan de verrassing van iedereen dat uit bij de persoon let op zou geselen die eigenlijk smacked in de eerste plaats was, maar het was te laat, was het initiatief verloren door het „slachtoffer“. Het was een slimme tactiek die meestal werkte, maar het verliet de persoon die werkelijk het geraakte zeer was, zeer unjustly behandeld voelen.

Een gelijkaardig ding is in deze verkiezing gebeurd van wat ik heb gezien. MDC heeft uit het gillen dat wij zijn bedrogen, daar is het monteren enz. in werking gesteld. zij hebben smartly tog et iedereen geleid dat op de verkeerde plaats let terwijl zij zelfvoldaan de boeken koken waar zij kunnen. Het is een zeer dichte verkiezing in de meeste gevallen zo elk punt telt. Laat me u voorbeelden geven van wat bedoel ik, zonder specifieke plaatsen en situaties te vermelden aangezien dit wettelijke implicaties kon hebben.

Het wijdverspreide geloof is dat de overheid de verkiezing zal monteren omdat het zo populair is dat het de verkiezing niet kan vrij winnen. Zij zeggen het het zal monteren omdat het ambtenaren heeft opgesteld om op de verkiezing toezicht te houden. In werkelijkheid, de mensen die grootste animosity naar de overheid hebben zijn ambtenaren. Leraren, Verpleegsters, Politie enz. zij zijn de laagste betaalde mensen in het land en toch hebben het meest gedacht van hen. Zo vonden wij in 3 plaatsen, en ik denk dit een steekproefgedrag is van wat u nationaal zou vinden, waardoor u kiesambtenaren had, tewerkgesteld door de overheid die dingen ten gunste van de oppositie probeert te werken.
In één opiniepeilingspost, waar een overheidskandidaat had gewonnen en de documenten die dit bevestigen bij die post werden ondertekend, verdween de leveringsnota die moet om naar het Centrum van het Bevel met het resultaat „gaan.“ Er waren een hertelling en het opnieuw bezoeken van het gehele proces dat ik heb beschreven, kwam het resultaat opnieuw uit ten gunste van de overheid. Opnieuw, verdween de leveringsnota. Uiteindelijk, werd de beklaagde geïdentificeerdi en werd gearresteerd en de herhaalde processen nogmaals en het resultaat gingen uiteindelijk door. In dat kiesdistrict, won de regeringsvertegenwoordiger voor die zetel, en er waren ongelooflijke uit:stellen het vrijgeven van dat gegeven over eindeloos, undescribed technisch karakter. Uiteindelijk, moesten de vertegenwoordigers van de kiescommissie van het kapitaal van het gebied worden geroepen binnen om het te regelen.
Een ander incident, was er een geval waardoor een persoon die bureau van de overheid betekent een comfortabel lood in hun kiesdistrict met een marge meer dan 1000 stemmen had. Twee afdelingen waren nog - opmerkelijk [ongeveer 6 het krijgen posten]. Toen de resultaten binnen kwamen, won de vertegenwoordiger van ZANU PF [de het regeren partij] één kiesdistrict, en verloor andere. De marge van het verlies was beduidend kleiner dan duizend. De kandidaatopiniepeilingsagent verliet de scène het veronderstellen overwinning. Dit was op Maandag ochtend. Maandag middag, hoorden wij de resultaten aankondigden dat de kandidaat van ZANU PF door meer dan 2000 stemmen heeft verloren. Mathematisch, is dit niet mogelijk. Er was zekerst een „boekhoudingsfout“ in dat geval en het resultaat zal het waarschijnlijkst juridisch uitgedaagd worden.
De oppositie heeft elk van deze „parallelle“ structuren opgezet om de resultaten van de woordverkiezing te voeden aangezien „zij“ hen zien. Wat van hen zijn zo in grote trekken verkeerd zijn het storen. Gisteren ontwierpen zij dat van de 210 Lagere zetels van het Huis, de overheid slechts 50 heeft gewonnen, oppositie 117 en het saldo dat naar onafhankelijken gaat - die natuurlijk een landdia voor de oppositie zouden betekenen. Als type van I, zijn ongeveer 90 resultaten voor het Huis van Assemblage aangekondigd met 43 gaand naar ZANU PF, 41 die naar één factie van MDC (de factie van Tsvangirai) gaan en het saldo naar onafhankelijken en de kleinere Factie MDC.

Één ding dat wordt gedaan wat zou kunnen worden gezien controversieel is dat de resultaten in de vroege stadia bijna op een evenwichtige manier - d.w.z. worden aangekondigd, kondigt u één overwinning voor de oppositie, voor de overheid enz. aan één reden om dit te doen kan zijn zodat u geen verwachtingen van één kant opheft en dan een Kenia-Type geschil hebt wanneer def. schommeling in tegenspraak aan vroege resultaten resulteert. Ik denk dit steek houdt omdat u rust in zulk een gespannen situatie wilt handhaven. Die die voor te doen dit bepleiten „zoals de resultaten verschijnen“ om niet van wat schijn geleerd te hebben enkel het noorden van Zimbabwe een paar maanden geleden gebeurde.

Ik ben zeker er gevallen van overheids (ZANU PF) optuigen dat zijn ook gebeurt, maar ik denk de ellende van ZANU meer vóór de verkiezing is gedaan, in het proces dat aan het eerder dan leidt tijdens of de verkiezing gepost. Maar ik ben zeker anderen elders hun eigen rapporten en perspectieven op dit te delen, vooral die hebben die of de verkiezing voor plaatsen deelnemen waarnemen die overweldigend ZANU PF steunen, waarvan Matabeleland geen traditioneel één van hen is.

Tegendeel aan „populaire“ verwachtingen
De meeste commentators buiten het land verwachten dat de beslissende partij en de voorzitter verliest de verkiezing. De economische situatie en een milieu dat eigenlijk meer van een vrijere uitdrukking van de wil toestaat van mensen worden aangehaald als enkele beïnvloedende factoren in die berekeningen. Dit is het aannemelijke denken aan één of andere graad. Ik verwachtte niet de voorzitter om te hebben om het even welk steun in Matabeleland bij allen. Gezien de geschiedenis van dit gebied, gezien de economische situatie en de sterke steun heeft de oppositie altijd hier gehad, was ik verrast om de resultaten in sommige plaatsen te zien.

U zou resultaten in een opiniepeilingspost waar de voorzitter zien die door een significante marge over zijn tegenstanders wordt gewonnen. U zou wat waar hij door een zeer brede marge verloor, en anderen krijgen die dicht waren. Ik verwachtte dat hem zeker verliest overal in dit deel van het land. Het blijkt die manier niet. Op de meeste gebieden hier waar ik dingen omhoog dicht, behalve Bulawayo en stedelijke centra waarnam, schijnt de presidentiële wedstrijd om tussen Robert Mugabe en Simba Makoni geweest te zijn. Verrassend, is er niet veel tractie voor Morgan Tsvangirai (die in de noordelijke en oostelijke gebieden van het land) verschillend kan zijn. In één volledig kiesdistrict, sloeg Robert Mugabe Simba Makoni in de definitieve aantekening van ongeveer 55 het krijgen posten! Het was een kleine marge maar uiterst het verrassen. In het algemeen, denk ik hij Matabeleland zal verliezen, maar niet door de brede marges voorspellen de mensen.

Waar er zijn is de grootste vluchtigheid in de verkiezing de lokale raden geweest. Dat is waar u de meest verrassende resultaten met velen krijgt, vele gevestigde exploitanten die uit worden geworpen. In terugblik, houdt het steek omdat die de kandidaten zijn zij het beste kennen, die het directste contact hebben en beïnvloeden en de mensen één of andere vorm van controle waarover hebben. Opnieuw, verraste dat me, gezien de verkiezingen altijd als presidentiële wedstrijd hoofdzakelijk zijn gefactureerd.

Het grappige ding is dat, hebt u externe commentators die door de overwinningen worden verrast die de overheid economisch ondanks de situatie bereikt. Ik ben van mening dat de meeste mensen die voor de voorzitter of het regeren van partijkandidaten stemmen werkelijk dit uit hun wil hebben gedaan. Velen hebben niet verkozen te stemmen [vandaar de lage kiezersopkomst] om de redenen. Wanneer u een „democratische“ verkiezing hebt, en de kandidaat geen die de buitenstaanders verkiezen wint, is er altijd een probleem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

زمبابوي إنتخاب تحديث
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
هناك عملية ممتعة جدّا أيّ أنا يتلقّى يكون هكذا فضّلت أن يلاحظ من أماميّة صف مقعد. بما أنّ أنا أكتب, أعلنت نتيجة انتخابات يكون من فرق أجناس عبر البلد, هم يظهرون ببطء, غير أنّ بالتّأكيد. أنا أفكّر هو مهمّة أن يعطي سياق إلى كيف هذا إنتخاب يتلقّى يكون ثبتت فوق:
هناك 4 إنتخابات مختلفة يحدث في وقت واحد: محلّية مجلس إنتخابات, مجلس الشّعب مقاعد برلمانيّة [منزل الاجتماع], المنزل علويّة مجلس نواب [المجلس الشيوخ] والرئاسة. هناك 1 958 محلّية مجلس مقاعد فوق لإنتخاب في 1 958 حراسة حول البلد, هناك 210 منزل من اجتماع مقاعد فوق لإختطاف, هناك ثلاثين مجلس الشيوخ مقاعد وواحدة مقعد رئاسيّة. الآن يتلقّى [إش ون] من هذا موقعات على الأقلّ اثنان مرشحات يعترض, مع بعض يتلقّى [أس مني] كسبعة مرشحات (وفي أخرى حالات أكثر). هكذا هناك [ا لوت] الالناس يتضمّن في يعترض ل [ألّ ث] ينتخب مكاتب في زمبابوي.

ال [بوست-فوتينغ] عملية انتخابيّة

قد أتى العملية بنفسي, أنّ حوالي من [سري] المفاوضات بين الحكومة والمعارضة على المسلك من السابقة 12 شهور قد عنى أنّ تغيرات هامّة يتلقّى يكون جعلت إلى القانون انتخابيّة في البلد. يتطلّب قانون جديدة أنّ كلّ إقتراع محطة يعدّ اقتراع سرّيّهم في المحطة - هذا [إين وردر تو] تفاديت يجهّز أو يعبث مع [بلّوت بوإكس] في عمليّة عبور إلى أيّ أخرى موقعة. أتمّت هذا يتلقّى يكون وفق القانون [إين فري كس]. في حراسة, أنت يستطيع أفقت إلى 3 أو 4 إقتراع محطات [دبندينغ ون] السّكان معطيات. في مجموعة ناخبين, أنت يستطيع حصلت [أس مني] ك 15 حراسة. هذا يعني أنّ لكلّ مجموعة ناخبين يحصل أنت حوالي 60 إقتراع محطات.

عندما أتمّت ال يقترع داخل أنّ إقتراع محطة, يعدّ لكلّ أربعة مقاعد يبدأ - المجلس محلّية, المجلس الشّعب, المنزل علويّة والرئاسة. ل كلّ مرشح, هناك إقتراع عاملة حاضرة أن يرأس على ال يعدّ وأن يعترض ماذا هم يمكن اعتبرت أن يكون إنحرافات من [دو بروسسّ] أو قانون. نتيجة فقط رسميّة عندما [ألّ ث] إقتراع يوافق عاملات إلى هو; بالتّالي في الحالة حيث هناك يكون مجادلات, هذا يستطيع أخذت فترة. الآن تذكّرت, أنّ يحدث هذا ل كلّ اقتراع سرّيّ وحيدة, وكلّ مرشح ممثلات يستطيع جادلت سببهم. عندما بلغت نتيجة نهائيّة و [أغر وبون] بكلّ أحزاب وكلّ شخص يقع أن يؤكّد مثل هذا, النتيجة ل أنّ إقتراع محطة عيّنت على المدخل طريق إلى أنّ محطة. أرسلت النتيجة رسميّة بعد ذلك إلى ال "أمر مركز" من أنّ مجموعة ناخبين. هكذا في كلّ مجموعة ناخبين, اضطرّ هم انتظرت لكلّ ثلاثين أو هكذا إقتراع محطات أن يبلغ أنّ إتفاق, وبعد ذلك يرسل النتيجات إلى مكان مركزية حيث هم يكون فحصت, وثانية [أغر وبون] ب [ألّ ث] [إلكأيشن جنت] رئيسيّة من المرشحات [إن هم اختاروا أن يتلقّى عاملات مثّلتهم] وبعد ذلك نتيجة نهائيّة بلغت. هكذا في هذا حالات, أنت يستطيع تخيّلت [هوو لونغ] هذا عملية يمكن أخذت يعطي أنّ [(ي)] هذا [ث فيرست تيم] أنّ أتمّت هذا كان في زمبابوي; اعترضت [(يي)] بما أنّ في كبيرة [سبورتينغ] لعبة, العالم [كب فينل] أو شيء, كلّ امتلاك - ال نفس مع هذا إنتخابات. ; [(ييي)] في بعض من المجموعة ناخبين ريفيّة [واقعيّا, في أكثر من هم] الطرق مريعة. أحيانا, [نون-إكسيستنت]. هكذا يتحرّك بعد من 30 كيلومترات يستطيع واقعيّا أخذت [أس لونغ س] ساعة ونصف إلى اثنان ساعات. هكذا حركة بطيئة ومعقّدة. وهناك ما من هواتف أو اتصال الكتروني.

هكذا العملية بطيئة واحدة, ويفكّر أنا كثير الناس يتمّون الجيّدة أن يحصل هذا نتيجات خارجا مثل سريعة بما أنّ يمكن.

أنا لاحظت العملية في ثلاثة مجموعة ناخبين انتخابيّة في [متبللند] ريفيّة. يكتب في أماكن ريفيّة جدّا لذلك أنا حول كلّ من هذا من خبرة مباشرة. العمليّة تصويت ينفضّ يوم السّبت في [7بم]. في الواحدة مجموعة ناخبين حصل نحن فقط نتيجة نهائيّة (عقب العملية أعلاه كان كاملة وكلّ [أغر وبون]) على يوم الإثنين صباح. آخر واحدة فقط بيوم الإثنين العصر. أخرى ليس بعد كاملة.

الغلطة كثير الناس يكون يجعلون أنّ يرى هم النتيجة خارج واحدة إقتراع محطة, لقطة أنّ كالنتيجة إجماليّة وبعد ذلك يصرخون "أنّ نتيجات يكون خارجا. لما يكونون هم لا يكون يعلن " ويكون تماما جاهلة من العملية أنّ ينبغي كنت أخذت أن يضمن أنّ أرضيت كلّ أحزاب يتضمّن في أنّ مستوى محلّية.

ادّعاءات اللازم [إتك]

يطنّ ال [نوس مديوم] دوليّة مع قصص حول كيف هذا يؤخّرون يكون يكون سبّبت بالحكومة يحاول أن يشتري وقت وجهّزت الإنتخاب. أنا أفكّر أنّ يكون [ألّ ث] إنتخابات أنا قد ساهمت داخل ويلاحظ في زمبابوي, هذا يكون ال أكثر حرّة, عادلة وإنتخاب تنافسيّة. هناك كان تقريبا ما من عنف [لد وب] إلى الإنتخاب. [فور ث فيرست تيم], تلقّى أنت واقعيّا [ا لوت] من معارضة أحزاب يستعمل تيار رئيسيّة بما في ذلك حكومة يضبط أوساط أن يشترك ويتلقّى منفذة إلى الجمهور الناخبين تقريبا على تكافؤ مع الحكومة [أنا منشار تقريبا, لأنّ الحكومة دائما يتلقّى الميزة الواجب. إن حكومة وزيرة يكون ينتدب مشروع جديدة مثلا, أنّ "واجب رسم وطنيّة" ولا اجتماع سياسيّة لذلك يطبّق القواعد انتخابيّة لا بالضّرورة, غير أنّ أيّ [سمرت وبرتور] استعمل أنّ منصة أن يسدّ لسببهم]. لا يعني هذا أنّ كلّ شيء حول الفترة [لد وب] إلى الإنتخاب كان عادلة, غير أنّ أنا أفكّر البيئة حقّا قد سمح لالناس أن عبّر عن إرادتهم.

حتّى قد زوّد العملية [بوست-لكأيشن] أنا أشعر ل كثير كثير إنصاف من من قبل. ماذا يكون حقّا يفاجئ إلى ي يكون المدى إلى أيّ [إيمّديتلي فتر] أتمّت الإنتخاب كان, المعارضة رئيسيّة (ال [مدك] حزب يقاد ب [مورغن] [تسفنجري]) ذهب على أوساط شاملة غارة جويّة يدّعي الإنتخاب يكون يكون جهّزت وسابقا [ستّينغ-وب] بيئة ل أنّ الذي يكون إمّا لا حقّا مدركة من التفاصيل من العملية, أو الذي يكون بعيدا أزلت من هو أن [برجودج] كلّ أنّ يكون يحدث. فاجأت أنا كان حقّا ب هذا ويفكّر هو أن يكون تكتيك رديئة حقّا.

لا يحدث يجهّز, إن هو يكون يتمّ, مع الناس يحشو صناديق تماما من ورقة [إتك.]. هو يحدث على أراضي فنّيّة جدّا حيث أنّ الذي يكون على الأقلّ يعلم على انتخابيّة قانون وإجراء لا يعرف كيف أن يلعب اللعبة كلّيّا.

سيفاجئ كثير الناس يقرأ هذا كنت ب ماذا أنا أكون حوالي أن يقول, غير أنّ في بطاقاتي, أنا منشار الحالات عظيمة من لعبة فاسدة [دعوة هو لازم إن أنت تريد] يأتي من المعارضة. ومنهجيّتهم ل هذا جدّا راقي. تركتني حاولت وفسّرت…

عندما كان نحن أطفال, هناك كان تكتيك حيث إن هناك كان مجادلة بين نا بما أنّ جديات يلعب معا, يتركون رأي, واحدة جدية يضرب آخر, المبتكرة من الانتهاك ركض إلى بالغ وصرخ المرتفعة وإدعاء هم كان ضربت. ركض البالغ خارجا في إستجابة وإلى المفاجأة من كلّ شخص يراقب جلد خارجا في الشخص الذي واقعيّا كان فاح في المكان أولى, غير أنّ هو كان أيضا متأخّرة, المبادرة تلقّى يكون خسرت ب ال "ضحية". هو كان تكتيك ذكيّة أيّ عمل أكثر من الوقت, غير أنّ هو يسارا الشخص الذي كان حقّا يضرب إحساس جدّا, جدّا بغير حقّ يعامل.

قد حدث شيء مماثلة في هذا إنتخاب من ماذا أنا قد رأيت. قد ركض ال [مدك] خارجا يصرخ أنّ نحن يتلقّى يكون خادعت, هناك لازم [إتك.]. يدير هم يتلقّى [سمرتلي] [توغ] [إت] كلّ شخص يراقب المكان خاطئة بينما هم [سموغلي] يطبخون الكتب حيث هم يستطيعون. هو إنتخاب قريبة جدّا [إين موست كسس] لذلك كلّ نقطة حسابات. تركتني أعطيت أنت مثل من ماذا أنا أعني, دون يذكر خاصّة موقعات وحالات بما أنّ هذا استطاع يتلقّى [لغل يمبليكأيشن].

الإعتقاد واسع انتشار أنّ سيجهّز الحكومة الإنتخاب لأنّ هو يكون هكذا شعبيّة أنّ هو يستطيع لا يربح الإنتخاب تماما. هم يقولون سيجهّز هو هو لأنّ هو قد نشر [سفيل سرفنت] أن يراقب الإنتخاب. في حقيقة, الالناس الذي يتلقّى العداءة عظيمة نحو الحكومة [سفيل سرفنت]. معلمات, [نورسس], شرطة [إتك.]. هم الالناس منخفضة بمقابل في البلد [أند ت] يتلقّى ال أكثر يتوقّع من هم. هكذا أسّس نحن في 3 أماكن, وأنا أفكّر هذا عينة تصرف من ماذا أنت وجدت [نأيشن ويد], [وهربي] أنت تلقّيت مسؤولات انتخابيّة, يستخدم بالحكومة يحاول أن يعمل أشياء [إين ففوور وف] المعارضة.
في واحدة إقتراع محطة, حيث حكومة مرشح كان قد ربح والورقة يؤكّد هذا كان وقعت في أنّ محطة, ال [دليفري نوت] يعنى أن يذهب إلى الأمر مركز مع النتيجة "يختفى." هناك كان تعداد ثان وأتى يزور من العملية كاملة أنا قد وصفت, النتيجة ثانية خارجا [إين ففوور وف] الحكومة. ثانية, اختفى ال [دليفري نوت]. أخيرا, عيّنت المتهمة كان وأوقف والعمليات كرّسوا [أنس غين] والنتيجة أخيرا ذهب كلّيّا. في أنّ مجموعة ناخبين, الحكومة كان ممثلة ل أنّ مقعد يربح, وهناك غيرمعقول يؤخّر في يطلق أنّ معطيات على لانهائيّة, [أوندسكريبد] صفة تقنيّة. أخيرا, ممثلات من العمولة انتخابيّة من المنطقة رأس مال اضطرّ كنت دعات داخل أن يقرّر هو.
آخر حادث, كان هناك حالة [وهربي] شخص يقف لمكتب من الحكومة تلقّى رصاص مريحة في مجموعت ناخبينهم مع هامش من على 1000 إقتراعات. كان اثنان حراسة [ستيلّ-ووتستندينغ] [حوالي 6 إقتراع محطات]. عندما أتى نتيجات داخل, ال [زنو] [بف] [ال يحكم حزب] ممثلة ربح واحدة مجموعة ناخبين, وخسر الأخرى. كان الهامش من الخسارة بشكل ملحوظ صغيرة من ألف. المرشح إقتراع ترك عاملة المشهد نصرة متعجرفة. هذا كان على يوم الإثنين صباح. يوم الإثنين العصر, سمع نحن النتيجات أعلنوا أنّ ال [زنو] [بف] مرشح قد خسر جانبا على 2000 إقتراعات. حسابيّا, ليس هذا يمكن. هناك كان أكثر بالتّأكيد "محاسبة خطأ" داخل أنّ سيتحدّى حالة والنتيجة أكثر على الأرجح كنت قانونيّا.
قد ثبت المعارضة فوق كلّ من هذا "موازية" بنى أن يغذّي الكلمة نتيجة انتخابات بما أنّ "هم" يرونهم. بعض من هم هكذا إجمالا خطأه يزعج. بالأمس سلّط هم أنّ من 210 مجلس الشّعب مقاعد, الحكومة قد ربح فقط 50, المعارضة 117 والميزان يذهب إلى عضو مستقلّ - أيّ [أف كورس] عنى أرض منزلقة للمعارضة. بما أنّ أنا أطبع, حوالي 90 أعلنت نتيجات للمنزل الاجتماع يتلقّى يكون مع 43 يذهب إلى [زنو] [بف], 41 يذهب إلى واحدة زمرة من ال [مدك] ([تسفنجري] زمرة) والميزان إلى عضو مستقلّ والصغيرة [مدك] زمرة.

واحدة شيء أنّ يكون يكون أتمّت أيّ استطاع كنت رأيت كخلافيّة أنّ أعلنت النتيجات في المرحلة مبكرة يكون تقريبا في طريقة متوازنة - [إي.], أنت يعلن واحدة نصرة للمعارضة, واحدة للحكومة [إتك.]. واحدة سبب ل يتمّ هذا يمكن كنت [س ثت] أنت لا ترفع توقعات من واحدة جانب وبعد ذلك يتلقّى [كن-تب] مجادلة عندما يترجّح النتيجات نهائيّة في تناقض إلى نتيجات مبكّرة. أنا أفكّر يجعل هذا إحساس لأنّ أنت تريد أن يبقي هدوء في هذا حالة متوتّرة. أنّ يدافع ل هذا أن يكون أتمّت "بما أنّ نتيجات يظهرون" يبدو أن لا يتلقّى علمت من ماذا حدث شمال صحيحة زمبابوي [ا فو مونثس غو].

أنا يوقن هناك حالات من حكومة ([زنو] [بف]) لازم يحدث أيضا, غير أنّ يفكّر أنا [زنو] ضرر أكثر يتلقّى يكون أتمّت قبل الإنتخاب, في العملية [لد وب] إلى هو [رثر ثن] أثناء أو عيّنت الإنتخاب. غير أنّ أنا يوقن يتلقّى أخرى في مكان آخر هم خاصّة تقارير و [برسبكتيفس] أن يشارك على هذا, خصوصا أنّ يساهم أو يلاحظ الإنتخاب لأماكن أنّ بشدّة يساند [زنو] [بف], [أف وهيش] [متبللند] ليس تقليديّا واحدة من هم.

عكس إلى "شعبيّة" توقعات
يتوقّع كثير معلقات خارج البلد ال يحكم حزب ورئيس أن يخسر الإنتخاب. ذكرت ال [إكنوميك ستثأيشن] وبيئة أنّ واقعيّا يسمح أكثر من تعبير [فرير] من الناس إرادة بما أنّ بعض من ال يأثر عاملات في أنّ حسابات. هذا محتملة يفكّر إلى بعض درجة. أنا لم أتوقّع الرئيس أن يتلقّى أيّ دعم في [متبللند] في كلّ. فاجأت يعطي التاريخ من هذا منطقة, يعطى ال [إكنوميك ستثأيشن] والدعم قوّيّة المعارضة يتلقّى دائما يتلقّى هنا, أنا كان أن يرى النتيجات في بعض أماكن.

أنت رأيت نتيجات في إقتراع محطة حيث الرئيس ربح بهامش هامّة على مقاوماته. أنت حصلت بعض حيث هو خسر ب جدّا يوسع هامش, وأخرى أنّ كان قريبة. أنا بالتّأكيد توقّعته أن يخسر في كلّ مكان في هذا جزء من البلد. هو لا [تثرن ووت] أنّ طريق. في كثير مناطق هنا حيث أنا لاحظت يغلق أشياء فوق, باستثناء [بولوو] و [أوربن سنتر], المسابقة رئاسيّة يبدوون أن يتلقّى كنت بين روبرت [موغب] و [سمبا] [مكوني]. بشكل عجيب, ليس هناك كثير عمليّة جرّ ل [مورغن] [تسفنجري] (أيّ يمكن كنت مختلفة في الشماليّة ومناطق شرقيّة من البلد). في واحدة مجموعة ناخبين كاملة, روبرت [موغب] نبض [سمبا] [مكوني] في اليافطة نهائيّة من حوالي 55 إقتراع محطات! هو كان هامش صغيرة غير أنّ جدّا يفاجئ. [إين جنرل,] يفكّر أنا هو سيخسر [متبللند], غير أنّ لا ب ال يوسع هوامش الناس تنبّأت.

حيث هناك يكون قد كان التطايرية عظيمة في الإنتخاب المجالس محلّية. أنّ حيث أنت تحصل ال أكثر يفاجئ نتيجات مع كثير, كثير مسؤول كبير يكون يرمى خارجا. في استعادة ماضي, يجعل هو إحساس لأنّ أنّ يكون المرشحات هم يعرفون الجيّدة, أنّ يتلقّى الاتّصال مباشرة أكثر ويأثر وأنّ يعمّرون يتلقّى بعض شكل التحكم على. ثانية, فاجأني أنّ, يعطي أنّ الإنتخابات يتلقّى دائما يكون فوترت كمسابقة رئاسيّة أوّلا.

الشيء مضحكة أنّ, أنت يتلقّى معلقات خارجيّة يفاجأ بالنصرة أنّ يحقّق الحكومة على الرغم من الحالة اقتصاديّا. أنا أشعر أنّ كثير الناس الذي يقترع للرئيس أو يحكم حزب مرشحات يتلقّى حقّا يتمّون لذلك من إرادتهم. قد اختار كثير لا أن يقترع [بالتّالي المنخفضة مقترعة [تثرن ووت]] ل أيّما أسباب. عندما يتلقّى أنت "ديموقراطيّة" إنتخاب, والمرشح أنّ دخيلات لا يفضّلون فوز, هناك دائما مشكلة. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Coup d’Media in Zimbabwe

It is shocking how the media in South Africa and that emanating mainly from countries in Europe and North America has gone ahead and made bold declarations about Zimbabwe’s recent election without paying much attention to the legal proceedings that dictate the unfolding of events here.

1. they have been drumming up since before voting closed been declaring that the president, Robert Mugabe, as lost the election, and the blitz has been so total that the intention seems to be to convince the whole world that the desired outcome of people not in Zimbabwe, who did not vote, becomes the dominant perception and in a way, reality.
2. the bias on the commentary on the satellite TV station is not surprising, but it is surprisingly anti most of the ethics and values you associate with the ‘independent press.’
3. the media went on for days about how the president and the ruling party were attempting to ‘rig’ the election. The opposition has gone on to declare victory unilaterally before any of the processes stated under law are complete which are actually slow by their nature and based on the nature of this most recent election. No one is accusing the opposition of ‘stealing’ the election. Where is the balance there? Imagine the President had declared himself the winner Sunday morning. What would those same ‘defenders of democracy’ have stated?
a. The same opposition which woke up the morning after the election is claiming fraud is now claiming that the same fraudulent election is one which they have won… how?
b. The same people who stated last night that they will wait for the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to issue the official results and that they will follow the official results have now gone and stated that they will declare victory based on their own results which they have collated [some of which I have seen and are very different to what has been the actual results]. Yet the same media stations are accepting, tolerating and even promoting all of this.
c. Imagine if the government had done the same – the outrage, and retaliation by the ‘international community.’

Then when Robert Mugabe rages on about his fight against imperialism and western domination, and western bullying and the lack of respect of the principles of sovereignty, people say he is a disgruntled old dictator? Wouldn’t you be upset if you were in his position everyday for 15 years?

If i had the time, i would do a fuller analysis of this, but i am not sure it's even worth the time. No one out there listens to any other perspectives other than the ones that they want to see as reality

Couverture médiatique globale ridicule de l'élection du Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Médias du coup d des' au Zimbabwe

il choque comment les médias en Afrique du Sud et cela émanant principalement des pays en Europe et Amérique du Nord a avancé et des déclarations audacieux faites au sujet de l'élection récente du Zimbabwe sans prêter beaucoup d'attention à l'instance judiciaire qui dictent le déploiement des événements ici.

1. ils avaient battu du tambour vers le haut depuis avant le vote clôturé déclarant que le président, Robert Mugabe, en tant qu'a perdu l'élection, et l'attaque éclaire a été si total que l'intention semble être de convaincre le monde entier que les résultats désirés des personnes pas au Zimbabwe, qui n'a pas voté, ne devient pas la perception dominante et d'une certaine manière, réalité.
2. la polarisation sur le commentaire sur la station de télévision par satellite n'étonne pas, mais elle est étonnamment anti la plupart de l'éthique et des valeurs que vous associez à de la pression indépendante' 3
de `. les médias ont continué pendant des jours au sujet de la façon dont le président et la partie régnante essayaient à l'installation de `' l'élection. L'opposition a continué pour déclarer la victoire unilatéralement avant que les processus l'uns des indiqués en vertu de la loi soient complets qui sont réellement lents par leur nature et soient basés sur la nature de cette élection la plus récente. Personne n'accuse l'opposition du `volant' l'élection. Où est l'équilibre là ? Imaginez que le président s'était déclaré de gagnant dimanche matin. Que ces mêmes défenseurs de `de démocratie' auraient-ils énoncé ?
a. La même opposition qui a réveillé le matin après que l'élection réclame la fraude réclame maintenant que la même élection frauduleuse est une qu'ils ont gagnée… comment ?
b. Le même peuple qui a énoncé la nuit passée qu'ils attendront la Commission électorale du Zimbabwe à la question le fonctionnaire résulte et qu'ils suivront les résultats officiels est maintenant allé déclarer qu'ils déclareront la victoire basée sur leurs propres résultats qu'ils ont assemblés [certains dont j'ai vu et suis très différent à ce qui a été les résultats réels]. Pourtant les mêmes stations de médias sont acceptantes, tolérant et égal favorisant toute la ceci.
c. Imaginez si le gouvernement avait fait la même chose - l'outrage, et revanche par la communauté internationale de `. '

Puis quand les fureurs de Robert Mugabe sur environ son combat contre l'impérialisme et domination occidentale, et intimider occidental et le manque de respect des principes de la souveraineté, les gens indiquent est-il un vieux dictateur contrarié ? Ne seriez-vous pas dérangé si vous étiez en sa position journalière pendant 15 années ?

Si j'avais le temps, je ferais une analyse plus complète de ceci, mais je ne suis pas sûr il a lieu même en valeur le temps. Personne dehors n'écoute là aucune autre perspective autres que celle qu'elles veulent voir comme réalité

Cobertura de medios global ridícula de la elección de Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
Medios del golpe d los' en Zimbabwe

está dando una sacudida eléctrica cómo los medios en Suráfrica y ésa que emanaban principalmente de países en Europa y Norteamérica han ido a continuación y los declaraciones en negrilla hechos sobre la elección reciente de Zimbabwe sin prestar mucha atención a los procesos jurídicos que dictan el unfolding de acontecimientos aquí.

1. han estado tecleando para arriba desde entonces antes la votación cerrada declarando que el presidente, Roberto Mugabe, como perdió la elección, y el bombardeo ha sido tan totales que la intención se parece ser convencer el mundo entero que el resultado deseado de la gente no en Zimbabwe, que no votó, no se convierte en la opinión dominante y de una manera, realidad.
2. el diagonal en el comentario en la estación de la TV vía satélite no está sorprendiendo, sino que es asombrosamente contra la mayor parte de el ética y los valores que usted se asocia a la presión' 3 de la independiente
del `. los medios se encendieron por días sobre cómo el presidente y el partido predominante procuraban al aparejo del `' la elección. La oposición se ha encendido declarar la victoria unilateral antes de que los procesos uces de los indicados bajo ley sean completos que son realmente lentos por su naturaleza y se basen en la naturaleza de esta elección más reciente. Nadie está acusando la oposición de `que roba' la elección. ¿Dónde está el equilibrio allí? Imagínese que el presidente se había declarado la mañana de domingo del ganador. ¿Qué esos mismos defensores del `de la democracia' habrían indicado?
a. ¿La misma oposición que despertó la mañana después de que la elección esté demandando fraude ahora está demandando que la misma elección fraudulenta es una que han ganado… cómo?
b. La misma gente que indicó el ayer por la noche que ella esperará a Comisión electoral de Zimbabwe para publicar los resultados oficiales y que ella seguirá los resultados oficiales ahora ha ido indicar que ella declarará la victoria basada en sus propios resultados que ella ha compaginado [alguna de quien he visto y soy muy diferente a cuál ha sido los resultados reales]. Con todo las mismas estaciones de los medios son que aceptan, tolerando y uniforme promoviendo todo el esto.
c. Imagínese si el gobierno había hecho igual - el ultraje, y venganza de la comunidad internacional del `. ¿'

Entonces cuándo las rabias de Roberto Mugabe en alrededor su lucha contra imperialismo y dominación occidental, y el bullying occidental y la carencia del respecto de los principios de la soberanía, gente dicen él es viejo dictador contrariedad? ¿Usted no estaría trastornado si usted estaba en su posición diaria por 15 años?

Si tuviera el tiempo, haría un análisis más completo de esto, pero no soy seguro él soy incluso digno de el tiempo. Nadie hacia fuera allí escucha cualquier otra perspectiva con excepción de las que él desea ver como realidad

Riempimento di mezzi globale Ridiculous dell'elezione dello Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Mezzi di colpo d' nello Zimbabwe

sta scuotendo come i mezzi in Sudafrica e quella che emanano pricipalmente dai paesi Europa ed in America del Nord ha andato avanti e dichiarazioni GRASSETTO fatte circa l'elezione recente dello Zimbabwe senza prestare molta attenzione alle azioni giudiziarie che dettano lo spiegamento degli eventi qui.

1. stanno tamburellando da allora in su prima il voto del chiuso che dichiarano che il presidente, Robert Mugabe, come ha perso l'elezione ed il blitz è stato così totale che l'intenzione sembra essere convincere il mondo intero che il risultato voluto della gente non nello Zimbabwe, che non ha votato, non si trasforma in nella percezione dominante ed in un senso, la realtà.
2. la polarizzazione sul commento sulla stazione della TV satellite non sta sorpresendo, ma è sorprendentemente anti la maggior parte dell'etica e dei valori che vi associate con la pressione indipendente' 3
del `. i mezzi hanno acceso per i giorni circa come il presidente ed il partito di regolamento stavano tentando all'impianto di perforazione del `' l'elezione. L'opposizione ha continuato a dichiarare unilateralmente la vittoria prima che c'è ne dei processi dichiarati secondo legge fossero completi che sono realmente lenti per la loro natura e fossero basati sulla natura di questa elezione più recente. Nessuno sta accusando l'opposizione di `che ruba' l'elezione. Dove è l'equilibrio là? Immagini che il presidente si era dichiarato la mattina di domenica del vincitore. Che cosa quelle stesse protezioni del `della democrazia' avrebbero dichiarato?
a. La stessa opposizione che ha svegliato la mattina dopo che l'elezione stia esigendo la frode ora sta sostenendo che la stessa elezione fraudolenta è una che hanno vinto… come?
b. La stessa gente che ha dichiarato la notte scorsa che aspetteranno la Commissione elettorale dello Zimbabwe per pubblicare i risultati ufficiali e che seguiranno i risultati ufficiali ora è andato e dichiarato che dichiareranno la vittoria basata sui loro propri risultati che hanno fascicolato [alcuni di cui ho visto e sono molto differente a che cosa è stato i risultati reali]. Tuttavia le stesse stazioni di mezzi sono accettanti, tollerando e perfino promuovendo tutto il questa.
c. Immagini se il governo avesse fatto lo stesso - l'oltraggio e rappresaglia dalla Comunità internazionale del `. '

Allora quando le collere del Robert Mugabe circa sulla sua lotta contro l'imperialismo e la dominazione occidentale e bullying occidentale e la mancanza di rispetto dei principii della sovranità, la gente dicono è un dictator anziano disgruntled? Non sareste rovesciati se foste nella sua posizione giornaliere per 15 anni?

Se avessi il tempo, farei un'analisi più completa di questo, ma non sono sicuro esso ho luogo neppure degno il tempo. Nessuno fuori là ascolta tutte le altre prospettive tranne quelle che desiderino vedere come realtà

Lächerliche globale Mittel-Deckung von Wahl Zimbabwes
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
Mittel des Coup-d' in Zimbabwe

entsetzt es, wie die Mittel in Südafrika und in dem, die hauptsächlich von den Ländern in Europa und in Nordamerika ausströmen, voran und abgegebene fette Erklärungen über Zimbabwes neue Wahl gegangen ist, ohne viel Aufmerksamkeit auf die Gerichtsverfahren zu lenken, die den Unfolding von Fällen hier vorschreiben.

1. sie haben oben seit dem getrommelt vorher das Wählen geschlossen, erklärend, daß der Präsident, Robert Mugabe, als verlor die Wahl, und der überraschungsangriff ist so total gewesen, daß die Absicht scheint, die ganze Welt, daß das gewünschte Resultat der Leute nicht in Zimbabwe, der wählte, nicht, die dominierende Vorstellung und in einer Weise, Wirklichkeit wird zu überzeugen zu sein.
2. die Vorspannung auf dem Kommentar auf der Satelliten-Fernsehapparat Station überrascht nicht, aber sie ist überraschend Anti- die meisten der Ethik und Werten, die Sie mit dem `unabhängigen Druck' 3
verbinden. die Mittel gingen für Tage über weiter, wie der Präsident und die regierende Partei zur `Anlage' die Wahl versuchten. Die Opposition hat fortgefahren, Sieg einseitig zu erklären, bevor irgendwelche der Prozesse, die unter Gesetz angegeben werden, die wirklich durch ihre Natur langsam sind und auf der Natur dieser neuesten Wahl basieren komplett sind. Niemand beschuldigt die Opposition vom `' die Wahl stehlend. Wo ist die Balance dort? Stellen Sie vor sich, daß der Präsident sich der Sieger Sonntag Morgen erklärt hatte. Was würden jene gleichen `Verteidiger der Demokratie' angegeben haben?
a. Die gleiche Opposition, die den Morgen aufwachte, nachdem die Wahl Betrug behauptet, behauptet jetzt, daß die gleiche betrügerische Wahl eine ist, die sie… wie gewonnen haben?
b. Die gleichen Leute, die gestern Abend angaben, dem sie warten, daß die Zimbabwe Wahlkommission die amtlichen Resultate herausgibt und dem sie den amtlichen Resultaten folgen, sind jetzt gegangen angeben, daß sie den Sieg erklären, der auf ihren eigenen Resultaten basiert, die sie sortiert haben [von denen einige ich sehr verschieden gesehen und bin habe von, was die tatsächlichen Resultate gewesen ist]. Dennoch sind lassen die gleichen Mittelstationen annehmend und und gleichmäßig zu, die ganze dieses fördernd.
c. Stellen Sie sich wenn die Regierung hatte getan das selbe vor - das Verbrechen und Vergeltung durch die `internationale Gemeinschaft. '

Dann wann Robert Mugabe Raserei auf ungefähr seinem Kampf gegen Imperialismus und westliche Herrschaft und das westliche Tyrannisieren und der Mangel an Respekt der Grundregeln der Hoheit, Leute sagt, ist er ein disgruntled alter Diktator? Würden nicht Sie umgekippt, wenn Sie in seiner Position waren, die für 15 Jahre täglich ist?

Wenn ich die Zeit hatte, würde ich eine vollere Analyse von diesem tun, aber ich bin nicht es bin sogar wert die Zeit sicher. Niemand heraus hört dort zu allen möglichen anderen Perspektiven anders als die, die sie als Wirklichkeit sehen möchten

Cobertura de meios global Ridiculous da eleição de Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
Meios do Coup d' em Zimbabwe

está chocando-se como os meios em África do Sul e naquela que emanating principalmente dos países em Europa e em America do Norte foram adiante e declarações bold(realce) feitas sobre a eleição recente de Zimbabwe sem pagar muita atenção às continuações legais que ditam o unfolding dos eventos aqui.

1. têm rufado acima desde antes votar fechado declarando que o presidente, Robert Mugabe, como perdeu a eleição, e o blitz foram assim totais que a intenção parece ser convencer o mundo inteiro que o resultado desejado dos povos não em Zimbabwe, que não votou, não se transforma a percepção dominante e em uma maneira, realidade.
2. a polarização no commentary na estação da tevê satellite não está surpreendendo, mas é surprisingly anti a maioria das éticas e dos valores que você assocía com a pressão independente' 3
do `. os meios foram sobre por dias sobre como o presidente e o partido governando tentavam ao equipamento do `' a eleição. A oposição foi sobre declarar unilaterally a vitória antes que alguns dos processos indicados sob a lei estejam completos que são realmente lentos por sua natureza e fossem baseados na natureza desta eleição a mais recente. Ninguém está acusando a oposição do `que rouba' a eleição. Onde está o contrapeso lá? Imagine que o presidente se tinha declarado himself a manhã de domingo do vencedor. Que aqueles mesmos defenders do `da democracia' indicariam?
a. A mesma oposição que acordou a manhã depois que a eleição está reivindicando o fraud está reivindicando agora que a mesma eleição fraudulent é uma que ganharam… como?
b. Os mesmos povos que indicaram a última noite que esperarão o Commission Electoral de Zimbabwe para emitir os resultados oficiais e que seguirão os resultados oficiais têm ido agora indicar que declararão a vitória baseada em seus próprios resultados que ordenaram [alguns de que eu vi e sou muito diferente a o que foi os resultados reais]. Contudo as mesmas estações dos meios são de aceitação, tolerando e uniforme promovendo toda a esta.
c. Imagine se o governo tinha feito o mesmo - o ultraje, e retaliação pela comunidade internacional do `. '

Então quando as raivas de Robert Mugabe aproximadamente em sua luta de encontro ao imperialism e domination ocidental, e bullying ocidental e a falta do respeito dos princípios do sovereignty, pessoa disserem é um ditador velho disgruntled? Você não seria virado se você estivesse em sua posição diária por 15 anos?

Se eu tivesse o tempo, eu faria uma análise mais cheia deste, mas eu não sou certo ele realizo-me mesmo worth o tempo. Ninguém para fora escuta lá todos os outros perspectives à excepção de esses que quer ver como a realidade

Löjlig global massmediatäckning av Zimbabwe val
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
Massmedia för direktstöt D' i Zimbabwe

chockar det hur massmedia i Sydafrika och det som främst emanating från länder i Europa och Nordamerika har väck framåt och gjorda djärva förklaringar om Zimbabwe nya val utan att betala mycket uppmärksamhet till de lagliga förfarandena det diktat unfoldingen av skeende här.

1. de har trummat upp efter för stängt att rösta förklara, att presidenten, Robert Mugabe, som borttappad valet och blitzen har varit så slutsumman som avsikten verkar för att vara att övertyga den hela världen, att det önskade resultatet av folk inte i Zimbabwe, som inte röstade, blir den framträdande föreställningen och i långt, verklighet.
2. snedheten på kommentaren på den satellit- TV-station förvånar inte, men den är förvånansvärt anti mest av etiken och värderar dig som är förbunden med `- vildetrycket'
3. massmedia gick på för dagar om hur presidenten och styrande parti försökte till `- riggen' valet. Oppositionen har väck på att förklara seger unilateralt, för något av bearbetar påstått under lag är färdigt, som är faktiskt långsamma vid deras natur, och baseras på naturen av detta nyaste val. Inget anklagar oppositionen av `som stjäler' valet. Var är balansera där? Föreställ att presidenten hade förklarat självt vinnaresöndagmorgonen. Skulle har vad de samma `- försvarare av demokrati' påstått?
a. Den samma oppositionen, som vaknade upp morgonen, efter valet har fordrat bedrägeri, fordrar nu att det samma bedrägliga valet är ett som de har segrat… hur?
b. Det samma folket, som påstod den sist natten att de ska väntan för att Zimbabwe den val- kommissionen ska utfärda de officiella resultaten, och, att de ska, följer de officiella resultaten har nu väck, och påstått, att de ska, förklara segern som baseras på deras egna resultat som de har sorterat [några av som jag har sett och är mycket olik till vad har varit de faktiska resultaten]. Yet det samma massmedia posterar är acceptera och att tolerera och jämnt främja allt detta.
c. Föreställ om regeringen hade gjort samma - övergreppet och vedergällning av `- internationellt samfund. '

Därefter när Robert Mugabe ursinnen på omkring hans slagsmål mot imperialism och västra dominans, och den västra pennalismen och bristen av respekt av principerna av suveränitet, folk något att säga är han en missnöjd gammal diktator? Skulle dig inte var uppriven, om du var i his placerar dagligt för 15 år?

Om jag hade tiden, skulle jag gör en mer full analys av denna, men den inte säkra I-förmiddagen är den även värd tiden. Inget ut lyssnar där till några andra perspektiv annat än de som de önskar att se som verklighet

Смешоное глобальное зона обслуживания средствами массовой информации избрания Зимбабве
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo
Средства переворота d' в Зимбабве

оно сотряшет как средства в Южной Африке и том главным образом от стран в Europe и Северной Америке шли вперед и сделанные смелейшие объявления о избрании Зимбабве недавнем без обращать много внимание законные продолжения диктуют unfolding случаев здесь.

1. они барабанили вверх с тех пор раньше закрынный голосовать объявляющ что президент, Роберт Mugabe, как потерял избрание, и blitz настолько полные что кажется, что будет намерие убедить весь мир что заданный исход людей не в Зимбабве, которая не проголосовала, не будет доминантным воспринятием и в дороге, реальность.
2. смещение на комментарии на станции спутникового телевидения не удивляет, но оно удивительно anti большим частью из этики и значений, котор вы связываете с давлением' 3 `
независимо. средства пошли дальше на дни о как президент и правящая партия пытали к снаряжению `' избрание. Противовключение шло дальше объявить победу односторонно прежде чем любые процессы заявленные под законом законченн фактическ медленны их природой и основаны на природе этого самого недавнего избрания. No one обвиняет противовключение `крадя' избрание. Где баланс там? Представьте президент объявил утро воскресенья winner. Те такие же защитники `народовластия' заявили бы?
A. Такое же противовключение wake up утро после того как избрание востребует очковтирательство теперь требует что такое же обманное избрание одним они выигрывало… как?
B. Такие же люди заявили вчера они ждут комиссию Зимбабве электоральную для того чтобы выдать официальные результаты и они последует за официальными результатами теперь шли заявлять что они объявят победу основанную на их собственных результатах они collated [некоторые of which я видел и очень по-разному к было фактический результат]. Но такие же станции средств принимающ, допускающ и ровно повышающ все из этого.
C. Представьте если правительство сделал эти же, то - надругательство, и retaliation `сообществ. '

После этого когда ражи Роберт Mugabe на около его драке против империализма и западного доминирования, и западный задирать и отсутсвие уважения принципов суверенства, людей говорят он будет disgruntled старым dictator? Вы не были бы осажены если вы находились в его положении ежедневном на 15 лет?

Если я имел время, то я сделал бы более полный анализ этого, но я не уверен оно даже worth время. No one вне там слушает к VSем другим перспективам за исключением одних они хотят увидеть как реальность

De belachelijke Globale Dekking van Media van de Verkiezing van Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
De D' Media van de staatsgreep in Zimbabwe

het zijn schokkend hoe de media in Zuid-Afrika en dat die hoofdzakelijk van landen in Europa en Noord-Amerika afkomstig is en afgelegde gewaagde verklaringen over de recente verkiezing van Zimbabwe zonder veel aandacht aan de gerechtelijke procedures zijn doorgegaan te besteden die het openen hier van gebeurtenissen dicteren.

1. zij hebben omhoog sindsdien getrommeld voordien de stemming sloot verklarend dat de voorzitter, Robert Mugabe, zoals verloren de verkiezing, en blitz zo totaal is geweest dat de bedoeling schijnt te zijn de gehele wereld te overtuigen dat het gewenste resultaat van mensen niet in Zimbabwe, dat niet stemde, de dominante waarneming en op een bepaalde manier wordt, werkelijkheid.
2. bias op de commentaar op de satellietpost van TV is verrassend niet, maar het is verrassend anti de meeste de ethiek en waarden u met de onafhankelijke pers `associ�ërt. '
3. de media gingen voor dagen over hoe de voorzitter en de beslissende partij aan installatie `de' verkiezing probeerden. De oppositie is overwinning gaan unilateraal verklaren alvorens om het even welke processen die in het kader van wet worden verklaard die eigenlijk langzaam door hun aard zijn volledig zijn en gebaseerd op de aard van deze meest recente verkiezing. Niemand beschuldigt de oppositie van `stelend de' verkiezing. Waar is daar het saldo? Veronderstel de Voorzitter zich de winnaar Zondag ochtend had verklaard. Wat die zelfde verdedigers `van democratie' hebben verklaard?
a. De zelfde oppositie die de ochtend wekte nadat de verkiezing fraude eist beweert nu dat de zelfde frauduleuze verkiezing één is die zij… hoe hebben gewonnen?
b. De zelfde mensen die vorge nacht verklaarden dat zij op de KiesCommissie van Zimbabwe zullen wachten om de officiële resultaten uit te geven en dat zij zullen volgen de officiële resultaten nu zijn gegaan en verklaard dat zij overwinning die op hun eigen resultaten wordt gebaseerd zullen verklaren die zij gebij elkaar bracht [wat van die ik heb gezien en zeer verschillend geweest van wat de daadwerkelijke resultaten is geweest]. Maar toch keuren de zelfde media posten, tolereren en bevorderen zelfs elk van dit goed.
c. Veronderstel als de overheid het zelfde - de verontwaardiging, en vergelding door de internationale gemeenschap `had gedaan. '

Toen wanneer de woede van Robert Mugabe op ongeveer zijn bestrijding van imperialisme en westelijke overheersing, en de westelijke intimidatie en het gebrek aan eerbied van de principes van soevereiniteit, mensen zeggen is hij een ontevreden oude dictator? Niet zou u verstoord worden als u elke dag in zijn positie 15 jaar was?

Als ik de tijd had, zou ik een volledigere analyse van dit maken, maar ik ben niet zeker het zelfs de tijd waard is. Niemand daar luistert aan een andere perspectieven buiten degenen die zij als werkelijkheid willen zien

[مديوم كفرج] تافهة شاملة من زمبابوي إنتخاب
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
إنقلاب [د]' أوساط في زمبابوي

يصدم هو كيف الأوساط في جنوب افريقيا وأنّ ينبعث في الدّرجة الأولى من بلاد في أوروبا و [نورث مريك] قد ذهبوا إلى الأمام ويجعل يبسل إعلانات حول زمبابوي إنتخاب أخيرة دون يدفع كثير إنتباه إلى ال جائز إجراءات أنّ يأمر التفتح الحادثات هنا.

1. يطبّق هم يتلقّى يكون فوق منذ ذلك الحين من قبل خسر يقترع يغلق يكون يفيد أنّ الرئيس, روبرت [موغب], كالإنتخاب, والغارة جويّة قد كان هكذا إجماليّة أنّ النية يبدو أن يكون أن يقنع العالم كاملة أنّ ال ب رغب نتيجة الالناس لا في زمبابوي, الذي لم يقترع, يصبح الإدراك مسيطرة وفي طريق, حقيقة.
2. لا يفاجئ الإنحراف على التعليق على ال [ستلّيت تف] محطة, غير أنّ هو بشكل عجيب [أنتي] أكثر من العلم خلق وقيم أنت تصحب مع ال `[برسّ.] مستقلّة'
3. ذهب الأوساط فوق لأيام حول كيف الرئيس وال يحكم حزب كان حاول إلى `جهاز حفر' الإنتخاب. قد ذهب المعارضة فوق أن يفيد نصرة من جانب واحد قبل أن عمليات [أني وف ث] يفاد تحت قانون كاملة أيّ يكون واقعيّا بطيئة بطبيعتهم وأسّست على الطبيعة من هذا إنتخاب أخيرة أكثر. لا أحد يتّهم المعارضة من `يسرق' الإنتخاب. أين يكون الميزان هناك? تخيّلت كان الرئيس قد أفادبنفسي الرابحة يوم الأحد صباح. ماذا أنّ نفسه `كان مدافعات الديموقراطيّة' قد أفادوا?
[أ.]. ال نفسه معارضة أيّ أفاق الصباح عقب يدّعي الإنتخاب إحتيال الآن يدّعي أنّ ال نفسه إنتخاب احتياليّة واحدة أيّ هم قد ربحوا… كيف?
[ب.]. يذهب ال نفسه الناس الذي أفاد ليلة متأخّرة أنّ هم سينتظرون لزمبابوي عمولة انتخابيّة أن يصدر النتيجات رسميّة وأنّ هم سيتبعون النتيجات رسميّة يتلقّى الآن [أند] يفيد أنّ هم سيفيدون نصرة يؤسّس على هم خاصّة نتيجات أيّ هم قد فحصوا [بعض [أف وهيش] أنا قد رأيت وجدّا مختلفة إلى ماذا قد كان النتيجات حقيقيّة]. مع ذلك ال نفسه أوساط محطات يقبل, يتسامح ويتساوى يروّج كلّ من هذا.
[ك.]. تخيّلت إن الحكومة أتمّ ال نفس - الهجوم, وثأر ب ال `المجتمع الدولي. '

بعد ذلك متى روبرت [موغب] غيظ على حوالي معركته ضدّ إمبرياليّة وسيطرة غربيّة, وغربيّة يرهب والافتقار الإحترام من المبادئ السيادة, الناس يقولون هو يكون دكتاتورة مستاءة قديمة? لم أخلّت أنت كنت إن أنت كنت في موقعته يوميّة ل 15 سنون?

إن أنا تلقّيت الوقت, أتمّ أنا يشبع تحليل من هذا, غير أنّ أنا لست يوقن هو حتّى يساوي الوقت. يستمع لا أحد خارجا هناك إلى أيّ أخرى [برسبكتيفس] غير الأحد أنّ هم يريدون أن يرى كحقيقة

There is a very interesting process which I have been so privileged to observe from a front row seat. As I write, election results are being announced from difference races across the country, they are appearing slowly, but surely. I think it is important to give a context to how this election has been set up:
There are 4 different elections happening simultaneously: local council elections, lower house parliamentary seats [House of Assembly], the Upper House of parliament [The Senate] and the Presidency. There are 1 958 local council seats up for election in 1 958 wards around the country, there are 210 House of Assembly seats up for grabs, there are sixty senate seats and one presidential seat. Now each one of these positions has at least two candidates contesting, with some having as many as seven candidates (and in other cases more). So there are a lot of people involved in contesting for all the elected offices in zimbabwe.

The post-voting electoral process

The process itself, that has come about out of a series of negotiations between the government and the opposition over the course of the past 12 months has meant that significant changes have been made to the electoral law in the country. New law requires that every polling station counts their ballots AT the station – this is in order to avoid rigging or tampering with ballot boxes in transit to any other location. This has been done in accordance with the law in every case. In a ward, you can get up to 3 or 4 polling stations depending on population data. In a constituency, you can get as many as 15 wards. This means that per constituency you get about 60 polling stations.

When the voting is done in that polling station, counting for all four seats begins – the local council, the lower house, the upper house and the presidency. For each candidate, there is a polling agent present to preside over the counting and to contest what they may deem to be deviations from due process or law. A result is only official when all the polling agents agree to it; hence in the case where there are disputes, this can take a while. Now remember, that this is happening for every single ballot, and every candidate's representatives can argue their cause. When a final result is reached and agreed upon by all parties and everyone signs to confirm such, the result for that polling station is posted on the entry way to that station. The official result is then sent to the 'Command Center' of that constituency. So in each constituency, they would have to wait for all sixty or so polling stations to reach that agreement, and then send the results to a central place where they are collated, and again agreed upon by all the Chief Election Agents of the candidates [if they chose to have agents represent them] and then a final result is reached. So in these cases, you can imagine how long this process may take given that (i) this is the first time that this was done in Zimbabwe; (ii) as in a big sporting game, the world cup final or something, every possession is contested – the same with these elections.; (iii) in some of the rural constituencies [actually, in most of them] the roads are horrendous. In some cases, non-existent. So moving a distance of 30 kilometres can actually take as long as an hour and a half to two hours. So movement is slow and complicated. And there are no telephones or electronic communications.

So the process is a slow one, and I think most people are doing the best to get these results out as fast as possible.

I observed the process in three electoral constituencies in rural Matabeleland. In VERY rural places so I am writing about all of this from first hand experience. The polls closed Saturday at 7pm. In the one constituency we only got a final result (after the process above was complete and all agreed upon) on Monday morning. Another one only by Monday afternoon. Others are not yet complete.

The mistake most people are making is that they see the result outside one polling station, take that as the overall result and then cry "that results are out. Why are they not being announced" and are completely ignorant of the process that must be taken to ensure that all parties involved at that local level are satisfied.

Allegations of Rigging etc

The international news media is buzzing with stories about how these delays are being caused by the government trying to buy time and rig the election. I think that is all the elections I have participated in and observed in Zimbabwe, this has been the most free, fair and competitive election. There was almost no violence leading up to the election. For the first time, you actually had a lot of oppositions parties using main stream including government controlled media to campaign and having access to the electorate almost on par with the government [I saw almost, because the government always has the advantage of incumbency. If a government minister is commissioning a new project for example, that is a 'national duty' and not a political meeting so the electoral rules don't necessarily apply, but any smart operator would use that platform to plug for their cause]. This doesn't mean that everything about the period leading up to the election was fair, but I think the environment really has allowed for people to express their will.

Even the post-election process I feel has provided for much more fairness than before. What is really surprising to me is the extent to which immediately after the election was done, the main opposition (the MDC party led by Morgan Tsvangirai) went on a global media blitz claiming the election is being rigged and already setting up an environment for those who are either not really aware of the details of the process, or who are far removed from it to prejudge all that is happening. I was really surprised by this and think it to be a really sleazy tactic.

Rigging, if it is taking place, is not happening with people stuffing boxes full of paper etc. It is happening on very technical grounds where those who are least informed on electoral law and procedure don't know how to play the game fully.

Most people reading this will be surprised by what I am about to say, but in my observations, I saw the greatest cases of foul play [call it rigging if you will] coming from the opposition. And their methodology for this is very sophisticated. Let me try and explain…

When we were children, there was a tactic where if there was a dispute between us as kids playing together, lets say, one kid hits another, the initiator of the transgression would run to an adult and cry the loudest and claim they were hit. The adult would run out in response and to the surprise of everyone watching would lash out at the person who actually was smacked in the first place, but it was too late, the initiative had been lost by the 'victim'. It was a smart tactic which worked most of the time, but it left the person who was really hit feeling very, very unjustly treated.

A similar thing has happened in this election from what I have seen. The MDC has run out screaming that we've been cheated, there is rigging etc. they've smartly managed tog et everyone watching the wrong place while they smugly cook the books where they can. It's a very close election in most cases so every point counts. Let me give you examples of what I mean, without mentioning specific locations and situations as this could have legal implications.

The widespread belief is that the government will rig the election because it is so popular that it cannot win the election fairly. They say it will rig it because it has deployed civil servants to oversee the election. In reality, the people who have the greatest animosity towards the government are civil servants. Teachers, Nurses, Police etc. they are the lowest paid people in the country and yet have the most expected from them. So we found in 3 places, and I think this is a sample behavior of what you would find nation wide, whereby you had electoral officials, employed by the government trying to work things in favor of the opposition.
In one polling station, where a government candidate had won and the papers confirming this were signed at that station, the delivery note meant to go to the Command Centre with the result 'disappeared.' There was a recount and a revisiting of the whole process I've described, the result again came out in favor of the government. Again, the delivery note disappeared. Eventually, the culprit was identified and arrested and the processes repeated once again and the result eventually went through. In that constituency, the government representative for that seat won, and there were incredible delays in releasing that data over endless, undescribed technicalities. Eventually, representatives from the electoral commission from the region's capital had to be called in to settle it.
Another incident, there was a case whereby a person standing for office of the government had a comfortable lead in their constituency with a margin of over 1000 votes. Two wards were still outstanding [about 6 polling stations]. When results came in, the ZANU PF [the governing party] representative won one constituency, and lost the other. The margin of the loss was significantly smaller than one thousand. The candidate's polling agent left the scene assuming victory. This was on Monday morning. Monday afternoon, we heard the results announced that the ZANU PF candidate has lost by over 2000 votes. Mathematically, this is not possible. There was most certainly an 'accounting error' in that case and the result will most probably be legally challenged.
The opposition has set up all of these 'parallel' structures to feed the word election results as 'they' see them. Some of them are so grossly wrong its disturbing. Yesterday they projected that out of 210 Lower House seats, the government has won only 50, the opposition 117 and the balance going to independents – which would of course mean a land slide for the opposition. As I type, about 90 results for the House of Assembly have been announced with 43 going to ZANU PF, 41 going to one faction of the MDC (Tsvangirai's faction) and the balance to independents and the smaller MDC Faction.

One thing that is being done which could be seen as controversial is that the results in the early stages are being announced almost in a balanced manner – i.e., you announce one victory for the opposition, one for the government etc. one reason for doing this may be so that you don't raise expectations of one side and then have a Kenya-type dispute when the final results swings in contradiction to early results. I think this makes sense because you do want to maintain calm in such a tense situation. Those advocating for this to be done "as results appear" seem to not have learned from what happened just north of Zimbabwe a few months ago.

I am sure there are cases of government (ZANU PF) rigging happening too, but I think ZANU's mischief would more have been done before the election, in the process leading up to it rather than during or post the election. But I am sure others elsewhere have their own reports and perspectives to share on this, especially those participating or observing the election for places that overwhelmingly support ZANU PF, of which Matabeleland isn't traditionally one of them.

Contrary to 'popular' expectations
Most commentators outside the country expect the ruling party and president to lose the election. The economic situation and an environment that actually allows more of a freer expression of people's will are cited as some of the influencing factors in those calculations. This is plausible thinking to some degree. I did not expect the president to have any support in Matabeleland at all. Given the history of this region, given the economic situation and the strong support the opposition has always had here, I was surprised to see the results in some places.

You would see results in a polling station where the president won by a significant margin over his opponents. You would get some where he lost by a very wide margin, and others that were close. I certainly expected him to lose everywhere in this part of the country. It's not turning out that way. In most areas here where I observed things up close, except for Bulawayo and urban centers, the presidential contest seems to have been between Robert Mugabe and Simba Makoni. Surprisingly, there is not much traction for Morgan Tsvangirai (which may be different in the northern and eastern regions of the country). In one entire constituency, Robert Mugabe beat Simba Makoni in the final tally of about 55 polling stations! It was a small margin but extremely surprising. In general, I think he will lose Matabeleland, but not by the wide margins people predict.

Where there is the greatest volatility in the election has been the local councils. That's where you get the most surprising results with many, many incumbents being thrown out. In retrospect, it makes sense because those are the candidates they know the best, that have the most direct contact and influence and that people have some form of control over. Again, that surprised me, given that the elections have always been billed as a presidential contest primarily.

The funny thing is that, you have external commentators surprised by the victories that the government achieves despite the situation economically. I feel that most people who vote for the president or governing party candidates have really done so out of their will. Many have chosen not to vote [hence the low voter turn out] for whatever reasons. When you have a 'democratic' election, and the candidate that outsiders don't prefer wins, there is always a problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Mise à jour sur l'élection du Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Il y a un processus très intéressant que j'ai été ainsi favorisé pour observer d'un siège avant de rangée. Comme j'écris, des résultats d'élection sont annoncés des courses de différence à travers le pays, ils apparaissent lentement, mais sûrement. Je pense qu'il est important de donner un contexte vers le haut derrière à la façon dont cette élection a été placée :
Il y a 4 élections différentes se produisant simultanément : élections locales de conseil, sièges parlementaires de Chambre [Chambre d'Assemblée], la Chambre supérieure du parlement [le sénat] et la présidence. Il y a sièges locaux de 1 958 conseil vers le haut pour l'élection dans 1 958 salles dans le pays, il y a la Chambre 210 des sièges d'Assemblée vers le haut pour des encavateurs, il y a soixante sièges de sénat et un siège présidentiel. Maintenant chacune de ces positions a au moins deux candidats contester, avec certains qui ont l'autant d'en tant que sept candidats (et dans d'autres cas davantage). Donc il y a un bon nombre de gens impliqués dans la contestation pour tous bureaux élus au Zimbabwe.

Le processus électoral de poteau-vote

Le processus lui-même, cela a sorti environ une série de négociations entre le gouvernement et l'opposition en 12 mois derniers a signifié que des changements cruciaux ont été faits à la loi électorale dans le pays. La nouvelle loi exige que chaque station de vote compte leurs votes à la station - c'est afin d'éviter de caler ou trifouiller des urnes de vote en transit à n'importe quel autre endroit. Ceci a été fait dans tous les cas selon la loi. Dans une salle, vous pouvez se lever à 3 ou 4 stations de vote selon des données de population. Dans un collège électoral, vous pouvez obtenir autant d'en tant que 15 salles. Ceci signifie que par collège électoral vous obtenez environ 60 stations de vote.

Quand le vote est fait du fait la station de vote, comptant pour chacun des quatre sièges commence - le conseil local, la Chambre, la maison supérieure et la présidence. Pour chaque candidat, il y a un agent de vote actuel pour présider excédent le compte et pour contester ce que considérer elles peuvent être des déviations du processus dû ou de la loi. Un résultat est seulement officiel quand tous agents de vote sont d'accord sur lui ; par conséquent dans le cas où il y a des conflits, ceci peut prendre un moment. Rappelez-vous maintenant, ce ceci se produit pour chaque vote simple, et les représentants de chaque candidat peuvent discuter leur cause. Quand un résultat final est atteint et convenu par toutes les parties et chacun signe pour confirmer tels, le résultat pour cette station de vote est signalé sur le chemin d'entrée à cette station. Le résultat officiel est alors envoyé au « centre de commande » de ce collège électoral. Ainsi dans chaque collège électoral, ils devraient attendre chacun des soixante environ des stations de vote pour conclure cet accord, et puis envoient les résultats à un endroit central où ils sont assemblés, et encore convenu par tous agents d'élection en chef des candidats [s'ils choisissaient de faire les représenter à des agents] et alors un résultat final est atteint. Ainsi dans ces cas, vous pouvez imaginer combien de temps ce processus peut prendre étant donné que (i) c'est la première fois que ceci a été fait au Zimbabwe ; (ii) comme dans un grand jeu sportif, la finale de tasse du monde ou quelque chose, chaque possession est contesté - les mêmes avec ces élections. ; (iii) dans certains des collèges électoraux ruraux [réellement, dans la plupart d'entre elles] les routes sont affreux. Dans certains cas, inexistant. Déplacer ainsi une distance de 30 kilomètres peut réellement prendre tant que une heure et une moitié à deux heures. Ainsi le mouvement est lent et compliqué. Et il n'y a aucun téléphone ou communication électronique.

Ainsi le processus est lent, et je pense que la plupart des personnes font le meilleur pour obtenir ces résultats dehors aussi rapides comme possible.

J'ai observé le processus dans trois collèges électoraux électoraux dans Matabeleland rural. Dans les endroits TRÈS ruraux ainsi moi écris au sujet de toute la ceci d'une expérience de première main. Les scrutins samedi fermé à 7pm. Dans l'un collège électoral nous avons seulement obtenu un résultat final (après que le processus ci-dessus était complet et tous convenus) lundi matin. Encore seulement par lundi après-midi. D'autres ne sont pas encore complets.

L'erreur que la plupart des personnes font est qu'elles voient le résultat en dehors d'une station de vote, la prise que comme résultat global et pleurent alors « ce les résultats sont dehors. Pourquoi sont ils n'étant pas annoncé " et sont complètement ignorants du processus qui doit être pris pour s'assurer que toutes les parties concernées à ce niveau local sont satisfaites.

Allégations du calage etc.

Les médias de nouvelles internationaux bourdonne avec des histoires au sujet de la façon dont ceux-ci retarde sont provoqués par le gouvernement essayant d'acheter le temps et de caler l'élection. Je pense qui est toutes élections que j'ai participées dedans et observé au Zimbabwe, ceci a été l'élection la plus libre, la plus juste et concurrentielle. Il n'y avait presque aucune violence amenant à l'élection. Pour la première fois, vous avez eu réellement beaucoup de parties d'oppositions employant le jet principal comprenant des médias commandés par gouvernement pour faire campagne et ayant accès à l'électorat presque sur le pair avec le gouvernement [je scie presque, parce que le gouvernement a toujours l'avantage de la titularisation. Si un ministre de gouvernement commissionne un nouveau projet par exemple, c'est « un devoir national » et pas une réunion politique ainsi les règles électorales ne s'appliquent pas nécessairement, mais n'importe quel opérateur habile avait l'habitude cette plateforme pour brancher pour leur cause]. Ceci ne signifie pas que tout au sujet de la période amenant à l'élection était juste, mais je pense que l'environnement vraiment a tenu compte pour que les personnes expriment leur volonté.

Même le processus après les élections que je me sens a prévu beaucoup plus d'equitabilité qu'avant. Ce qui étonne vraiment à moi est le point auquel juste après que l'élection a été faite, l'opposition principale (la partie de MDC menée par Morgan Tsvangirai) est allée sur des médias globaux que l'attaque éclaire réclamant l'élection est calée et déjà installant un environnement pour ceux qui se rendent ou pas vraiment compte des détails du processus, ou qui sont loin enlevés de lui pour préjuger le tout ce qui se produit. J'ai été vraiment étonné par ceci et le pense pour être une tactique vraiment legère.

Le calage, s'il a lieu, ne se produit pas avec des personnes bourrant des boîtes complètement de papier etc. Il se produit pour les raisons très techniques où ceux qui sont moins au courant sur la loi et le procédé électoraux ne savent pas jouer le jeu entièrement.

La plupart des personnes lisant ceci seront étonnées par ce que je suis sur le point de dire, mais dans mes observations, je scie les plus grands cas du jeu fétide [appel il calage si vous] venant de l'opposition. Et leur méthodologie pour ceci est très sophistiquée. Laissez-moi essayer et expliquer…

Quand nous étions des enfants, il y avait une tactique où s'il y avait un conflit entre nous comme les enfants jouant ensemble, laisse la parole, un enfant frappe des autres, l'initiateur de la transgression courrait à un adulte et pleurerait le plus fort et la réclamation qu'elles ont été frappées. L'adulte s'épuiserait dans la réponse et à la surprise de chacun l'observation fouetterait dehors à la personne qui réellement a été claquée en premier lieu, mais il était trop tard, l'initiative avait été perdu par la « victime ». C'était une tactique futée qui a fonctionné la majeure partie du temps, mais lui à gauche la personne qui était sentiment très vraiment frappé, très unjustly traitée.

Une chose semblable s'est produite dans cette élection de ce que j'ai vu. La MDC s'est épuisée des cris ces nous ont été trichées, là sont le calage etc. ils ont vivement contrôlé tog et chacun observant l'endroit faux tandis qu'ils font cuire d'un air suffisant les livres où ils peuvent. C'est une élection très étroite dans la plupart des cas ainsi des comptes de chaque point. Laissez-moi te donner les exemples de ce que veux dire je, sans mentionner des endroits et des situations spécifiques car ceci pourrait avoir des implications légales.

La croyance répandue est que le gouvernement calera l'élection parce qu'il est si populaire qu'il ne puisse pas gagner l'élection assez. Ils disent qu'il le calera parce qu'il a déployé les fonctionnaires pour surveiller l'élection. En réalité, le peuple qui ont la plus grande animosité vers le gouvernement est les fonctionnaires. Professeurs, infirmières, police etc. ils sont les plus basses personnes payées dans le pays mais ont plus prévu de eux. Ainsi nous avons trouvé dans 3 endroits, et je pense que c'est un comportement d'échantillon de ce que vous trouveriez répandu par tout le pays, par lequel vous ayez eu les fonctionnaires électoraux, utilisé par le gouvernement essayant de travailler des choses en faveur de l'opposition.
Dans une station de vote, où un candidat de gouvernement avait gagné et les papiers confirmant ceci ont été signés à cette station, le bulletin de livraison censé pour aller au centre de commande avec le résultat « disparu. » Il y avait un recompte et revisiter du processus entier que j'ai décrit, le résultat a encore sorti en faveur du gouvernement. Encore, le bulletin de livraison a disparu. Par la suite, le coupable a été identifié et a arrêté et les processus ont répété de nouveau et le résultat est par la suite intervenu. Dans ce collège électoral, le représentant de gouvernement pour ce siège gagné, et là étaient incroyable retarde en libérant cet excédent de données sans fin, technicités indécrites. Par la suite, des représentants de la commission électorale du capital de la région ont dû s'appeler dedans pour l'arranger.
Un autre incident, il y avait un cas par lequel une personne se tenant pour le bureau du gouvernement ait eu une avance confortable dans leur collège électoral avec une marge de plus de 1000 voix. Deux salles étaient encore en suspens [environ 6 stations de vote]. Quand les résultats sont entrés, le représentant de ZANU pf [la partie régissante] a gagné un collège électoral, et a perdu l'autre. La marge de la perte était sensiblement plus petite que mille. L'agent du vote du candidat a laissé à la scène la victoire arrogante. C'avait lieu lundi matin. Lundi après-midi, nous avons entendu que les résultats ont annoncé que le candidat de ZANU pf a perdu près plus de 2000 voix. Mathématiquement, ce n'est pas possible. Il y avait le plus certainement une « erreur de comptabilité » du fait le cas et le résultat seront légalement défiés le plus probablement.
L'opposition a établi toutes ces structures « parallèles » pour alimenter les résultats d'élection de mot comme « ils » les voient. Certains d'entre eux sont tellement excessivement mal son déranger. Hier ils ont projeté que sur 210 sièges de Chambre, le gouvernement a gagné seulement 50, l'opposition 117 et l'équilibre allant aux indépendants - qui naturellement voudraient dire une glissière de terre pour l'opposition. Pendant que je dactylographie, environ 90 résultats pour la Chambre de l'Assemblée ont été annoncés avec 43 allant à ZANU pf, 41 allant à une faction de la MDC (la faction de Tsvangirai) et l'équilibre aux indépendants et à la faction plus petite de MDC.

Une chose qui est faite qui pourrait être vu en tant que controversé est que les résultats aux parties sont annoncés presque d'une façon équilibrée - c.-à-d., toi annoncent une victoire pour l'opposition, une pour le gouvernement etc. une raison de faire ceci peut être de sorte que vous ne souleviez pas des espérances d'un côté et puis n'ayez pas un Kenya-type conflit quand les résultats finals balance en contradiction à de premiers résultats. Je pense que le ce se comprend parce que vous voulez maintenir le calme dans une situation si tendue. Ceux préconisant pour que ceci soit fait « comme résultat apparaissent » semblent ne pas avoir appris de ce qui s'est produit nord juste du Zimbabwe il y a quelques mois.

Je suis sûr il y a des cas du calage du gouvernement (ZANU pf) se produisant aussi, mais je pense que la sottise de ZANU davantage aurait été fait avant l'élection, dans le processus amenant à lui plutôt que pendant ou signaler l'élection. Mais je suis sûr que d'autres ailleurs ont leurs propres rapports et perspectives pour partager sur ceci, particulièrement ceux qui participent ou qui observent l'élection pour les endroits qui soutiennent primordialement ZANU pf, dont Matabeleland n'est pas traditionnellement l'un d'entre eux.

Contraire aux espérances « populaires »
La plupart des commentateurs en dehors du pays s'attendent à ce que la partie et le président régnants perdent l'élection. La situation économique et un environnement qui laisse réellement plus d'une expression plus libre de la volonté des personnes sont cités en tant que certains des facteurs influençants dans ces calculs. C'est pensée plausible à un certain degré. Je ne me suis pas attendu à ce que le président ait quels appui dans Matabeleland du tout. Etant donné l'histoire de cette région, donnée la situation économique et l'appui fort que l'opposition a toujours eu ici, j'était étonné de voir les résultats dans quelques endroits.

Vous verriez des résultats dans une station de vote où le président a gagné par une marge significative au-dessus de ses adversaires. Vous en obtiendriez où il a perdu par une marge très large, et d'autres qui étaient étroits. Je me suis certainement attendu à ce qu'il perde partout dans la présente partie du pays. Il ne s'avère pas de cette façon. Dans la plupart des secteurs ici où j'ai observé les choses se ferment vers le haut, excepté Bulawayo et les centres urbains, le concours présidentiel semble avoir été entre Robert Mugabe et Simba Makoni. Étonnamment, il n'y a pas beaucoup de traction pour Morgan Tsvangirai (qui peut être différent dans les régions nordiques et orientales du pays). Dans un collège électoral entier, battement de Robert Mugabe Simba Makoni dans le contrôle final d'environ 55 stations de vote ! Il était une petite marge mais étonner extrêmement. Généralement je pense qu'il perdra Matabeleland, mais pas par les personnes larges de marges prévoyez.

Là où il y a la plus grande volatilité dans l'élection a été les conseils locaux. C'est où vous obtenez les résultats les plus étonnants avec beaucoup, beaucoup de candidats sortants étant jetés dehors. Dans la rétrospection, il se comprend parce que tels sont les candidats qu'elles savent les meilleurs, qui ont le contact le plus direct et l'influencent et qui peuplent ont une certaine forme de contrôle de. Encore, cela m'a étonné, étant donné que les élections ont été toujours affichées comme concours présidentiel principalement.

La chose drôle est celle, vous font étonner les commentateurs externes par les victoires que le gouvernement réalise en dépit de la situation économiquement. Je me sens que cela la plupart des personnes qui votent pour le président ou les candidats régissants de partie ont vraiment fait ainsi hors de leur volonté. Beaucoup ont choisi de ne pas voter [par conséquent la basse alerte d'électeur] pour quelque raisons. Quand vous avez une élection « démocratique », et le candidat que les étrangers ne préfèrent pas des victoires, il y a toujours un problème. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Actualización en la elección de Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
Hay un proceso muy interesante que me han privilegiado tan para observar de un asiento delantero de la fila. Como escribo, los resultados de elección se están anunciando de las razas de la diferencia a través del país, están apareciendo lentamente, pero seguramente. Pienso que es importante dar un contexto encima a cómo esta elección se ha fijado:
Hay 4 diversas elecciones que suceden simultáneamente: elecciones locales del consejo, asientos parlamentarios más Bajos [casa de la asamblea], la casa superior del parlamento [el senado] y la presidencia. Hay asientos locales de 1 958 consejo para arriba para la elección en 1 958 salas alrededor del país, hay la casa 210 de los asientos de la asamblea para arriba para los ganchos agarradores, hay sesenta asientos del senado y un asiento presidencial. Ahora cada uno de estas posiciones tiene por lo menos dos candidatos el disputar, con alguno teniendo tanto como siete candidatos (y en otros casos más). Tan hay muchos de gente implicada en disputar para todas las oficinas elegidas en Zimbabwe.

El proceso electoral de poste-votación

El proceso sí mismo, eso ha salido alrededor una serie de negociaciones entre el gobierno y la oposición sobre el curso de los últimos 12 meses ha significado que los cambios significativos se han realizado a la ley electoral en el país. La nueva ley requiere que cada estación de la interrogación cuente sus balotas EN la estación - ésta es para evitar de aparejar o de tratar de forzar con las cajas de balota en tránsito a cualquier otra localización. Esto se ha hecho de acuerdo con la ley en todos los casos. En una sala, usted puede levantarse a 3 o 4 estaciones de la interrogación dependiendo de datos de la población. En un distrito electoral, usted puede conseguir tanto como 15 salas. Esto significa que por el distrito electoral usted consigue cerca de 60 estaciones de la interrogación.

Cuando la votación se hace en que la estación de la interrogación, contando para los cuatro asientos comienza - el consejo local, más Bajo, la casa superior y la presidencia. Para cada candidato, hay un agente de la interrogación presente presidir excedente la cuenta y disputar lo que pueden juzgar para ser desviaciones del proceso debido o de la ley. Un resultado es solamente oficial cuando todos los agentes de la interrogación convienen él; por lo tanto en el caso donde hay conflictos, esto puede tomar un rato. Ahora recuerde, ese esto está sucediendo para cada sola balota, y los representantes de cada candidato pueden discutir su causa. Cuando se alcanza un resultado final y convenido en por todos los partidos y cada uno firma para confirmar tales, el resultado para esa estación de la interrogación se fija en la manera de la entrada a esa estación. El resultado oficial entonces se envía al “centro del comando” de ese distrito electoral. Tan en cada distrito electoral, tendrían que esperar el sesenta o las estaciones de la interrogación para alcanzar tan ese acuerdo, y después envían los resultados a un lugar central en donde se compaginan, y convenido en otra vez por todos los principales agentes de elección de los candidatos [si eligieron hacer que los agentes los representen] y entonces un resultado final se alcanza. Tan en estos casos, usted puede imaginarse cuánto tiempo este proceso puede tomar dado que (i) éste es la primera vez que esto fue hecha en Zimbabwe; (ii) como en un juego que se divierte grande, el final de taza del mundo o algo, cada posesión se disputa - iguales con estas elecciones. ; (iii) en algunos de los distritos electorales rurales [realmente, en la mayor parte de ellos] los caminos es horrendo. En algunos casos, no existente. Tan la mudanza de una distancia de 30 kilómetros puede llevar realmente mientras una hora y una mitad dos horas. El movimiento es tan lento y complicado. Y no hay teléfonos o comunicaciones electrónicas.

El proceso es tan lento, y pienso que la mayoría de la gente está haciendo el mejor para conseguir estos resultados hacia fuera tan rápidos como sea posible.

Observé el proceso en tres distritos electorales electorales en Matabeleland rural. En lugares MUY rurales así que mí están escribiendo sobre todo el esto de experiencia de primera mano. Las encuestas sábado cerrado en 7pm. En el un distrito electoral conseguimos solamente un resultado final (después de que el proceso arriba era completo y todo convenido en) el la mañana de lunes. Otro solamente por la tarde de lunes. Otros no son todavía completos.

El error que la mayoría de la gente está haciendo es que ella ve el resultado fuera de una estación de la interrogación, la toma que como el resultado total y entonces gritan “ese los resultados están hacia fuera. Porqué son que no son anunciados " y son totalmente ignorantes del proceso que se debe tomar para asegurarse de que todos los partidos implicados en ese nivel local están satisfechos.

Alegaciones del aparejo etc

Los medios de noticias internacionales están zumbando con historias sobre cómo éstos retrasan están siendo causados por el gobierno que intenta comprar tiempo y aparejar la elección. Pienso que es todas las elecciones que he participado adentro y observado en Zimbabwe, esto he sido la elección más libre, más justa y competitiva. No había casi violencia que conducía a la elección. Por primera vez, usted tenía realmente muchos de partidos de las oposiciones que usaban la corriente principal incluyendo medios controlados gobierno casi para hacer campaña y teniendo acceso al electorado en igualdad con el gobierno [yo sierra casi, porque el gobierno tiene siempre la ventaja del incumbency. Si un ministro del gobierno está comisionando un nuevo proyecto por ejemplo, eso es un “deber nacional” y no una reunión política así que las reglas electorales no se aplican necesariamente, pero cualquier operador elegante utilizaría esa plataforma para tapar para su causa]. Esto no significa que todo sobre el período que conducía a la elección era justo, pero pienso que el ambiente realmente ha permitido para que la gente exprese su voluntad.

Incluso el proceso post-election que me siento ha previsto mucho más imparcialidad que antes. Qué realmente está sorprendiendo a mí es el grado a el cual inmediatamente después que la elección fue hecha, la oposición principal (el partido del MDC conducido por Morgan Tsvangirai) fue en los medios globales que el bombardeo que demanda la elección se está aparejando y ya setting-up un ambiente para los que estén o no realmente enterados de los detalles del proceso, o que se quitan lejos de él para prejuzgar todo el que esté sucediendo. Realmente fui sorprendido por esto y lo pienso para ser una táctica realmente de mala calidad.

El aparejar, si está ocurriendo, no está sucediendo con la gente que rellena las cajas por completo del papel etc. Está sucediendo en los argumentos muy técnicos donde los que son lo más menos posible informados en ley y procedimiento electorales no saben jugar el juego completamente.

La mayoría de la gente que lee esto será sorprendida por cuál estoy a punto de decir, pero en mis observaciones, yo sierra los casos más grandes del juego asqueroso [llamada él aparejo si usted] que vienen de la oposición. Y su metodología para esto es muy sofisticada. Déjeme intentar y explicar…

Cuando éramos niños, había una táctica donde si había un conflicto entre nosotros como los cabritos que juegan juntos, dejan la opinión, un cabrito golpea a otro, el iniciador de la transgresión funcionaría a un adulto y gritaría el más ruidoso y la demanda que los golpearon. El adulto funcionaría hacia fuera en respuesta y a la sorpresa de cada uno el mirar azotaría hacia fuera en la persona que estaba realmente smacked en el primer lugar, pero era demasiado atrasado, la iniciativa había sido perdido por la “víctima”. Era una táctica elegante que trabajó la mayor parte del tiempo, solamente él a la izquierda la persona que era sensación realmente muy golpeada, muy unjustly tratada.

Una cosa similar ha sucedido en esta elección de lo que he visto. El MDC ha funcionado hacia fuera el griterío ese nosotros se ha engañado, allí es el aparejo etc. han manejado elegante tog et cada uno que miraban el lugar incorrecto mientras que cocinan con aire satisfecho los libros donde pueden. Es una elección muy cercana en la mayoría de los casos así que cuentas de cada punto. Déjeme darle los ejemplos de lo que significo, sin mencionar localizaciones y situaciones específicas pues esto podría tener implicaciones legales.

La creencia extensa es que el gobierno aparejará la elección porque es tan popular que no puede ganar la elección bastante. Dicen que lo aparejará porque ha desplegado a funcionarios para supervisar la elección. En realidad, la gente que tiene la animosidad más grande hacia el gobierno es funcionarios. Profesores, enfermeras, policía etc. son la gente pagada más baja del país pero tienen esperado más de él. Encontramos tan en 3 lugares, y pienso que éste es un comportamiento de la muestra de lo que usted encontraría a escala nacional, por el que usted tuviera funcionarios electorales, empleado por el gobierno que intenta trabajar cosas a favor de la oposición.
En una estación de la interrogación, donde un candidato del gobierno había ganado y los papeles que confirmaban esto fueron firmados en esa estación, la nota de entrega significada para ir al centro del comando con el resultado “desaparecido.” Había un recuento y una nueva visita del proceso entero que he descrito, el resultado salió otra vez a favor del gobierno. Una vez más la nota de entrega desapareció. Eventual, identificaron y arrestó al culpable y los procesos repitieron de nuevo y el resultado fue eventual a través. En ese distrito electoral, el representante del gobierno para ese asiento ganado, y allí era increíble retrasa en lanzar ese excedente de los datos sin fin, undescribed tecnicidades. Eventual, los representantes de la comisión electoral del capital de la región tuvieron que ser llamados adentro para colocarlo.
Otro incidente, había un caso por el que una persona que estaba parada para la oficina del gobierno tuviera un plomo cómodo en su distrito electoral con un margen sobre de 1000 votos. Dos salas eran aún en mora [cerca de 6 estaciones de la interrogación]. Cuando vinieron los resultados adentro, el representante de ZANU PF [el partido que gobierna] ganó a un distrito electoral, y perdió a otro. El margen de la pérdida era perceptiblemente más pequeño de mil. El agente de la interrogación del candidato salió la escena de la victoria asumida. Esto era el la mañana de lunes. Tarde de lunes, oímos que los resultados anunciaron que el candidato de ZANU PF ha perdido cerca sobre 2000 votos. Matemáticamente, esto no es posible. Había lo más ciertamente posible un “error de la contabilidad” en que el caso y el resultado serán desafiados lo más probablemente posible legalmente.
La oposición ha instalado todas estas estructuras “paralelas” para alimentar los resultados de elección de la palabra como “” los consideran. Algunos de ellos son tan grueso mal el su disturbar. Proyectaron ayer que fuera de 210 asientos más Bajos, el gobierno ha ganado solamente 50, la oposición 117 y el equilibrio que iba a las independientes - que por supuesto significarían una diapositiva de la tierra para la oposición. Mientras que mecanografío, cerca de 90 resultados para la casa de la asamblea se han anunciado con 43 que iban a ZANU PF, 41 que iban a una facción del MDC (facción de Tsvangirai) y el equilibrio a las independientes y a la facción más pequeña del MDC.

Una cosa se está haciendo que que se podría ver como polémico es que los resultados en los primeros tiempos casi se están anunciando de una manera equilibrada - es decir, usted anuncia una victoria para la oposición, una para el gobierno etc. una razón de hacer esto puede ser de modo que usted no levante expectativas de un lado y después no tenga un Kenia-tipo conflicto cuando los resultados finales hacen pivotar en la contradicción a los resultados tempranos. Pienso que este tiene sentido porque usted desea mantener calma en una situación tan tensa. Ésos que abogan para que éste sea hecho “pues aparecen los resultados” se parecen no haber aprendido de qué sucedió norte justo de Zimbabwe hace unos meses.

Soy seguro hay casos del aparejo del gobierno (ZANU PF) que sucede también, pero pienso que la travesura de ZANU habría sido hecho más antes de la elección, en el proceso que conduce a él más bien que durante o fijar la elección. Pero soy seguro que otros a otra parte tienen sus propios informes y perspectivas para compartir en esto, especialmente ésas que participan o que observan la elección para los lugares que apoyan de forma aplastante ZANU PF, de el cual Matabeleland no es tradicionalmente uno de él.

Contrario a las expectativas “populares”
La mayoría de los comentaristas fuera del país esperan que el partido y el presidente predominantes pierdan la elección. La situación económica y un ambiente que permite realmente más de una expresión más libre de la voluntad de la gente se citan como algunos de los factores que influencian en esos cálculos. Éste es pensamiento plausible a un cierto grado. No esperé que el presidente tuviera cualesquiera ayuda en Matabeleland en todos. Dado la historia de esta región, dada la situación económica y la ayuda fuerte que la oposición ha tenido siempre aquí, yo fue sorprendido ver los resultados en algunos lugares.

Usted vería resultados en una estación de la interrogación donde el presidente ganó por un margen significativo sobre sus opositores. Usted conseguiría alguno donde él perdió por un margen muy ancho, y otros que estaban cercanos. Esperé ciertamente que él perdiera por todas partes en esta parte del país. No está resultando esa manera. En la mayoría de las áreas aquí donde observé las cosas para arriba se cierran, a excepción de Bulawayo y los centros urbanos, la competencia presidencial se parecen haber estado entre Roberto Mugabe y Simba Makoni. Asombrosamente, no hay mucha tracción para Morgan Tsvangirai (que pueda ser diferente en las regiones norteñas y del este del país). ¡En un distrito electoral entero, golpe Simba Makoni de Roberto Mugabe en la cuenta final de cerca de 55 estaciones de la interrogación! Era un margen pequeño pero extremadamente el sorprender. Pienso generalmente que él perderá Matabeleland, pero no por la gente ancha de los márgenes prediga.

Donde hay la volatilidad más grande de la elección ha sido los consejos locales. Aquí es adonde usted consigue los resultados que sorprenden lo más con muchos, muchos titulares que son lanzados hacia fuera. En la retrospección, tiene sentido porque ésos son los candidatos que saben el mejores, que tienen el contacto más directo y lo influencian y que puebla tiene cierta forma de control sobre. Una vez más eso me sorprendió, dado que las elecciones se han mandado la cuenta siempre como competencia presidencial sobre todo.

La cosa divertida es ésa, usted hace comentaristas externos sorprender por las victorias que el gobierno alcanza a pesar de la situación económicamente. Me siento que eso la mayoría de la gente que vota por el presidente o los candidatos del partido que gobernaban realmente han hecho así que fuera de su voluntad. Muchos han elegido no votar [por lo tanto la producción baja del votante] por cualesquiera razones. Cuando usted tiene una elección “democrática”, y el candidato que los forasteros no prefieran triunfos, hay siempre un problema. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Aggiornamento sull'elezione dello Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Ci è un processo molto interessante che così sono stato privilegiato per osservare da una sede anteriore di fila. Come scrivo, i risultati di elezione stanno annunciandi dalle corse di differenza attraverso il paese, stanno comparendo lentamente, ma certamente. Penso che sia importante dare un contesto a come questa elezione è stata regolata:
Ci sono 4 elezioni differenti che accadono simultaneamente: elezioni locali del consiglio, sedi parlamentari della Camera [Camera dell'Assemblea], la Camera superiore del Parlamento [il senato] e la presidenza. Ci sono sedi locali del 1 958 consiglio in su per l'elezione in 1 958 quartieri intorno al paese, ci è Camera 210 delle sedi dell'Assemblea in su per le gru a benna, ci è sessanta sedi del senato ed una sede presidenziale. Ora ogni di queste posizioni ha almeno due candidati contestare, con alcuno che ha altretanto come sette candidati (ed in altri casi più). Così ci è gente molto addetta alla contestazione per tutti gli uffici scelti nello Zimbabwe.

Il processo elettorale divoto

Il processo in se, quello ha uscito da circa una serie di trattative fra il governo e l'opposizione durante i 12 mesi scorsi ha significato che i cambiamenti significativi sono stati fatti alla legge elettorale nel paese. La nuova legge richiede che ogni stazione di votazione conta le loro schede elettorali alla stazione - questa è per evitare di attrezzare o alterare le scatole di scheda elettorale in transito a qualunque altra posizione. Ciò è stata fatta in conformità con la legge in ogni caso. In un quartiere, potete alzarti a 3 o 4 stazioni di votazione secondo i dati della popolazione. In un collegio elettorale, potete ottenere altretanti come 15 quartieri. Ciò significa che per il collegio elettorale ottenete circa 60 stazioni di votazione.

Quando il voto è fatto in quanto la stazione di votazione, contante per tutte e quattro le sedi comincia - il consiglio locale, Camera, la casa superiore e la presidenza. Per ogni candidato, ci è un agente di votazione presente presiedere eccedenza il conteggio e contestare che cosa possono ritenere per essere deviazioni dal processo dovuto o dalla legge. Un risultato è soltanto ufficiale quando tutti gli agenti di votazione accosentono ad esso; quindi nel caso dove ci sono dispute, questo può occorrere un istante. Ora ricordi di, quel questo sta accadendo per ogni singola scheda elettorale e rappresentanti di ogni candidato possono discutere la loro causa. Quando un risultato finale è raggiunto ed accordato su da tutti i partiti e da tutto firma per confermare tali, il risultato per quella stazione di votazione è inviato sul senso dell'entrata a quella stazione. Il risultato ufficiale allora è trasmesso “al centro di ordine„ di quel collegio elettorale. Così in ogni collegio elettorale, dovrebbero aspettare tutto e sessanta le circa stazioni di votazione per raggiungere quell'accordo ed allora trasmettono i risultati ad un posto centrale in cui sono fascicolati ed accordato su ancora da tutti gli agenti di elezione principali dei candidati [se scegliessero fare rappresentarli agli agenti] ed allora un risultato finale è raggiunto. Così in questi casi, potete immaginare quanto tempo questo processo può prendere poichè (i) questo è la prima volta che questo è stato fatto nello Zimbabwe; (ii) come in un gioco di sport grande, nel finale di tazza del mondo o in qualcosa, ogni possesso è contestato - lo stessi con queste elezioni. ; (iii) in alcuni dei collegi elettorali rurali [realmente, in la maggior parte di loro] le strade è horrendous. In alcuni casi, inesistente. Così spostare una distanza di 30 chilometri può realmente prendere finchè un'ora e una metà a due ore. Così il movimento è lento e complicato. E non ci sono telefoni o comunicazioni elettroniche.

Così il processo è lento e penso che la maggior parte della gente stia facendo il la cosa migliore per ottenere questi risultati fuori veloci come possibile.

Ho osservato il processo in tre collegi elettorali elettorali in Matabeleland rurale. Nei posti MOLTO rurali in modo da nell'io stanno scrivendo circa tutto il questo da esperienza di prima mano. Lo scrutinio sabato chiuso a 7pm. Nell'un collegio elettorale abbiamo ottenuto soltanto un risultato finale (dopo che il processo qui sopra fosse completo e tutto accordato su) sulla mattina di lunedì. Altro soltanto entro il pomeriggio di lunedì. Altri non sono ancora completi.

L'errore che la maggior parte della gente sta facendo è che vedono il risultato fuori di una stazione di votazione, introito che poichè il risultato generale ed allora grida “il quel risultati è fuori. Perchè sono che non sono annunciati " e sono completamente ignari del processo che deve essere preso per accertarsi che tutte le parti in causa a quel livello locale siano soddisfatte.

Allegazioni di sartiame ecc

I mezzi di informazione internazionali stanno ronzando con le storia circa come questi fanno ritardare stanno causandi dal governo che prova a comprare il tempo ed attrezzare l'elezione. Penso che è tutte le elezioni che ho partecipato dentro ed osservato nello Zimbabwe, questo sono stato l'elezione più libera, più giusta e competitiva. Non ci era quasi violenza che porta all'elezione. Per la prima volta, realmente avete avuti partiti molto di opposizioni che usando il flusso principale compreso i mezzi controllati governo per fare una campagna ed avendo accesso all'elettorato quasi sul par con il governo [io sega quasi, perché il governo presenta sempre il vantaggio del incumbency. Se un ministro di governo sta incaricando un nuovo progetto per esempio, quella è “un dovere nazionale„ e non una riunione politica in modo da le regole elettorali necessariamente non si applicano, ma tutto l'operatore astuto userebbe quella piattaforma per tappare per la loro causa]. Ciò non significa che tutto circa il periodo che porta all'elezione era giusto, ma penso che l'ambiente realmente abbia tenuto conto affinchè la gente esprima la loro volontà.

Anche il processo che post-election ritengo ha previsto la molto più imparzialità che prima. Che cosa realmente sta sorpresendo a me è il limite a cui subito dopo che l'elezione è stata fatta, l'opposizione principale (il partito del MDC condotto da Morgan Tsvangirai) è andato sull'mezzi che globali il blitz che esige l'elezione sta attrezzando e già installando un ambiente per coloro che è o non realmente informato dei particolari del processo, o che lontano sono rimossi da esso per giudicare prematuramente il tutto che stia accadendo. Realmente sono stato sorprendo da questo e lo penso per essere una tattica realmente sleazy.

L'attrezzatura, se sta avvenendo, non sta accadendo con la gente che farcisce le scatole in pieno di carta ecc. Sta accadendo per i motivi molto tecnici in cui coloro che è il più minimo informed su legge e sulla procedura elettorali non sanno giocare il gioco completamente.

La maggior parte della gente che legge questa sarà sorprenda da che cosa sto circa per dire, ma nelle mie osservazioni, io sega i casi più grandi del gioco di fallo [chiamata esso sartiame se] che vengono dall'opposizione. E la loro metodologia per questa è molto specializzata. Lascilo provare e spiegare…

Quando eravamo bambini, ci era una tattica dove se ci fosse una disputa fra noi come i capretti che giocano insieme, lascia l'opinione, un capretto colpisce un altro, l'iniziatore della trasgressione funzionerebbe ad un adulto e griderebbe il più forte ed il reclamo che fossero colpiti. L'adulto si esaurirebbe nella risposta e con sorpresa di tutto guardare frusterebbe fuori alla persona che realmente era smacked in primo luogo, ma era troppo tardi, l'iniziativa era stato perso “dalla vittima„. Era una tattica astuta che ha funzionato la maggior parte del tempo, ma esso a sinistra la persona che era sensibilità molto realmente colpita, molto unjustly curata.

Una cosa simile è accaduto in questa elezione da che cosa ho visto. Il MDC ha esaurito i grida quei noi è stato truffato, là è sartiame ecc. hanno controllato astuto tog et tutto che guardano il posto errato mentre cucinano smugly i libri in cui possono. È un'elezione molto vicina nella maggior parte dei casi in modo da conteggi di ogni punto. Lascilo fornirgli gli esempi di che cosa significo, senza accennare le posizioni specifiche e le situazioni poichè questo potrebbe avere implicazioni legali.

La credenza diffusa è che il governo attrezzerà l'elezione perché è così popolare che non può vincere l'elezione ragionevolmente. Dicono che lo attrezzerà perché ha schierato i funzionari per sorvegliare l'elezione. In realtà, la gente che ha la animosità più grande verso il governo è funzionari. Insegnanti, infermiere, polizia ecc. sono la gente paid più bassa nel paese ma hanno più atteso da loro. Così abbiamo trovato in 3 posti e penso che questo sia un comportamento del campione di che cosa trovereste nazionale, per cui avete avuti funzionari elettorali, impiegato dal governo che prova a funzionare le cose per l'opposizione.
In una stazione di votazione, in cui un candidato di governo aveva vinto e le carte che confermano questa sono state firmate a quella stazione, la nota di consegna significata per andare al centro di ordine con il risultato “sparito.„ Ci era un conteggio e rivisitare del processo che intero ho descritto, il risultato ha uscito ancora per il governo. Di nuovo, la nota di consegna è sparito. Finalmente, il colpevole è stato identificato ed arrestato ed i processi hanno ripetuto ancora una volta ed il risultato finalmente è andato attraverso. In quel collegio elettorale, il rappresentante di governo per quella sede vinta e là era incredibile fa ritardare nel liberare quell'eccedenza di dati infinita, undescribed le tecnicità. Finalmente, i rappresentanti dalla commissione elettorale dal capitale della regione hanno dovuto essere denominati dentro per depositarlo.
Un altro avvenimento, ci era un caso per cui una persona che si leva in piedi per l'ufficio del governo ha avuta un cavo comodo nel loro collegio elettorale con un margine oltre di 1000 voti. Due quartieri erano non ancora pagati [circa 6 stazioni di votazione]. Quando i risultati sono entrato, il rappresentante di ZANU IL pf [il partito governante] ha vinto un collegio elettorale ed ha perso l'altro. Il margine della perdita era significativamente più piccolo di mille. L'agente di votazione del candidato ha lasciato alla scena la vittoria assuming. Ciò aveva luogo sulla mattina di lunedì. Pomeriggio di lunedì, ci siamo sentiti che i risultati hanno annunciato che il candidato di ZANU pf ha perso vicino oltre 2000 voti. Matematicamente, questo non è possibile. Ci era il più certamente “un errore di contabilità„ in quanto il caso ed il risultato il più probabilmente saranno sfidati legalmente.
L'opposizione ha installato tutte queste strutture “parallele„ per alimentare i risultati di elezione di parola come “„ li vedono. Alcuni di loro sono così grossolanamente torto il relativo disturbo. Ieri si sono proiettati che su 210 sedi della Camera, il governo ha vinto soltanto 50, l'opposizione 117 e l'equilibrio che va ai independents - che naturalmente significherebbero uno scorrevole della terra per l'opposizione. Mentre scrivo, circa 90 risultati per la Camera dell'Assemblea sono stati annunciati con 43 che vanno a ZANU pf, 41 che vanno ad una fazione del MDC (fazione del Tsvangirai) e l'equilibrio ai independents ed alla più piccola fazione del MDC.

Una cosa che sta facenda che potrebbe essere visto come discutibile è che i risultati nelle fasi iniziali stanno annunciandi quasi in un modo equilibrato - cioè, voi annuncia una vittoria per l'opposizione, una per il governo ecc. un motivo per fare questo può essere in modo che non non alimentare lle aspettative di un lato ed allora non abbiate un Kenia-tipo disputa quando i risultati finali oscilla nella contraddizione ai risultati iniziali. Penso che il questo abbia il significato perché desiderate effettuare la calma in così situazione tesa. Quelli che sostengono affinchè questo siano fatti “poichè i risultati compaiono„ sembrano non imparare da che cosa è accaduto alcuni mesi fa nord giusto dello Zimbabwe.

Sono sicuro ci sono casi di sartiame di governo (ZANU pf) che accade anche, ma penso che furberia dello ZANU di più sia stato fatto prima dell'elezione, nel processo che porta ad esso piuttosto che durante o inviare l'elezione. Ma sono sicuro che altri altrove hanno i loro propri rapporti e prospettive per ripartire su questo, particolarmente quelle che partecipano o che osservano l'elezione per i posti che in modo schiacciante sostengono ZANU pf, di cui Matabeleland non è tradizionalmente una di loro.

Contrario alle aspettative “popolari„
La maggior parte dei commentatori fuori del paese invitare il partito ed il presidente di regolamento a perdere l'elezione. La situazione economica e un ambiente che realmente concede più di un'espressione più libera della volontà della gente si citano come alcuni dei fattori d'influenza in quei calcoli. Ciò è pensare plausibile ad un certo grado. Non ho non invitare il presidente ad avere c'è ne supporto in Matabeleland affatto. Dato la storia di questa regione, data la situazione economica ed il supporto che forte l'opposizione ha avuta sempre qui, io è stato sorpreso vedere i risultati in alcuni posti.

Vedreste i risultati in una stazione di votazione in cui il presidente ha vinto da un margine significativo sopra i suoi avversari. Otterreste alcuno dove ha perso da un margine molto largo ed altri che fossero vicini. Certamente lo ho invitare a perdere dappertutto in questa parte del paese. Non sta risultando quel senso. Nella maggior parte delle zone qui dove ho osservato le cose in su si chiudono, tranne Bulawayo e le agglomerazioni urbane, il concorso presidenziale sembra essere fra Robert Mugabe e Simba Makoni. Sorprendentemente, ci non è molta trazione per Morgan Tsvangirai (che può essere differente nelle regioni nordiche ed orientali del paese). In un intero collegio elettorale, battimento Simba Makoni del Robert Mugabe nel riscontro finale di circa 55 stazioni di votazione! Era un piccolo margine ma estremamente sorpresere. Generalmente, penso che perda Matabeleland, ma non dalla gente larga dei margini predica.

Dove ci è la volatilità più grande nell'elezione è stata i consigli locali. Quello è dove ottenete i risultati di sorpresa con molti, molti incumbents che sono gettati fuori. Nella riesaminazione, ha il significato perché quelli sono i candidati che conoscono il la cosa migliore, che abbiano il contatto più diretto ed influenzino e che popola ha certa forma di controllo sopra. Di nuovo, quello lo ha sorprendo, dato che le elezioni sono state fatturate sempre come concorso presidenziale soprattutto.

La cosa divertente è quella, voi fa sorpresere i commentatori esterni dalle vittorie che il governo realizza economicamente malgrado la situazione. Ritengo che quello la maggior parte della gente che vota per il presidente o i candidati governanti del partito realmente hanno fatto in modo da dalla loro volontà. Molti hanno scelto non votare [quindi la produzione bassa dell'elettore] per che cosa motivi. Quando avete un'elezione “democratica„ ed il candidato che gli stranieri non preferiscono le vittorie, ci è sempre un problema. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Update auf der ZImbabwe Wahl
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
Es gibt einen sehr interessanten Prozeß, den ich so privilegiert worden bin, um von einem vorderen Reihe Sitz zu beobachten. Wie ich schreibe, werden Wahlergebnisse von den Unterschiedrennen über dem Land verkündet, erscheinen sie langsam, aber sicher. Herauf ich daß denke, es ist wichtig, zu geben einen Kontext zu, wie diese Wahl eingestellt worden ist:
Es gibt 4 unterschiedliche Wahlen, die gleichzeitig geschehen: lokale Ratwahlen, parlamentarische Sitze des Unterhauses [Haus der Versammlung], das obere Haus des Parlaments [der Senat] und der Vorsitz. Es gibt Sitze mit 1 958 lokale Räten oben für Wahl in 1 958 Bezirke um das Land, gibt es Haus 210 der Versammlung Sitze oben für Zupacken, gibt es sechzig Senatsitze und einen Präsidentensitz. Now each one of these positions has at least two candidates contesting, with some having as many as seven candidates (and in other cases more). So es gibt eine Menge Leute, die mit dem Wetteifern für alle gewählten Büros in Zimbabwe beschäftigt gewesen werden.

Der Pfosten-wählende Wahlprozeß

Der Prozeß selbst, das ist ungefähr aus einer Reihe Vermittlungen heraus zwischen die Regierung gekommen und die Opposition über dem Kurs der letzten 12 Monate hat bedeutet, daß bedeutende änderungen am Wahlgesetz im Land vorgenommen worden sind. Neues Gesetz erfordert, daß jede Wahlstation ihre Stimmzettel an der Station zählt - diese ist, um mit, Wahlurneen bei dem Transport zu jeder möglicher anderen Position in Ordnung zu bringen oder sich abzugeben zu vermeiden. Dieses ist in übereinstimmung mit dem Gesetz auf jeden Fall getan worden. In einem Bezirk können Sie zu 3 oder 4 Wahlstationen abhängig von Bevölkerung Daten aufstehen. In einem Wahlkreis können Sie so viel wie 15 Bezirke erhalten. Dies heißt, daß pro Wahlkreis Sie ungefähr 60 Wahlstationen erhalten.

Wenn das Wählen dadurch erfolgt ist, daß die Wahlstation, zählend für alle vier Sitze anfängt - der lokale Rat, das Unterhaus, das obere Haus und der Vorsitz. Für jeden Anwärter gibt es ein Wahlmittel, das, vorzusitzen überschuß das Zählen und zu wetteifern vorhanden ist, was sie meinen können, um Abweichungen vom passenden Prozeß oder vom Gesetz zu sein. Ein Resultat ist nur amtlich, wenn alle Wahlvertreter ihm zustimmen; folglich im Fall, in dem es Debatten gibt, kann dieses dauern wann. Erinnern Sie jetzt sich, dieses geschieht dieses für jeden einzelnen Stimmzettel, und Repräsentanten jeder Anwärters können ihre Ursache argumentieren. Wenn ein abschließendes Resultat erreicht wird und vereinbart durch alle Parteien und jeder unterzeichnet, um so zu bestätigen, das Resultat für diese Wahlstation wird auf der Eintragung Weise zu dieser Station bekanntgegeben. Das amtliche Resultat wird dann zur „Befehl Mitte“ dieses Wahlkreises geschickt. So in jedem Wahlkreis, würden sie warten müssen, daß alles sechzig oder so Wahlstationen diese Vereinbarung erreichen und dann die Resultate zu einem zentralen Platz schicken, in dem sie sortiert werden, und wieder vereinbart durch alle Hauptwahlvertreter der Anwärter [wenn sie beschlossen, Vertreter sie darstellen zu lassen] und dann wird ein abschließendes Resultat erreicht. So in diesen Fällen, können Sie dich vorstellen, wie lang dieser Prozeß nehmen kann angenommen, (i) dieser das erste mal ist, daß dieses in Zimbabwe getan wurde; (ii) wie in einem grossen sporting Spiel, im Weltpokalspiel oder in etwas, jeder Besitz wird - die selben mit diesen Wahlen gewetteifert. ; (iii) in einigen der landwirtschaftlichen Wahlkreise [wirklich, in die meisten ihnen] die Straßen sind horrend. In einigen Fällen nicht vorhanden. Einen Abstand von 30 Kilometern so verschieben kann solange eine Stunde und eine Hälfte zu zwei Stunden wirklich nehmen. So ist Bewegung langsam und schwierig. Und es gibt keine Telefone oder elektronischen Kommunikationen.

So ist der Prozeß ein langsames, und ich denke, daß die meisten Leute das beste tun, um diese Resultate so schnell heraus zu erhalten, wie möglich.

Ich beobachtete den Prozeß in drei Wahlwahlkreisen in landwirtschaftlichem Matabeleland. In den SEHR landwirtschaftlichen Plätzen also in mir schreiben über die ganze dieses von der aus erster Hand bezogenen Erfahrung. Die Abstimmungen geschlossener Samstag an 7pm. Im einem Wahlkreis erhielten wir nur eine abschließende Auswirkung (nachdem der Prozeß oben komplett und vereinbarte alle war), auf Montag Morgen. Ein anderes nur bis zum Montag Nachmittag. Andere sind nicht noch komplett.

Der Fehler, den die meisten Leute bilden, ist, daß sie das Resultat außerhalb einer Wahlstation sehen, Nehmen, das als das gesamte Resultat und dann „dieses Resultate sind heraus schreien. Warum sie nicht verkündend " sind und vom Prozeß vollständig unwissend sind, der genommen werden muß, um sicherzugehen, daß alle Parteien, die auf diesem lokalen Niveau mit einbezogen werden, erfüllt sind.

Behauptungen der Takelung usw.

Die internationalen Nachrichtenmedien summen mit Geschichten über, wie diese werden verursacht durch die Regierung verzögert, die versucht, Zeit zu kaufen und die Wahl in Ordnung zu bringen. Ich denke, der alle Wahlen ist, die, ich innen und beobachtet an Zimbabwe teilgenommen habe, dieses bin gewesen die freieste, angemessenste und konkurrierende Wahl. Es gab fast keine Gewalttätigkeit, die bis zur Wahl führt. Zum ersten Mal hatten Sie wirklich eine Menge Oppositionen Parteien, die Hauptstrom einschließlich Regierung gesteuerte Mittel verwenden, um fast zu werben und Zugang zu den Wählerschaften auf Gleichheit mit der Regierung haben [ich Säge fast, weil die Regierung immer den Vorteil von Incumbency hat. Wenn ein Regierung Minister ein neues Projekt zum Beispiel beauftragt, ist die eine „nationale Aufgabe“ und nicht eine politische Sitzung, also treffen die Wahlrichtlinien nicht notwendigerweise zu, aber jeder intelligente Operator würde diese Plattform benutzen, um für ihre Ursache zu verstopfen]. Dieses bedeutet nicht, daß alles über die Periode, die bis zur Wahl führt, angemessen war, aber ich denke, daß das Klima wirklich gedurft hat, damit Leute ihren Willen ausdrücken.

Sogar hat der nach der Wahl Prozeß, den ich glaube, für viel mehr Gerechtigkeit als vorher zur Verfügung gestellt. Was wirklich zu mir ist zu dem der Umfang überrascht, sofort nachdem die Wahl erfolgt war, ging die Hauptopposition (die MDC fap Partei geführt von Morgan Tsvangirai) auf globale Mittel, die der überraschungsangriff, der die Wahl behauptet, und gründend in Ordnung gebracht wird bereits, ein Klima für die, die entweder die Details des Prozesses nicht wirklich berücksichtigen oder die weit von ihm entfernt werden, um alles vorschnell zu beurteilen, das geschieht. Ich wurde wirklich durch dieses überrascht und es denke, um eine wirklich leichte Taktik zu sein.

Das In Ordnung bringen, wenn es stattfindet, geschieht nicht mit den Leuten, die voll Kästen Papier etc. anfüllen. Es geschieht auf sehr technischem Boden, in dem die, die auf Wahlgesetz und Verfahren wenig informiert sind, nicht das Spiel völlig spielen können.

Die meisten Leute, die dieses lesen, werden überrascht durch, was ich imbin Begriff, zu sagen, aber in meinen Beobachtungen, ich Säge die größten Fälle regelwidrigen Spiels [Anruf es Takelung, wenn Sie werden], kommend von der Opposition. Und ihre Methodenlehre für dieses ist sehr hoch entwickelt. Lassen Sie mich versuchen und erklären…

Als wir Kinder waren, gab es eine Taktik, in der, wenn es eine Debatte zwischen uns gab, wie die Zicklein, die zusammen spielen, Sagen läßt, ein Zicklein andere schlägt, der Initiator des Transgression würde laufen zu einem Erwachsenen und schreien das lauteste und der Anspruch, die sie geschlagen wurden. Der Erwachsene würde heraus in Antwort laufen und zur überraschung von jeder würde das Aufpassen heraus an der Person peitschen, die wirklich smacked an erster Stelle war, aber es, die Initiative war verloren worden vom „Opfer“ zu spät war. Es war eine intelligente Taktik, die die meisten der Zeit bearbeitete, aber es nach links die Person, die wirklich geschlagenes Gefühl sehr war, sehr unjustly behandelt.

Eine ähnliche Sache ist in dieser Wahl geschehen von, was ich gesehen habe. Das MDC fap hat heraus schreien dieses wir sind betrogen worden, dort sind Takelung etc. laufen gelassen. sie haben intelligent tog und jeder den falschen Platz aufpassend gehandhabt, während sie d'un air suffisant die Bücher kochen, in denen sie können. Es ist eine sehr nahe Wahl in den meisten Fällen also Zählimpulse jedes Punktes. Lassen Sie mich Ihnen Beispiele von was ich bedeute, ohne spezifische Positionen und Situationen zu erwähnen geben, da dieses rechtliche Konsequenzen haben könnte.

Der weitverbreitete Glaube ist, daß die Regierung die Wahl in Ordnung bringt, weil es so populär ist, daß sie nicht die Wahl ziemlich gewinnen kann. Sie sagen, daß es es in Ordnung bringt, weil es Staatsbeamte entfaltet hat, um die Wahl zu beaufsichtigen. In der Wirklichkeit sind die Leute, die die größte Animosität in Richtung zur Regierung haben, Staatsbeamte. Lehrer, Krankenschwestern, Polizei etc. sie sind, die niedrigsten zahlenden Leute im Land und doch haben am meisten erwartet von ihnen. So fanden wir in 3 Plätzen, und ich denke, daß dieses ein Beispielverhalten ist von, was Sie national, hingegen Sie Wahlbeamte hatten, beschäftigt durch die Regierung finden würden, die versucht, Sachen zugunsten der Opposition zu bearbeiten.
In einer Wahlstation in der ein Regierung Anwärter gewonnen hatte und die Papiere, die dieses bestätigen, an dieser Station unterzeichnet wurden, der Lieferschein bedeutet, um zur Befehl Mitte mit dem Resultat zu gehen „verschwunden.“ Es gab eine Nachzählung und ein Nochmals besuchen des vollständigen Prozesses, den ich, das Resultat beschrieben habe, kam wieder zugunsten der Regierung heraus. Wieder verschwand der Lieferschein. Schließlich wurde der Angeklagte gekennzeichnet und festgehalten und die Prozesse wiederholten noch einmal und das Resultat machte schließlich durch. In diesem Wahlkreis waren der Regierung Repräsentant für diesen Sitz, der und dort gewonnen wurde, verzögert unglaublich, wenn er diesen endlosen Datenüberschuß freigab, undescribed Techniken. Schließlich mußten Repräsentanten von der Wahlkommission vom Kapital der Region innen benannt werden, um es zu vereinbaren.
Ein anderes Ereignis, gab es einen Fall, hingegen eine Person, die für Büro der Regierung steht, eine bequeme Leitung in ihrem Wahlkreis mit einem Seitenrand von über 1000 Stimmen hatte. Zwei Bezirke waren noch ausstehend [ungefähr 6 Wahlstationen]. Als Resultate hereinkamen, gewann der ZANU Leistungsfaktor [die regelnPartei] Repräsentant einen Wahlkreis und verlor den anderen. Der Seitenrand des Verlustes war erheblich kleiner als tausend. Das Wahlmittel des Anwärters verließ der Szene anmaßenden Sieg. Dieses war auf Montag Morgen. Montag Nachmittag, hörten wir, daß die Resultate verkündeten, daß der ZANU Leistungsfaktor Anwärter vorbei über 2000 Stimmen verloren hat. Mathematisch ist dieses nicht möglich. Es gab zweifellos eine „Buchhaltungstörung“ dadurch, daß Fall und das Resultat vermutlich erlaubterweise herausgefordert werden.
Die Opposition hat alle diese „parallelen“ Strukturen aufgestellt, um die WortWahlergebnisse einzuziehen, wie „sie“ sie sehen. Einige von ihnen sind so grob Unrecht sein Stören. Gestern projizierten sie, daß aus 210 Unterhaussitzen heraus, die Regierung nur 50 gewonnen hat, die Opposition 117 und die Balance, die zu den Unabhängigen geht - die selbstverständlich ein Landdia für die Opposition bedeuten würden. Während ich schreibe, sind ungefähr 90 Resultate für das Haus der Versammlung mit 43 gehend zu ZANU Leistungsfaktor verkündet worden, 41 gehend bis eine Partei des MDC fap (Partei Tsvangirais) und der Balance zu den Unabhängigen und zur kleineren MDC fap Partei.

Eine Sache, die erfolgt wird, das als umstrittenes gesehen werden könnte, ist, daß die Resultate in den frühen Stadien fast in einer ausgeglichenen Weise - d.h. verkündet werden, Sie verkünden einen Sieg für die Opposition, einen für die Regierung etc. ein Grund für das Tun dies kann sein, damit Sie nicht Erwartungen von einer Seite aufwerfen und dann eine Kenia-Art Debatte haben, wenn die abschließenden Resultate im Widerspruch zu den frühen Resultaten schwingt. Ich denke, daß dieses sinnvoll ist, weil Sie Ruhe in solch einer angespannter Situation beibehalten möchten. Die, die damit dieses getan werden kann „befürworten, während Resultate“ scheinen, erlernt zu haben nicht erscheinen von, was gerechter Norden von Zimbabwe vor einigen Monaten geschah.

Ich bin sicher, es Fälle Regierung (ZANU Leistungsfaktor) von der Takelung gibt, die auch geschieht, aber ich denke, daß Unfug ZANUS mehr vor der Wahl, im Prozeß getan worden sein würde, der bis zu ihm anstatt während oder die Wahl bekanntzugeben führt. Aber ich bin sicher, daß andere anderwohin ihre eigenen Reports und Perspektiven, zum auf diesem haben, besonders die zu teilen teilnehmend oder die Wahl für Plätze beobachtend, die überwältigend ZANU Leistungsfaktor stützen, von dem Matabeleland nicht traditionsgemäß einer von ihnen ist.

Gegenteil „zu den populären“ Erwartungen
Die meisten Kommentatoren außerhalb des Landes erwarten die regierende Partei und den Präsidenten, die Wahl zu verlieren. Die wirtschaftliche Lage und ein Klima, das wirklich mehr eines freieren Ausdruckes des Willen der Leute gewährt, werden als einige der beeinflussenden Faktoren in jenen Berechnungen zitiert. Dieses ist plausibles Denken zu irgendeinem Grad. Ich erwartete nicht den Präsidenten zu haben irgendwelche Unterstützung in Matabeleland an allen. Die Geschichte dieser Region gegeben, die wirtschaftliche Lage und die starke Unterstützung gegeben, welche die Opposition immer hier, ich gehabt hat, war überrascht, die Resultate in einigen Plätzen zu sehen.

Sie würden Resultate in einer Wahlstation sehen, in der der Präsident durch einen bedeutenden Seitenrand über seinen Konkurrenten gewann. Sie würden einiges, wo er durch einen sehr breiten Seitenrand verlor, und andere erhalten, die nah waren. Ich erwartete ihn zweifellos, in diesem Teil des Landes überall zu verlieren. Es fällt nicht so aus. In den meisten Bereichen hier, wo ich beobachtete, schließen Sachen oben, außer Bulawayo und städtische Mitten, der Präsidentenwettbewerb scheint, zwischen Robert Mugabe und Simba Makoni gewesen zu sein. Überraschend gibt es nicht viel Zugkraft für Morgan Tsvangirai (der in den Nord- und östlichen Regionen des Landes unterschiedlich sein kann). In einem gesamten Wahlkreis Robert Mugabe Schlag Simba Makoni im abschließenden Tally von ungefähr 55 Wahlstationen! Es war ein kleiner Seitenrand aber extrem überraschen. Im allgemeinen denke ich, daß er Matabeleland verliert, aber nicht durch die breiten Seitenrandleute voraussagen Sie.

Wo es gibt, ist die größte Flüchtigkeit in der Wahl die lokalen Räte gewesen. Das ist, wohin Sie die überraschendsten Resultate mit vielen erhalten, viele Amtsinhaber, die heraus geworfen werden. Im Rückblick ist es sinnvoll, weil die die Anwärter sind, die sie die besten kennen, die den direktesten Kontakt haben und beeinflussen und das bevölkeren, irgendeine Form der Steuerung über haben. Wieder überraschte das mich, angenommen, die Wahlen immer als Präsidentenwettbewerb hauptsächlich berechnet worden sind.

Die lustige Sache ist die, Sie lassen externe Kommentatoren durch die Siege überraschen, daß die Regierung trotz der Situation ökonomisch erzielt. Ich glaube, daß das die meisten Leute, die für den Präsidenten wählen, oder regelnParteianwärter wirklich getan haben, also aus ihrem Willen heraus. Viele haben, beschlossen [folglich das niedrige Wählerausschalten] nicht für zu wählen, was Gründe. Wenn Sie eine „demokratische“ Wahl und den Anwärter haben, denen Außenseiter nicht Gewinne bevorzugen, gibt es immer ein Problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Update na eleição de ZImbabwe
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
Há um processo muito interessante que eu seja privilegiado assim para observar de um assento dianteiro da fileira. Como eu escrevo, os resultados de eleição estão sendo anunciados das raças da diferença através do país, estão aparecendo lentamente, mas certamente. Eu penso que é importante dar um contexto a como esta eleição foi ajustada acima:
Há 4 eleições diferentes que acontecem simultaneamente: eleições locais do conselho, assentos parliamentary da casa mais baixa [casa do conjunto], a casa superior do parliament [o Senate] e o Presidency. Há assentos locais de 1 958 conselho acima para a eleição em 1 958 divisões em torno do país, há a casa 210 de assentos do conjunto acima para garras, há sessenta assentos do senate e um assento presidencial. Agora cada destas posições tem pelo menos dois candidatos contestar, com o algum que tem o tanto como como sete candidatos (e em outros casos mais). Assim há uns muitos dos povos envolvidos em contestar para todos os escritórios eleitos em zimbabwe.

O processo electoral borne-votando

O processo próprio, isso veio aproximadamente fora de uma série das negociações entre o governo e a oposição sobre o curso dos 12 meses passados significou que as mudanças significativas estiveram feitas à lei electoral no país. A lei nova requer que cada estação da votação conta suas cédulas na estação - esta é a fim evitar de equipar ou alterar as caixas de cédula no trânsito a toda a outra posição. Isto foi feito de acordo com a lei em cada caso. Em uma divisão, você pode levantar-se a 3 ou 4 estações da votação dependendo dos dados da população. Em um círculo eleitoral, você pode começar tanto como como 15 divisões. Isto significa que por o círculo eleitoral você começa aproximadamente 60 estações da votação.

Quando votar for feito que a estação da votação, contando para todos os quatro assentos começa - o conselho local, a casa mais baixa, a casa superior e o presidency. Para cada candidato, há um agente da votação atual para preside excesso a contagem e para contestar o que podem julgar para ser desvios do processo devido ou da lei. Um resultado é somente oficial quando todos os agentes da votação lhe concordam; daqui no caso onde há umas disputas, isto pode fazer exame de um quando. Recorde agora, esse isto está acontecendo para cada única cédula, e os representantes de cada candidato podem discutir sua causa. Quando um resultado final for alcançado e concordado por todos os partidos e por todos assinar para confirmar tais, o resultado para essa estação da votação é afixado na maneira da entrada a essa estação. O resultado oficial é emitido então do “ao centro comando” desse círculo eleitoral. Assim em cada círculo eleitoral, teriam que esperar todos os sessenta ou estações da votação para alcançar assim esse acordo, e emitem então os resultados a um lugar central onde fossem ordenados, e concordado outra vez por todos os agentes de eleição principais dos candidatos [se escolheram mandar agentes os representar] e um resultado final é alcançado então. Assim nestes casos, você pode imaginar quanto tempo este processo pode fazer exame dado que (i) este é a primeira vez que este estêve feito em Zimbabwe; (ii) como em um jogo ostentando grande, o final de copo do mundo ou algo, cada possessão são contestados - o mesmos com estas eleições. ; (iii) em alguns dos círculos eleitorais rurais [realmente, em a maioria deles] as estradas são horrendous. Em alguns casos, inexistentes. Assim mover uma distância de 30 quilômetros pode realmente fazer exame contanto que uma hora e uma metade a duas horas. Assim o movimento é lento e complicado. E não há nenhuma telefone ou comunicação eletrônica.

Assim o processo é lento, e eu penso que a maioria de povos estão fazendo o mais melhor para começar para fora estes resultados tão rápidos como possível.

Eu observei o processo em três círculos eleitorais electoral em Matabeleland rural. Em lugares MUITO rurais assim que no mim estão escrevendo sobre toda a este da experiência firsthand. As votações sábado closed em 7pm. No um círculo eleitoral nós começamos somente um resultado final (depois que o processo acima era completo e todos concordados) na manhã de segunda-feira. Outro somente pela tarde de segunda-feira. Outro não está ainda completo.

O erro que a maioria de povos estão fazendo é que vêem o resultado fora de uma estação da votação, a tomada que como o resultado total e gritam então “esse os resultados estão para fora. Porque são que não estão sendo anunciados " e são completamente ignorant do processo que deve ser feito exame para se assegurar de que todos os partidos envolvidos nesse nível local estejam satisfeitos.

Allegations do equipamento etc.

Os meios de notícia internacionais estão zumbindo com histórias sobre como estes atrasam estão sendo causados pelo governo que tenta comprar o tempo e equipar a eleição. Eu penso que é todas as eleições que eu participei dentro e observado em Zimbabwe, isto fui a eleição a mais livre, a mais justa e do competidor. Não havia quase nenhuma violência que conduz à eleição. Para a primeira vez, você teve realmente muitos dos partidos das oposições que usam o córrego principal including meios controlados governo fazer campanha quase e tendo o acesso ao eleitorado no par com o governo [mim serra quase, porque o governo tem sempre a vantagem do incumbency. Se um ministro do governo comissão um projeto novo por exemplo, aquela é “um dever nacional” e não uma reunião política assim que as réguas electoral não se aplicam necessariamente, mas todo o operador esperto usaria essa plataforma plug para sua causa]. Isto não significa que tudo sobre o período que conduz à eleição era justo, mas eu penso que o ambiente realmente permitiu para que os povos expressem sua vontade.

Mesmo o processo que post-election eu sinto forneceu para muito mais fairness do que antes. O que me está surpreendendo realmente é a extensão a que imediatamente depois que a eleição foi feita, a oposição principal (o partido do CDM conduzido por Morgan Tsvangirai) foi no meios que globais o blitz que reivindica a eleição está sendo equipado e já se ajustando - acima de um ambiente para aquelas que estão ou não realmente cientes dos detalhes do processo, ou que são removidas distante dele para prejudge o todo o que está acontecendo. Eu realmente fui surpreendido por este e penso d para ser uma tática realmente sleazy.

Equipar, se estiver ocorrendo, não está acontecendo com os povos que enchem caixas completamente do papel etc. Está acontecendo nas terras muito técnicas onde aqueles que são o mais menos informed na lei e no procedimento electoral não sabem jogar inteiramente o jogo.

A maioria de povos que lêem este serão surpreendidos por o que eu estou a ponto de dizer, mas em minhas observações, mim serra os exemplos os mais grandes do jogo sujo [chamada ele equipamento se você] que vêm da oposição. E sua metodologia para esta é muito sofisticada. Deixe-me tentar e explicar…

Quando nós éramos crianças, havia uma tática onde se houvesse uma disputa entre nós como os miúdos que jogam junto, deixam a palavra, um miúdo batesse outro, o iniciador do transgression funcionaria a um adulto e gritaria o mais alto e a reivindicação que foi batido. O adulto funcionaria para fora na resposta e à surpresa de todos prestar atenção chicotearia para fora na pessoa que era realmente smacked no primeiro lugar, mas estava demasiado atrasado, a iniciativa tinha sido perdido pela “vítima”. Era uma tática esperta que trabalhasse na maioria das vezes, mas ele à esquerda a pessoa que era sentimento muito realmente batido, tratada muito unjustly.

Uma coisa similar aconteceu nesta eleição de o que eu vi. O CDM funcionou para fora gritar esse nós foi feito batota, lá é o equipamento etc. controlaram esperta tog et todos que prestam atenção ao lugar errado quando cozinharem smugly os livros onde podem. É uma eleição muito próxima em a maioria do cada ponto de contagens dos casos assim que. Deixe-me dar-lhe os exemplos de o que eu significo, sem mencionar posições e situações específicas porque isto poderia ter implicações legais.

A opinião difundida é que o governo equipará a eleição porque é assim popular que não pode ganhar a eleição razoavelmente. Dizem que o equipará porque desdobrou empregados civis para oversee a eleição. Na realidade, os povos que têm o animosity o mais grande para o governo são empregados civis. Professores, enfermeiras, polícias etc. são os povos pagos os mais baixos no país no entanto têm esperado mais dele. Assim nós encontramos em 3 lugares, e eu penso que este é um comportamento da amostra de o que você encontraria a nação larga, por meio de que você teve oficiais electoral, empregado pelo governo que tenta trabalhar coisas no favor da oposição.
Em uma estação da votação, onde um candidato do governo tinha ganhado e os papéis que confirmam este foram assinados nessa estação, a nota de entrega significada ir ao centro do comando com o resultado “desaparecido.” Havia um recount e revisitar do processo que inteiro eu descrevi, o resultado veio outra vez para fora no favor do governo. Outra vez, a nota de entrega desapareceu. Eventualmente, o culpado foi identificado e prendeu e os processos repetiram uma vez outra vez e o resultado foi eventualmente completamente. Nesse círculo eleitoral, o representante do governo para esse assento ganhado, e lá era incredible atrasa em liberar esse excesso dos dados infinito, undescribed technicalities. Eventualmente, os representantes do commission electoral do capital da região tiveram que ser chamados dentro para estabeleci-lo.
Um outro incident, havia um caso por meio de que uma pessoa que está para o escritório do governo teve uma ligação confortável em seu círculo eleitoral com uma margem sobre de 1000 votos. Duas divisões eram ainda - proeminentes [aproximadamente 6 estações da votação]. Quando os resultados vieram dentro, o representante de ZANU picofarad [o partido governando] ganhou um círculo eleitoral, e perdeu o outro. A margem da perda era significativamente menor de mil. O agente da votação do candidato saiu a cena de vitória presumida. Isto realizava-se na manhã de segunda-feira. Tarde de segunda-feira, nós ouvimo-nos que os resultados anunciaram que o candidato de ZANU picofarad perdeu perto sobre 2000 votos. Matematicamente, isto não é possível. Havia o mais certamente da “um erro contabilidade” que o caso e o resultado estarão desafiados o mais provavelmente legalmente.
A oposição ajustou acima todas estas estruturas “paralelas” para alimentar os resultados de eleição da palavra como “” os vêem. Alguns deles são assim bruta erro seu perturbar. Ontem projetaram-se que fora de 210 assentos de uma casa mais baixa, o governo ganhou somente 50, a oposição 117 e o contrapeso que vai aos independents - que naturalmente significariam uma corrediça da terra para a oposição. Enquanto eu datilografo, aproximadamente 90 resultados para a casa do conjunto estiveram anunciados com os 43 que vão a ZANU picofarad, os 41 que vai a um faction do CDM (faction de Tsvangirai) e o contrapeso aos independents e ao Faction menor do CDM.

Uma coisa que está sendo feita que poderia ser visto como controverso é que os resultados nos estágios adiantados estão sendo anunciados quase em uma maneira equilibrada - isto é, você anuncia uma vitória para a oposição, uma para o governo etc. uma razão para fazer isto pode ser de modo que você não levante expectativas de um lado e não tenha então um Kenya-tipo disputa quando os resultados finais balançam no contradiction aos resultados adiantados. Eu penso que o este faz o sentido porque você quer manter a calma em uma situação tão tensa. Aqueles que advogam para que este seja feito “porque os resultados aparecem” parecem não ter aprendido de o que aconteceu norte justo de Zimbabwe há alguns meses atrás.

Eu sou certo há uns casos do equipamento do governo (ZANU picofarad) que acontece demasiado, mas eu penso que mischief de ZANU estaria feito mais antes da eleição, no processo que conduz a ele melhor que durante ou para afixar a eleição. Mas eu sou certo que outro em outra parte tem de seus próprios relatórios e perspectives para compartilhar neste, especialmente aqueles que participam ou que observam a eleição para os lugares que suportam overwhelmingly ZANU picofarad, de que Matabeleland não é tradicional um dele.

Contrário às expectativas “populares”
A maioria de comentadores fora do país esperam o partido e o presidente governando perder a eleição. A situação econômica e um ambiente que reserve realmente mais de uma expressão mais livre da vontade do pessoa cited como alguns dos fatores influenciando naqueles cálculos. Este é pensar plausible a algum grau. Eu não esperei o presidente ter alguns sustentação em Matabeleland em tudo. Dado a história desta região, dada a situação econômica e a sustentação que forte a oposição teve sempre aqui, mim foi surpreendido ver os resultados em alguns lugares.

Você veria resultados em uma estação da votação onde o presidente ganhasse por uma margem significativa sobre seus oponentes. Você começaria algum onde perdeu por uma margem muito larga, e outro que era próximo. Eu esperei-o certamente perder em toda parte nesta parte do país. Não está girando para fora essa maneira. Em a maioria de áreas aqui onde eu observei as coisas fecham-se acima, à exceção de Bulawayo e os centros urbanos, a competição presidencial parecem ter estado entre Robert Mugabe e Simba Makoni. Surprisingly, não há muita tração para Morgan Tsvangirai (que pode ser diferente nas regiões do norte e orientais do país). Em um círculo eleitoral inteiro, batida Simba Makoni de Robert Mugabe no registro final de aproximadamente 55 estações da votação! Era uma margem pequena mas extremamente surpreender. No general, eu penso que perderá Matabeleland, mas não pelos povos largos das margens prediga.

Onde há a volatilidade a mais grande na eleição foi os conselhos locais. Isso é o lugar aonde você começa os resultados surpreendendo com muitos, muitos encarregados que estão sendo jogados para fora. No retrospect, faz o sentido porque aqueles são os candidatos que sabem o mais melhores, que têm o contato o mais direto e o influenciam e que povoa tem algum formulário do controle sobre. Outra vez, isso surpreendeu-me, dado que as eleições estiveram faturadas sempre como uma competição presidencial primeiramente.

A coisa engraçada é aquela, você tem comentadores externos surpreendidos pelas vitórias que o governo consegue apesar da situação economicamente. Eu sinto que isso a maioria de povos que votam para o presidente ou os candidatos governando do partido fizeram realmente assim que fora de sua vontade. Muitos escolheram não votar [daqui a volta baixa do eleitor para fora] para o que razões. Quando você tem uma eleição “democrática”, e o candidato que os outsiders não prefiram vitórias, há sempre um problema. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Uppdatera på det Zimbabwe valet
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
Det finns ett mycket intressant bearbetar som jag har varit, så privilegierat för att observera från en första rad placera. Som jag skriver, meddelas valresultat från skillnadraces över landet, visas de långsamt, men säkert. Funderare I är det viktigt att ge ett sammanhang till hur detta val har varit fastställdt övre:
Det finns 4 olika val som samtidigt händer: lokalrådval, det parlamentariska underhuset placerar [huset av enheten], övrehuset av parlamentet [senaten] och presidentsämbetet. Det finns 1 958, lokal sområdet placerar för val i 1 958 avvärjer upp runt om landet, finns det 210 huset av enheten placerar upp för hastigt grepp, finns det den sextio senaten placerar, och presidents- man placerar. Nu placerar varje av dessa har åtminstone två kandidater att bekämpa, med något som har så många som sju kandidater (och i andra fall mer). Så det finns folk för en radda som är involverat, i att bekämpa för alla valda kontor i zimbabwe.

Den val- posta-röstningen bearbetar

Det processaa sig själv, det har skett ut ur en serie av förhandlingar mellan regeringen och oppositionen över jaga av förflutnan har 12 månader betytt att viktiga ändringar har gjorts till den val- lagen i landet. Ny lag kräver att varje vallokal räknar deras sluten omröstning PÅ postera - denna är för att undvika rigging, eller tampering med valurnor genomresa in till något annat läge. Detta har gjorts i överensstämmelse med lagen i varje fall. I en avvärja kan du få upp till 3 eller 4 vallokaler beroende av befolkningdata. I en valkrets kan du få så många, som 15 avvärjer. Detta hjälpmedel som per valkretsen du får omkring 60 vallokaler.

När röstningen är den gjorda däri vallokalen som räknar för alla fyrana, placerar börjar - lokalrådet, underhuset, övrehuset och presidentsämbetet. För varje kandidat finns det en röstningmedelgåva som varar ordförande över räkna och som bekämpar vad de kan ansa för att vara avsteg från rakt processaa eller lag. Ett resultat är endast officiellt, när alla röstningmedel instämm till det; hence i fallet, var det finns tvister, kan detta ta en stund. Minns nu, det händer detta för varje singelsluten omröstning, och varje kandidat tekniker kan argumentera deras orsakar. När ett finalresultat är nått, och avgjort upon vid alla partier och alla undertecknar för att bekräfta sådan, resultatet för den vallokal postas på tillträdeet till det posterar långt. Det officiella resultatet överförs därefter till ”befaller centrerar” av den valkrets. Så i varje valkrets, skulle de måste väntan för all sextio eller så vallokaler att nå den överenskommelse och överför därefter resultaten till en central förlägger var de sorteras, och igen avgjort upon vid alla högsta valmedel av kandidaterna [om de valde att ha medel att föreställa dem], och därefter nås ett finalresultat. Så i dessa fall, kan du föreställa hur long detta processaa kan ta givet att (I) denna är den första tiden att denna gjordes i Zimbabwe; (ii) som i en stor sportslig lek, bekämpas världscupfinalen eller något, varje besittning - samma med dessa val. ; (iii) i några av de lantliga valkretsarna [faktiskt, i mest av dem] är vägarna fasansfulla. I vissa fall icke existerande. Så flyttning som en distansera av 30 kilometer kan faktiskt ta så länge som en timme och en halva till två timmar. Så är rörelse långsam och invecklad. Och det finns inget ringer eller elektroniska kommunikationer.

Så är det processaa långsam, och I-funderare mest folk gör det bäst för att få dessa resultat ut som fastar som möjlighet.

Jag observerade det processaa i tre val- valkretsar i lantliga Matabeleland. I MYCKET lantligt förlägger, så I-förmiddaghandstil om allt denna från firsthand erfar. Den stängda lördagen för röstningar på 7pm. I den en valkretsen fick vi endast ett finalresultat (efter det processaa ovannämnt var allt färdigt och överens upon), på den Måndag morgonen. Ett annat endast vid den Måndag eftermiddagen. Andra är inte ännu färdiga.

Missförstå som mest folk är danande, är, att de ser resultatet utanför en vallokal, taken som som det total- resultatet och gråter därefter ”det resultat är ut. Varför är de som inte meddelas " och, är fullständigt okunniga av det processaa som måste tas för att se till att allt festar involverat på den jämna lokal, tillfredsställs.

Beskyllningar av Rigging etc.

Landskampnyhetsmedian surrar med berättelser om hur dessa fördröjningar orsakas av regeringen som är pröva till den köptid och riggen valet. I funderare, som är alla val som, jag har deltagit in och observerat i Zimbabwe, detta har varit det friast, mässan och det konkurrenskraftiga valet. Det fanns inte nästan något våld som upp till leder valet. För den första tiden hade du faktiskt använda för raddaoppositionspartier som var huvudsakligt att strömma inklusive regerings- kontrollerat massmedia för att delta i en kampanj, och ha ta fram till väljarkåren nästan på par med regeringen [jag sågar nästan, därför att regeringen har alltid fördelen av ämbetstid. Om en regerings- minister   bemyndigar ett nytt projekterar for example, är det ”en medborgarearbetsuppgift” och, inte ett politiskt möte så det val- härskar applicerar inte nödvändigtvis, men några ilar operatören skulle bruk den plattform att plugga för deras orsakar]. Detta betyder inte att allt om perioden som leder valet var upp till mässan, men I-funderare miljön har egentligen tillåtet för folk till uttryckligt ska deras.

Även har den post-election processaa I-känselförnimmelsen git för mycket mer opartiskhet än för. Vad förvånar egentligen till mig, är graden som omgående, efter valet gjordes, gick till den huvudsakliga oppositionen (MDC-partit ledde vid Morgan Tsvangirai), på globalt massmedia som blitz som fordrar valet, riggeds och ställa redan in - upp en miljö för de, som är endera inte egentligen medvetna av, specificerar av det processaa, eller, som tas långt bort från det för att döma på förhand allt, som händer. Jag förvånades egentligen av detta och funderare det för att vara en egentligen sjabbig taktik.

Rigging, om den äger rum, händer inte med folk som att stoppa boxas mycket av pappers- Etc. Det händer på mycket teknisk jordning var de, som är least informed på val- lag och tillvägagångssätt, inte vet hur man leker leken fullständigt.

Mest folk läsning som denna ska, förvånas av vad I-förmiddagen omkring till något att säga, men i min observationer, mig sågar de mest stora fallen av ruff [appell det rigging, om du ska] som är kommande från oppositionen. Och deras methodology för denna är mycket sofistikerad. Låt mig försök och förklara…,

Då vi var barn, fanns gråter fordrar det en taktik, var, om det fanns en tvist mellan oss, som ungar som tillsammans leker, låter något att säga, en unge slår another, igångsättaren av transgressionen skulle körningen till en vuxen människa och det mest hög och dem sloggs. Vuxen människa skulle körning ut i svar, och till överrrakningen av alla förlägger hade den hållande ögonen på skulle snärten ut på personen, som faktiskt smiskades i första, men den var för sen, insatsen varit borttappad vid ”offer”. Det var en smart taktik som fungerade mest av tiden, men den lämnade personen, som var egentligen slågen känsla mycket som behandlades mycket unjustly.

Ett liknande ting har händt i detta val från vad jag har sett. Mdcen har kört ut att skrika som är det oss, har fuskats, där är rigging Etc. de smartly har smartly klarat av tog, et alla som håller ögonen på fel, förlägger stunder som de lagar mat självbelåtet bokar var de kan. Det är ett mycket nära val ofta, så varje peka räkningar. Låt mig ge dig exempel av vad jag betyder, utan att nämna specifika lägen och lägen, som detta kunde ha lagliga implikationer.

Den utbredda tron är att regeringen ska riggen valet, därför att det är så populärt att det kan inte segra valet ganska. De något att säga det ska riggen det, därför att det har utplacerat tjänstemän för att ha uppsikt över valet. I verkligheten är folket, som har den mest stora animosityen in mot regeringen, tjänstemän. Lärare, sjuksköterskor, polis Etc. de är det lowest betalade folket i landet och yet har som förväntas mest från dem. Så grundar vi i 3 förlägger, och I-funderare detta är ett ta provuppförande av vad du skulle fyndnationsned boll, whereby du hade val- representanter som användes av den pröva regeringen för att fungera saker i favör av oppositionen.
I en vallokal var en regerings- kandidat hade segrat och legitimationshandlingar som bekräftar denna undertecknades på det posterar, noterar leveransen betytt att gå till befalla centrerar med det försvunna resultatet ”.”, Det fanns en omräkning, och återbesöka av den processaa helheten har jag beskrivit, resultatet kom igen ut i favör av regeringen. Igen noterar leveransen försvunnet. Slutligen identifierades gärningsmannen, och arresterat och bearbetar upprepat ytterligare en gång, och resultatet gick slutligen igenom. Däri placerar valkretsen, regeringen som är representativ för det segrat, och det fanns oerhörda fördröjningar, i att frigöra att data över ändlöst, undescribed technicalities. Slutligen måste tekniker från den val- kommissionen från regionens huvudstad att kallas in för att sätta den.
En annan incident, fanns det ett fall, whereby en person som anseende för kontoret av regeringen hade ett bekvämt bly- i deras valkrets med en förse med marginal av över 1000, röstar. Två avvärjer var stilla - utstående [omkring 6 vallokaler]. När resultat kom in som representativ för ZANU PF [reglerande partit] segras en valkrets och borttappad annan. Förse med marginal av förlusten var markant mindre än ettusen. Kandidat röstningmedlet lämnade platsen assuming seger. Detta ägde rum på den Måndag morgonen. Den Måndag eftermiddagen, hörde vi att resultaten meddelade att kandidaten för ZANU PF har borttappadt över 2000 röstar by. Matematiskt är denna inte möjligheten. Det fanns bestämdast ”redogöra fel” isåfall, och resultatet ska antagligen utmanas lagligt.
Oppositionen har uppsättningen upp alla dessa ”parallellen” strukturerar för att mata uttryckavalresultaten, som ”de” ser dem. Några av dem är så kraftigt fel dess störa. Igår projekterade har de det ut ur 210 som underhuset placerar, regeringen segrat endast 50, oppositionen 117 och balansera som går till vildar - som skulle naturligtvis medel en landglidbana för oppositionen. Som jag skrivar, har omkring 90 resultat för huset av enheten meddelats med 43 som går till ZANU PF, 41 som går till en fraktion av MDCEN (Tsvangirais fraktion) och balansera till vildar och den mindre MDC-fraktionen.

Ett ting, som göras, som kunde ses som kontroversiellt, är, att resultaten i tidigt stadium meddelas nästan i ett allsidigt sätt - dvs., dig meddelar en seger för oppositionen, en för regeringen Etc. man resonerar för att göra detta kan vara, så att du inte lönelyftförväntningar av en sida, och därefter att ha Kenya-skriva tvist, när finalen resulterar gungor i motsättning till tidig sortresultat. Denna funderare I gör avkänning, därför att du önskar att underhålla ett sådan spänt läge för stillhet in. De som förespråkar för att detta göras ”, som resultat visas” verkar för att inte ha lärt från vad händde den rättvisa norden av Zimbabwe några månader sedan.

Säker förmiddag I där är fall av regerings- (ZANU PF) rigging som för händer, men mischief för I-funderare ZANUS skulle mer har gjorts för valet, i det processaa leda upp till det i stället för under eller postar valet. Men I-förmiddagen säkra andra någon annanstans har deras egna rapporter, och perspektiv som ska delas på detta, speciellt det deltagande eller observation av valet för, förlägger att på ett överväldigande sätt service ZANU PF, som Matabeleland inte är traditionellt ett av av dem.

Tvärtemot ”populära” förväntningar
Mest kommentatorer utanför landet förväntar styrande parti och presidenten för att förlora valet. Det ekonomiska läget och en miljö, som låter faktiskt mer av ett friare uttryck av det ska folket, citeras som någon av påverkan dela upp i faktorer i de beräkningar. Detta är sannolikt tänkande till någon grad. Jag förväntade inte presidenten för att ha några service i Matabeleland alls. Givet historien av denna region som gavs det ekonomiska läget och starkt stöd, oppositionen har haft alltid här, mig, förvånades för att se att resultaten i något förlägger.

Du skulle ser att resultat i en vallokal var presidenten segrade vid ett viktigt förse med marginal över hans motståndarear. Du skulle får något, var han som är borttappad vid ett mycket brett förser med marginal, och andra som var nära. Jag förväntade bestämt honom att förlora överallt i denna del av landet. Det är inte roterande ut ditåt. I mest områden här, var jag observerade saker upp slut, bortsett från Bulawayo och stads- centrerar, den presidents- striden verkar för att ha varit mellan Robert Mugabe och Simba Makoni. Förvånansvärt finns det inte mycket dragkraft för Morgan Tsvangirai (som kan vara olik i de nordliga och östliga regionerna av landet). I en hel valkrets Robert Mugabe takt Simba Makoni i finaletiketten av omkring 55 vallokaler! Det var ett litet förser med marginal men förvåna extremt. I allmänhet I-funderare som han ska förlorar Matabeleland, men inte vid sned boll förser med marginal folk förutsäger.

Var det finns, har den mest stora flyktigheten i valet varit lokalråden. Det är, var du får de mest överraska resultaten med många, många kyrkoherden som ut kastas. I återblick gör det avkänning, därför att de är kandidaterna som de vet det bäst, som har den mest direktkontakten och påverkan, och, som bemannar, har något att bilda av kontrollerar över. Igen förvånade det mig, givet att valen alltid har fakturerats som en presidents- strid i första hand.

Det roliga tinget är det, dig har yttre kommentatorer att förvånas av segrarna att regeringen uppnår illvilja läget economically. Känselförnimmelse I som mest folk, som röstar för presidenten eller de reglerande partikandidaterna, har gjort egentligen så ut ur ska deras. Många har valt att inte rösta [hence den låga väljarevänden ut] för, allt vad resonerar. När du har ”ett demokratiskt” val och kandidaten att icke-favorit inte föredrar segrar, finns det alltid ett problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Уточнение на избрании Зимбабве
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo
Будет очень интересный процесс я так был дан привилегии для того чтобы наблюдать от переднего места рядка. По мере того как я пишу, результаты выборов объявляются от гонок разницы по всей стране, они появляются медленно, но уверенно. Я думаю важно дать смысл к как это избрание было установлено вверх по:
4 по-разному избрания случаясь одновременно: местные избрания совету, парламентския места более низкой дома [дом агрегата], верхнее парламенто Великобритании [сенат] и президентство. Мест 1 958 местных совету вверх для избрания в 1 958 палат вокруг страны, будут дом 210 мест агрегата вверх для самосхватов, 60 мест сената и одно президентского место. Теперь каждое одно из этих положений имеет по крайней мере 2 выбранного оспорить, при некоторое имея так много как 7 выбранных (и в другие случаи больше). Настолько будут множество людей, котор включили в оспаривать для всех избранных офисов в Зимбабве.

Столб-голосуя электоральный процесс

Процесс сам, то приходил около из серии переговоров между правительством и противовключением над курсом прошлых 12 месяцев намеревает что значительные изменения были сделаны к избирательному праву в стране. Новый закон требует что каждая станция полинга подсчитывает их ballots НА станции - это должна избежать оснастить или tampering с коробками ballot в переходе к любому другому положению. Это было сделано в соответствии с законом in every case. В палате, вы можете get up до 3 или 4 станции полинга в зависимости от данных по населенности. В constituency, вы можете получить так много как 15 палат. Это намеревается что в constituency вы получаете около 60 станций полинга.

Когда голосовать сделан в что станция полинга, подсчитывая для всех 4 мест начинает - местный совет, более низкая дом, верхняя дом и президентство. Для каждого выбранного, будет вещество полинга присытствыющее председательствовать над подсчитывать и оспорить они могут считать, что были отступлениями от должных процесса или закона. Результат только официальн когда все вещества полинга согласовывают он; следовательно в случай где будут споры, это может принять промежуток времени. Теперь вспомните, т это случается для каждого выборы с одной баллотировкой, и представители каждого выбранного могут поспорить их причина. Когда окончательный результат достигается и согласовано всеми партиями и каждым подписывает для того чтобы подтвердить такие, результат для той станции полинга вывешивает на дорогу входа к той станции. Официальный результат после этого послан к «центр управления» того constituency. Так в каждом constituency, они ждать все 60 или так станции полинга для того чтобы достигнуть то согласование, и после этого посылают результаты к центральному месту где они collated, и снова после того как я согласовано всеми главными агентами кандидата по проведению выборов [если они выбрали иметь вещества представить их] и после этого окончательный результат достигается. Так в эти случаи, вы можете представить сколько времени этот процесс может принять после того как он дал что (I) это the first time что это было сделано в Зимбабве; (ii) как в большой резвясь игре, оспорены кубок мира окончательное или что-то, каждое владение - эти же с этими избраниями. ; (cIii) в некоторых из сельских constituencies [фактическ, в большом части из их] дороги horrendous. In some cases, non-existent. Так двигать расстояние 30 километров может фактическ принять покуда час с половиной до 2 часа. Так движение медленно и осложненн. И не будут телефонов или электронных сообщений.

Так процесс медленное одним, и я думаю большинств люди делают самое лучшее для того чтобы получить эти результаты вне как можно быстро.

Я наблюдал процессом в 3 электоральных constituencies в сельском Matabeleland. В ОЧЕНЬ населенных пунктах сельского типа поэтому мне пишите о всем из этого от firsthand опыта. Списки избирателей закрытая суббота на 7pm. В одном constituency мы только получили окончательный результат (после того как процесс выше был закончен и согласован вс) на утре понедельника. Другое одно только к после полудня понедельника. Другие не пока законченн.

Ошибка большинств, котор люди делают что они видят результат вне одной станции полинга, взятие которое как общий результат и после этого заплачьте «что результаты вне. Почему будучи объявлянными они " и вполне невежественны процесса необходимо принять для того чтобы обеспечить что удовлетворяются все партии, котор включили на тот местный уровень.

Заявления такелажирования etc

Средства международные новости жужжат с рассказами о как эти задерживают причиняются правительством пытаясь купить время и оснастить избрание. Я думаю будет всеми избраниями, котор я участвовал внутри и после того как я наблюдал в Зимбабве, это был свободно, самым справедливым и конкурсным избранием. Не было почти расправы lead up к избранию. For the first time, вы фактическ имели множество оппозиционная партия используя коренное течение реки включая средства контролируемые правительством для того чтобы агитировать и имеющ доступ к electorate почти на равенстве с правительством [мной пила почти, потому что правительство всегда имеет преимущество incumbency. Если министр правительства поручает новый проект например, то то будет «национальной обязанностью» и не политической встречей поэтому электоральные правила обязательно не применяются, но любой франтовской оператор использовал бы ту платформу для того чтобы заткнуть для их причины]. Это не намеревается что все о периоде lead up к избранию было справедливо, но я думаю окружающая среда реально позволяла людей для того чтобы выразить их волю.

Даже процесс столб-избрания, котор я чувствую обеспечил для очень больше fairness чем раньше. Реально удивляет к мне будет размером к immediately after избрание было сделано, GLAVNое противовключение (партия MDC водить Morgan Tsvangirai) пошло на глобальные средства, котор blitz требуя избрание оснащается и уже устанавливающ - вверх по окружающей среде для тех которые или реально осведомленны деталей процесса, или которые далеко извлекается от его для того чтобы prejudge все которое случается. Я реально был удивлен этим и думаю оно для того чтобы быть реально sleazy тактикой.

Оснащать, если оно осуществляет, то не случается при люди коробки вполне cEtc бумаги. Оно случается на очень технически землях где те наиболее меньше informed на избирательном праве и процедуре не умеют как сыграть игру полно.

Большинств люди читая это будут удивлены я должны около сказать, но в моих замечаниях, я пила большие случаи протухшая игра [звонок оно такелажирование если вы будете], то приходя от противовключения. И их методология для этого очень изощренна. Препятствуйте мне попытаться и объясниться…

Когда мы были дет, была тактика где если был спор между нами, то по мере того как малыши играя совместно, препятствуют мнению, один малыш ударяет другие, инициатор законопреступления побежали бы к взрослому и заплакали бы самая громкая и заявка, котор они была ударена. Взрослый побежал бы вне в реакции и к сярпризу каждого наблюдать хлестал бы вне на персоне фактическ была smacked во-первых, но она была слишком последней, инициатива была потеряна «жертвой». Оно было франтовской тактикой работала большое часть из времени, только им налево unjustly обработанная персона которая была реально ударенным ощупыванием очень, очень.

Подобная вещь случалась в этом избрании от я видел. Был обжулен, там будет MDC бежал вне screaming тот мы cEtc такелажирования. они франтовск управляли tog et каждым наблюдая неправильное место пока они smugly варят книги где они могут. Будет очень близким избранием in most cases поэтому отсчетами каждого пункта. Препятствуйте мне дать вам примеры я намереваюсь, без упоминать специфически положения и ситуации по мере того как это смогло иметь правовые последствия.

Widespread верование что правительство оснастит избрание потому что оно настолько популярно что оно не может выиграть избрание справедливо. Они говорят оно оснастит оно потому что оно раскрывало гражданских служащих для того чтобы надзирать избрание. В реальности, люди которые имеют большой animosity к правительству будут гражданскими служащими. CEtc учителей, нюнь, полиций. они будут самыми низкими paid людьми в стране and yet имеют больше всего предпологаемое от их. Так мы нашли в 3 местах, и я думаю это будет поведение образца вы считали бы нацию широко, whereby вы имели электоральных должностных лиц, после того как вы использованы правительством пытаясь работать вещи in favour of противовключение.
В одной станции полинга, где выбранный правительства выиграл и бумаги подтверждая это были подписаны на той станции, примечание поставки намереваемое пойти к центр управления при исчезли результат «, котор.» Был recount и revisiting всего процесса, котор я описывал, результат опять пришл вне in favour of правительство. Опять, примечание поставки исчезло. Окончательн, виновница была определена и после того как я арестованы и процессы повторяли еще раз и результат окончательн пошел до конца. В том constituency, представитель правительства для того выигранного места, и там был неимоверн задерживает в выпускать те данные над бесконечным, undescribed technicalities. Окончательн, представители от электоральной комиссии от столицы зоны должны быть вызваны внутри для того чтобы установить она.
Другой случай, был случай whereby персона стоя для офиса правительства имела удобное руководство в их constituency с допустимым пределом над 1000 вотумов. 2 палаты были все еще - выдающими [около 6 станций полинга]. Когда результаты пришли внутри, представитель ZANU пикофарады [управляя партии] выиграл один constituency, и потерял другое. Допустимый предел потери был значительно более мал чем тысяча. Вещество полинга выбранного вышло месту assuming победа. Это находилось на утре понедельника. После полудня понедельника, мы услышали результаты объявили что выбранный ZANU пикофарады терял мимо над 2000 вотумами. Математически, это не по возможности. Была само некоторо «ошибка бухгалтерии» в что случай и результат само вероятно законно будут брошены вызов.
Противовключение устанавливало вверх всю из этих «параллельных» структур для того чтобы подать результаты выборов слова как «они» видят их. Некоторые из их будут настолько больш неправдой свой нарушать. Вчера они запроектировали что из 210 мест более низкой дома, правительство выигрывало только 50, противовключение 117 и баланс идя к independents - которые of course намеревались бы скольжение земли для противовключения. По мере того как я печатаю на машинке, около 90 результатов для дома агрегата были объявлены с 43 идя к ZANU пикофараде, 41 идя до одна факция MDC (факции Tsvangirai) и балансом к independents и более малой факции MDC.

Одна вещь делается смогло быть увидено как состязательное что результаты в предыдущих этапах объявляются почти в balanced образе - т.е., вами объявляет одну победу для противовключения, одну для cEtc правительства. одна причина для делать это может быть TAK, CTO вы не поднимете ожиданности одной стороны и после этого не имеете спор Кени-типа когда окончательные результаты отбросят в несоответствии к предыдущим результатам. Я думаю это делает чувство потому что вы хотите поддерживать затишье в такой напряженнейшей ситуации. Те защищая для этого, котор нужно сделать «по мере того как кажется, что учат результаты появляются» от случилось справедливый север Зимбабве несколько месяцев тому назад.

Я уверен будут случаи такелажирование правительства (ZANU пикофарады) случаясь слишком, но я думаю mischief ZANU больше было сделано перед избранием, в процессе lead up к ему rather than во время или вывесить избрание. Но я уверен другие в другом месте имеет их собственные рапорты и перспективы для того чтобы делить на этом, специально те участвуя или наблюдая избранием для мест которые overwhelmingly поддерживают ZANU пикофараду, of which Matabeleland не традиционно одним из их.

Противоположность к «популярным» ожиданностям
Большинств commentators вне страны ожидают, что правящую партию и президент теряет избрание. Экономическое положение и окружающая среда фактическ позволяет больше из более свободно выражения воли людей процитированы как некоторые из влияя на факторов в тех вычислениях. Это правдоподобный думать к некоторому STEPENи. Я не ожидал, что президент имел любые поддержка в Matabeleland на всех. Дали историю этой зоны, котор дали экономическое положение и сильную поддержку, котор противовключение всегда имело здесь, я удивил увидеть результаты в некоторых местах.

Вы увидели бы результаты в станции полинга где президент выиграл значительно допустимым пределом над его противницами. Вы получили бы некоторое где он потерял очень значительным перевесом, и другие которые были близки. Я некоторо ожидал, что он потеряло везде в этой части страны. Оно turn out та дорога. В большинств OBLASTях здесь где я наблюдал вещи вверх закрывают, за исключением Bulawayo и кажется, что находят урбанизированные центры, президентское состязание между Роберт Mugabe и Simba Makoni. Удивительно, не будет много тракции для Morgan Tsvangirai (которое может быть по-разному в северных и восточных зонах страны). В одном всем constituency, удар Simba Makoni Роберт Mugabe в окончательной бирке около 55 станций полинга! Оно было малым допустимым пределом но весьма удивлять. In general, я думаю он потеряет Matabeleland, но не людьми значительных перевесов предскажите.

Где большой улетучиваемостью в избрании были местные советы. То куда вы получаете удивляя результаты с много, много incumbents будучи бросанными вне. В ретроспективе, оно делает чувство потому что те будут выбранными, котор они знают самые лучшие, которые имеют большинств непосредственный контакт и влияют на и который населяет имеет некоторую форму управления над. Опять, то удивило меня, после того как оно дало что избрания всегда были представлены счет как президентское состязание главным образом.

Funny вещь то, вы имеет внешние commentators быть удивленным победами что правительство достигает несмотря на ситуацию экономично. Я чувствую то большинств люди голосуют для президента или управляя выбранные партии реально делали поэтому из их воли. Много выбрали не проголосовать [следовательно низкое turn out избирателя] для любые причины. Когда вы имеете «демократическое» избрание, и выбранный которому аутсайдеры не предпочитают выигрыши, будет всегда проблема. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Update op de Verkiezing van Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
Er is een zeer interessant proces dat ik zo ben bevoorrecht om van een voorrijzetel waar te nemen. Zoals ik schrijf, worden de verkiezingsresultaten aangekondigd van verschilrassen over het land, zeker verschijnen zij langzaam, maar. Ik denk het belangrijk is om een context aan hoe te geven deze verkiezing is opgezet:
Er zijn 4 verschillende verkiezingen die gelijktijdig gebeuren: lokale raadsverkiezingen, lagere huis parlementaire zetels [Huis van Assemblage], het Hogere Huis van het parlement [de Senaat] en het Voorzitterschap. Er zijn 1 958 lokale raadszetels omhoog voor verkiezing in 1 958 afdelingen rond het land, is er Huis 210 omhoog van de zetels van de Assemblage voor grepen, zijn er zestig senaatszetels en één presidentiële zetel. Nu heeft elke één van deze posities minstens twee kandidaten die, met wat die wel hebben zeven kandidaten betwisten (en in andere gevallen meer). Zo er zijn heel wat mensen betrokken bij het betwisten voor alle verkozen bureaus in Zimbabwe.

Het post-stemt kiesproces

Het proces zelf, dat uit een reeks onderhandelingen tussen de overheid en de oppositie in de loop van de afgelopen 12 maanden is gebeurd heeft betekend dat de significante veranderingen in de kieswet in het land zijn aangebracht. De nieuwe wet vereist dat elke opiniepeilingspost hun stemmingen BIJ de post telt - dit moet om vermijden monterend of knoeiend met stembussen in doorgang aan een andere plaats. Dit is in elk geval gedaan overeenkomstig de wet. In een afdeling, kunt u tot 3 of 4 het krijgen posten afhankelijk van bevolkingsgegevens krijgen. In een kiesdistrict, kunt u wel krijgen 15 afdelingen. Dit betekent dat per kiesdistrict u ongeveer 60 het krijgen posten krijgt.

Wanneer de stemming in die opiniepeilingspost wordt gedaan, begint het tellen voor alle vier zetels - de lokale raad, het lagere huis, het hogere huis en het voorzitterschap. Voor elke kandidaat, is er een aanwezige opiniepeilingsagent om het tellen voor te zitten en te betwisten wat zij kunnen achten om afwijkingen van gepaste proces of wet te zijn. Een resultaat is slechts officieel wanneer alle opiniepeilingsagenten met het akkoord gaan; vandaar in het geval waar er geschillen zijn, kan dit een tijdje nemen. Herinner me nu, dat dit voor elke enige stemming gebeurt, en de elke kandidaatvertegenwoordigers kunnen hun oorzaak debatteren. Wanneer een definitief resultaat wordt bereikt en op door alle partijen goedgekeurd en iedereen ondertekent om zulke te bevestigen, het resultaat voor die opiniepeilingspost wordt gepost op de ingangsmanier aan die post. Het officiële resultaat wordt dan verzonden naar het „Centrum van het Bevel“ van dat kiesdistrict. Zo in elk kiesdistrict, zouden zij op alle zestig of zo het krijgen posten moeten wachten om een dat akkoord te bereiken, en dan de resultaten te verzenden naar een centrale plaats waar zij gebij elkaar bracht, en opnieuw akkoord gegaan op door alle Belangrijkste Agenten van de Verkiezing van de kandidaten [als zij verkozen om agenten te hebben hen] vertegenwoordigen en dan wordt een definitief resultaat bereikt. Zo in deze gevallen, kunt u veronderstellen hoe lang dit proces kan duren gezien (i) dit de eerste keer is dat dit in Zimbabwe werd gedaan; (ii) zoals in een groot sportief spel, def. van de wereldkop of iets, wordt elk bezit betwist - het zelfde met deze verkiezingen. ; (iii) in enkele landelijke bevolking [eigenlijk, in de meesten van hen] de wegen zijn horrendous. In sommige gevallen, onbestaand. Zo kan het bewegen van een afstand van 30 kilometers eigenlijk zolang een uur en de helft aan twee uren nemen. Zo is de beweging langzaam en ingewikkeld. En er zijn geen telefoons of elektronische communicatie.

Zo is het proces langzame, en ik denk de meeste mensen het beste deze resultaten uit zo snel mogelijk doen krijgen.

Ik nam het proces in de drie kiesbevolking in landelijke Matabeleland waar. In ZEER landelijke plaatsen zodat schrijf ik over elk van dit vanuit ervaring uit de eerste hand. De opiniepeilingen die Zaterdag bij 7pm worden gesloten. In het één kiesdistrict werden wij slechts een definitief resultaat (nadat het proces hierboven volledig was en iedereen op) akkoord ging op Maandag ochtend. Een andere één slechts door Maandag middag. Anderen zijn nog niet volledig.

De fout de meeste mensen maken is dat zij het resultaat buiten één opiniepeilingspost zien, dat als algemene resultaat en dan schreeuw „nemen dat de resultaten uit zijn. Waarom zij die niet " zijn en volledig onwetend van het proces worden aangekondigd zijn dat moet worden genomen om ervoor te zorgen dat alle partijen die op dat plaatselijk niveau worden geïmpliceerdo tevreden zijn.

Beweringen van Optuigen enz.

De internationaal nieuwsmedia zoemen met verhalen over hoe deze vertragingen door de overheid veroorzaakt worden die tijd probeert te kopen en de verkiezing te monteren. Ik denk die alle verkiezingen ben ik binnen heb deelgenomen en in Zimbabwe waargenomen, is dit de meest vrije, eerlijke en concurrerende verkiezing geweest. Er was bijna geen geweld dat aan de verkiezing leidt. Voor het eerst, had u eigenlijk heel wat oppositiespartijen gebruikend hoofdstroom met inbegrip van overheid gecontroleerde media aan campagne en hebbend toegang tot het electoraat bijna op pari met de overheid [ik zag bijna, omdat de overheid altijd het voordeel van incumbency heeft. Als een overheidsminister een nieuw project bijvoorbeeld opdraagt, is dat een „nationale plicht“ en niet een politieke vergadering zodat zijn de kiesregels niet noodzakelijk van toepassing, maar om het even welke slimme exploitant zou dat platform gebruiken voor hun oorzaak] te stoppen. Dit betekent niet dat alles over de periode die aan de verkiezing leidt eerlijk was, maar ik denk het milieu werkelijk voor mensen heeft toegestaan om hun wil uit te drukken.

Zelfs het post-verkiezingsproces dat ik voorzien=heeft= veel meer billijkheid dan voordien heb gevonden. Wat aan me werkelijk verrassend is is de mate waarin onmiddellijk nadat de verkiezing werd gedaan, de belangrijkste oppositie (de partij MDC die door Morgan Tsvangirai wordt geleid) op globale media blitz die ging de verkiezing en reeds vestiging een milieu voor hen eist wordt gemonteerd die of niet zich werkelijk bewust van de details van het proces zijn, of die uit het veel verwijderd zijn om op dat alles vooruit te lopen gebeurt. Ik werd werkelijk verrast door dit en denk het om een werkelijk dunne tactiek te zijn.

Het monteren, als het plaatsvindt, gebeurt niet met mensen die vakjes hoogtepunt van document enz. vullen. Het gebeurt op zeer technische gronden waar zij die over kieswet en procedure meest minst geïnformeerdr zijn niet het weten hoe te om het spel volledig te spelen.

De meeste mensen die dit lezen zullen door wat worden verrast ik op het punt sta te zeggen, maar in mijn observaties, zag ik de grootste gevallen van vuil spel [vraag het optuigen als u] zal komend uit de oppositie. En hun methodologie voor dit is zeer verfijnd. Laat me proberen en verklaren…

Toen wij kinderen waren, was er een tactiek waar als er een geschil tussen ons was aangezien de jonge geitjes die, laat zeggen samen spelen, één jong geitjeklappen een andere, de initiatiefnemer van de overtreding aan een volwassene zou lopen en luidst en de eis zou schreeuwen zij werden geraakt. De volwassene zou uit in reactie lopen en aan de verrassing van iedereen dat uit bij de persoon let op zou geselen die eigenlijk smacked in de eerste plaats was, maar het was te laat, was het initiatief verloren door het „slachtoffer“. Het was een slimme tactiek die meestal werkte, maar het verliet de persoon die werkelijk het geraakte zeer was, zeer unjustly behandeld voelen.

Een gelijkaardig ding is in deze verkiezing gebeurd van wat ik heb gezien. MDC heeft uit het gillen dat wij zijn bedrogen, daar is het monteren enz. in werking gesteld. zij hebben smartly tog et iedereen geleid dat op de verkeerde plaats let terwijl zij zelfvoldaan de boeken koken waar zij kunnen. Het is een zeer dichte verkiezing in de meeste gevallen zo elk punt telt. Laat me u voorbeelden geven van wat bedoel ik, zonder specifieke plaatsen en situaties te vermelden aangezien dit wettelijke implicaties kon hebben.

Het wijdverspreide geloof is dat de overheid de verkiezing zal monteren omdat het zo populair is dat het de verkiezing niet kan vrij winnen. Zij zeggen het het zal monteren omdat het ambtenaren heeft opgesteld om op de verkiezing toezicht te houden. In werkelijkheid, de mensen die grootste animosity naar de overheid hebben zijn ambtenaren. Leraren, Verpleegsters, Politie enz. zij zijn de laagste betaalde mensen in het land en toch hebben het meest gedacht van hen. Zo vonden wij in 3 plaatsen, en ik denk dit een steekproefgedrag is van wat u nationaal zou vinden, waardoor u kiesambtenaren had, tewerkgesteld door de overheid die dingen ten gunste van de oppositie probeert te werken.
In één opiniepeilingspost, waar een overheidskandidaat had gewonnen en de documenten die dit bevestigen bij die post werden ondertekend, verdween de leveringsnota die moet om naar het Centrum van het Bevel met het resultaat „gaan.“ Er waren een hertelling en het opnieuw bezoeken van het gehele proces dat ik heb beschreven, kwam het resultaat opnieuw uit ten gunste van de overheid. Opnieuw, verdween de leveringsnota. Uiteindelijk, werd de beklaagde geïdentificeerdt en werd gearresteerd en de herhaalde processen nogmaals en het resultaat gingen uiteindelijk door. In dat kiesdistrict, won de regeringsvertegenwoordiger voor die zetel, en er waren ongelooflijke uit:stellen het vrijgeven van dat gegeven over eindeloos, undescribed technisch karakter. Uiteindelijk, moesten de vertegenwoordigers van de kiescommissie van het kapitaal van het gebied worden geroepen binnen om het te regelen.
Een ander incident, was er een geval waardoor een persoon die bureau van de overheid betekent een comfortabel lood in hun kiesdistrict met een marge meer dan 1000 stemmen had. Twee afdelingen waren nog - opmerkelijk [ongeveer 6 het krijgen posten]. Toen de resultaten binnen kwamen, won de vertegenwoordiger van ZANU PF [de het regeren partij] één kiesdistrict, en verloor andere. De marge van het verlies was beduidend kleiner dan duizend. De kandidaatopiniepeilingsagent verliet de scène het veronderstellen overwinning. Dit was op Maandag ochtend. Maandag middag, hoorden wij de resultaten aankondigden dat de kandidaat van ZANU PF door meer dan 2000 stemmen heeft verloren. Mathematisch, is dit niet mogelijk. Er was zekerst een „boekhoudingsfout“ in dat geval en het resultaat zal het waarschijnlijkst juridisch uitgedaagd worden.
De oppositie heeft elk van deze „parallelle“ structuren opgezet om de resultaten van de woordverkiezing te voeden aangezien „zij“ hen zien. Wat van hen zijn zo in grote trekken verkeerd zijn het storen. Gisteren ontwierpen zij dat van de 210 Lagere zetels van het Huis, de overheid slechts 50 heeft gewonnen, oppositie 117 en het saldo dat naar onafhankelijken gaat - die natuurlijk een landdia voor de oppositie zouden betekenen. Als type van I, zijn ongeveer 90 resultaten voor het Huis van Assemblage aangekondigd met 43 gaand naar ZANU PF, 41 die naar één factie van MDC (de factie van Tsvangirai) gaan en het saldo naar onafhankelijken en de kleinere Factie MDC.

Één ding dat wordt gedaan wat zou kunnen worden gezien controversieel is dat de resultaten in de vroege stadia bijna op een evenwichtige manier - d.w.z. worden aangekondigd, kondigt u één overwinning voor de oppositie, voor de overheid enz. aan één reden om dit te doen kan zijn zodat u geen verwachtingen van één kant opheft en dan een Kenia-Type geschil hebt wanneer def. schommeling in tegenspraak aan vroege resultaten resulteert. Ik denk dit steek houdt omdat u rust in zulk een gespannen situatie wilt handhaven. Die die voor te doen dit bepleiten „zoals de resultaten verschijnen“ om niet van wat schijn geleerd te hebben enkel het noorden van Zimbabwe een paar maanden geleden gebeurde.

Ik ben zeker er gevallen van overheids (ZANU PF) optuigen dat zijn ook gebeurt, maar ik denk de ellende van ZANU meer vóór de verkiezing is gedaan, in het proces dat aan het eerder dan leidt tijdens of de verkiezing gepost. Maar ik ben zeker anderen elders hun eigen rapporten en perspectieven op dit te delen, vooral die hebben die of de verkiezing voor plaatsen deelnemen waarnemen die overweldigend ZANU PF steunen, waarvan Matabeleland geen traditioneel één van hen is.

Tegendeel aan „populaire“ verwachtingen
De meeste commentators buiten het land verwachten dat de beslissende partij en de voorzitter verliest de verkiezing. De economische situatie en een milieu dat eigenlijk meer van een vrijere uitdrukking van de wil toestaat van mensen worden aangehaald als enkele beïnvloedende factoren in die berekeningen. Dit is het aannemelijke denken aan één of andere graad. Ik verwachtte niet de voorzitter om te hebben om het even welk steun in Matabeleland bij allen. Gezien de geschiedenis van dit gebied, gezien de economische situatie en de sterke steun heeft de oppositie altijd hier gehad, was ik verrast om de resultaten in sommige plaatsen te zien.

U zou resultaten in een opiniepeilingspost waar de voorzitter zien die door een significante marge over zijn tegenstanders wordt gewonnen. U zou wat waar hij door een zeer brede marge verloor, en anderen krijgen die dicht waren. Ik verwachtte dat hem zeker verliest overal in dit deel van het land. Het blijkt die manier niet. Op de meeste gebieden hier waar ik dingen omhoog dicht, behalve Bulawayo en stedelijke centra waarnam, schijnt de presidentiële wedstrijd om tussen Robert Mugabe en Simba Makoni geweest te zijn. Verrassend, is er niet veel tractie voor Morgan Tsvangirai (die in de noordelijke en oostelijke gebieden van het land) verschillend kan zijn. In één volledig kiesdistrict, sloeg Robert Mugabe Simba Makoni in de definitieve aantekening van ongeveer 55 het krijgen posten! Het was een kleine marge maar uiterst het verrassen. In het algemeen, denk ik hij Matabeleland zal verliezen, maar niet door de brede marges voorspellen de mensen.

Waar er zijn is de grootste vluchtigheid in de verkiezing de lokale raden geweest. Dat is waar u de meest verrassende resultaten met velen krijgt, vele gevestigde exploitanten die uit worden geworpen. In terugblik, houdt het steek omdat die de kandidaten zijn zij het beste kennen, die het directste contact hebben en beïnvloeden en de mensen één of andere vorm van controle waarover hebben. Opnieuw, verraste dat me, gezien de verkiezingen altijd als presidentiële wedstrijd hoofdzakelijk zijn gefactureerd.

Het grappige ding is dat, hebt u externe commentators die door de overwinningen worden verrast die de overheid economisch ondanks de situatie bereikt. Ik ben van mening dat de meeste mensen die voor de voorzitter of het regeren van partijkandidaten stemmen werkelijk dit uit hun wil hebben gedaan. Velen hebben niet verkozen te stemmen [vandaar de lage kiezersopkomst] om de redenen. Wanneer u een „democratische“ verkiezing hebt, en de kandidaat geen die de buitenstaanders verkiezen wint, is er altijd een probleem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

تحديث على [زيمببو] إنتخاب
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
هناك عملية ممتعة جدّا أيّ أنا يتلقّى يكون هكذا فضّلت أن يلاحظ من أماميّة صف مقعد. بما أنّ أنا أكتب, أعلنت نتيجة انتخابات يكون من فرق أجناس عبر البلد, هم يظهرون ببطء, غير أنّ بالتّأكيد. أنا أفكّر هو مهمّة أن يعطي سياق إلى كيف هذا إنتخاب يتلقّى يكون ثبتت فوق:
هناك 4 إنتخابات مختلفة يحدث في وقت واحد: محلّية مجلس إنتخابات, مجلس الشّعب مقاعد برلمانيّة [منزل الاجتماع], المنزل علويّة مجلس نواب [المجلس الشيوخ] والرئاسة. هناك 1 958 محلّية مجلس مقاعد فوق لإنتخاب في 1 958 حراسة حول البلد, هناك 210 منزل من اجتماع مقاعد فوق لإختطاف, هناك ثلاثين مجلس الشيوخ مقاعد وواحدة مقعد رئاسيّة. الآن يتلقّى [إش ون] من هذا موقعات على الأقلّ اثنان مرشحات يعترض, مع بعض يتلقّى [أس مني] كسبعة مرشحات (وفي أخرى حالات أكثر). هكذا هناك [ا لوت] الالناس يتضمّن في يعترض ل [ألّ ث] ينتخب مكاتب في زمبابوي.

ال [بوست-فوتينغ] عملية انتخابيّة

قد أتى العملية بنفسي, أنّ حوالي من [سري] المفاوضات بين الحكومة والمعارضة على المسلك من السابقة 12 شهور قد عنى أنّ تغيرات هامّة يتلقّى يكون جعلت إلى القانون انتخابيّة في البلد. يتطلّب قانون جديدة أنّ كلّ إقتراع محطة يعدّ اقتراع سرّيّهم في المحطة - هذا [إين وردر تو] تفاديت يجهّز أو يعبث مع [بلّوت بوإكس] في عمليّة عبور إلى أيّ أخرى موقعة. أتمّت هذا يتلقّى يكون وفق القانون [إين فري كس]. في حراسة, أنت يستطيع أفقت إلى 3 أو 4 إقتراع محطات [دبندينغ ون] السّكان معطيات. في مجموعة ناخبين, أنت يستطيع حصلت [أس مني] ك 15 حراسة. هذا يعني أنّ لكلّ مجموعة ناخبين يحصل أنت حوالي 60 إقتراع محطات.

عندما أتمّت ال يقترع داخل أنّ إقتراع محطة, يعدّ لكلّ أربعة مقاعد يبدأ - المجلس محلّية, المجلس الشّعب, المنزل علويّة والرئاسة. ل كلّ مرشح, هناك إقتراع عاملة حاضرة أن يرأس على ال يعدّ وأن يعترض ماذا هم يمكن اعتبرت أن يكون إنحرافات من [دو بروسسّ] أو قانون. نتيجة فقط رسميّة عندما [ألّ ث] إقتراع يوافق عاملات إلى هو; بالتّالي في الحالة حيث هناك يكون مجادلات, هذا يستطيع أخذت فترة. الآن تذكّرت, أنّ يحدث هذا ل كلّ اقتراع سرّيّ وحيد, وكلّ مرشح ممثلات يستطيع جادلت سببهم. عندما بلغت نتيجة نهائيّة و [أغر وبون] بكلّ أحزاب وكلّ شخص يقع أن يؤكّد مثل هذا, النتيجة ل أنّ إقتراع محطة عيّنت على المدخل طريق إلى أنّ محطة. أرسلت النتيجة رسميّة بعد ذلك إلى ال "أمر مركز" من أنّ مجموعة ناخبين. هكذا في كلّ مجموعة ناخبين, اضطرّ هم انتظرت لكلّ ثلاثين أو هكذا إقتراع محطات أن يبلغ أنّ إتفاق, وبعد ذلك يرسل النتيجات إلى مكان مركزية حيث هم يكون فحصت, وثانية [أغر وبون] ب [ألّ ث] [إلكأيشن جنت] رئيسيّة من المرشحات [إن هم اختاروا أن يتلقّى عاملات مثّلتهم] وبعد ذلك نتيجة نهائيّة بلغت. هكذا في هذا حالات, أنت يستطيع تخيّلت [هوو لونغ] هذا عملية يمكن أخذت يعطي أنّ [(ي)] هذا [ث فيرست تيم] أنّ أتمّت هذا كان في زمبابوي; اعترضت [(يي)] بما أنّ في كبيرة [سبورتينغ] لعبة, العالم [كب فينل] أو شيء, كلّ امتلاك - ال نفس مع هذا إنتخابات. ; [(ييي)] في بعض من المجموعة ناخبين ريفيّة [واقعيّا, في أكثر من هم] الطرق مريعة. أحيانا, [نون-إكسيستنت]. هكذا يتحرّك بعد من 30 كيلومترات يستطيع واقعيّا أخذت [أس لونغ س] ساعة ونصف إلى اثنان ساعات. هكذا حركة بطيئة ومعقّدة. وهناك ما من هواتف أو اتصال الكتروني.

هكذا العملية بطيئة واحدة, ويفكّر أنا كثير الناس يتمّون الجيّدة أن يحصل هذا نتيجات خارجا مثل سريعة بما أنّ يمكن.

أنا لاحظت العملية في ثلاثة مجموعة ناخبين انتخابيّة في [متبللند] ريفيّة. يكتب في أماكن ريفيّة جدّا لذلك أنا حول كلّ من هذا من خبرة مباشرة. العمليّة تصويت ينفضّ يوم السّبت في [7بم]. في الواحدة مجموعة ناخبين حصل نحن فقط نتيجة نهائيّة (عقب العملية أعلاه كان كاملة وكلّ [أغر وبون]) على يوم الإثنين صباح. آخر واحدة فقط بيوم الإثنين العصر. أخرى ليس بعد كاملة.

الغلطة كثير الناس يكون يجعلون أنّ يرى هم النتيجة خارج واحدة إقتراع محطة, لقطة أنّ كالنتيجة إجماليّة وبعد ذلك يصرخون "أنّ نتيجات يكون خارجا. لما يكونون هم لا يكون يعلن " ويكون تماما جاهلة من العملية أنّ ينبغي كنت أخذت أن يضمن أنّ أرضيت كلّ أحزاب يتضمّن في أنّ مستوى محلّية.

ادّعاءات اللازم [إتك]

يطنّ ال [نوس مديوم] دوليّة مع قصص حول كيف هذا يؤخّرون يكون يكون سبّبت بالحكومة يحاول أن يشتري وقت وجهّزت الإنتخاب. أنا أفكّر أنّ يكون [ألّ ث] إنتخابات أنا قد ساهمت داخل ويلاحظ في زمبابوي, هذا يكون ال أكثر حرّة, عادلة وإنتخاب تنافسيّة. هناك كان تقريبا ما من عنف [لد وب] إلى الإنتخاب. [فور ث فيرست تيم], تلقّى أنت واقعيّا [ا لوت] من معارضة أحزاب يستعمل تيار رئيسيّة بما في ذلك حكومة يضبط أوساط أن يشترك ويتلقّى منفذة إلى الجمهور الناخبين تقريبا على تكافؤ مع الحكومة [أنا منشار تقريبا, لأنّ الحكومة دائما يتلقّى الميزة الواجب. إن حكومة وزيرة يكون ينتدب مشروع جديدة مثلا, أنّ "واجب رسم وطنيّة" ولا اجتماع سياسيّة لذلك يطبّق القواعد انتخابيّة لا بالضّرورة, غير أنّ أيّ [سمرت وبرتور] استعمل أنّ منصة أن يسدّ لسببهم]. لا يعني هذا أنّ كلّ شيء حول الفترة [لد وب] إلى الإنتخاب كان عادلة, غير أنّ أنا أفكّر البيئة حقّا قد سمح لالناس أن عبّر عن إرادتهم.

حتّى قد زوّد العملية [بوست-لكأيشن] أنا أشعر ل كثير كثير إنصاف من من قبل. ماذا يكون حقّا يفاجئ إلى ي يكون المدى إلى أيّ [إيمّديتلي فتر] أتمّت الإنتخاب كان, المعارضة رئيسيّة (ال [مدك] حزب يقاد ب [مورغن] [تسفنجري]) ذهب على أوساط شاملة غارة جويّة يدّعي الإنتخاب يكون يكون جهّزت وسابقا [ستّينغ-وب] بيئة ل أنّ الذي يكون إمّا لا حقّا مدركة من التفاصيل من العملية, أو الذي يكون بعيدا أزلت من هو أن [برجودج] كلّ أنّ يكون يحدث. فاجأت أنا كان حقّا ب هذا ويفكّر هو أن يكون تكتيك رديئة حقّا.

لا يحدث يجهّز, إن هو يكون يتمّ, مع الناس يحشو صناديق تماما من ورقة [إتك.]. هو يحدث على أراضي فنّيّة جدّا حيث أنّ الذي يكون على الأقلّ يعلم على انتخابيّة قانون وإجراء لا يعرف كيف أن يلعب اللعبة كلّيّا.

سيفاجئ كثير الناس يقرأ هذا كنت ب ماذا أنا أكون حوالي أن يقول, غير أنّ في بطاقاتي, أنا منشار الحالات عظيمة من لعبة فاسدة [دعوة هو لازم إن أنت تريد] يأتي من المعارضة. ومنهجيّتهم ل هذا جدّا راقي. تركتني حاولت وفسّرت…

عندما كان نحن أطفال, هناك كان تكتيك حيث إن هناك كان مجادلة بين نا بما أنّ جديات يلعب معا, يتركون رأي, واحدة جدية يضرب آخر, المبتكرة من الانتهاك ركض إلى بالغ وصرخ المرتفعة وإدعاء هم كان ضربت. ركض البالغ خارجا في إستجابة وإلى المفاجأة من كلّ شخص يراقب جلد خارجا في الشخص الذي واقعيّا كان فاح في المكان أولى, غير أنّ هو كان أيضا متأخّرة, المبادرة تلقّى يكون خسرت ب ال "ضحية". هو كان تكتيك ذكيّة أيّ عمل أكثر من الوقت, غير أنّ هو يسارا الشخص الذي كان حقّا يضرب إحساس جدّا, جدّا بغير حقّ يعامل.

قد حدث شيء مماثلة في هذا إنتخاب من ماذا أنا قد رأيت. قد ركض ال [مدك] خارجا يصرخ أنّ نحن يتلقّى يكون خادعت, هناك لازم [إتك.]. يدير هم يتلقّى [سمرتلي] [توغ] [إت] كلّ شخص يراقب المكان خاطئة بينما هم [سموغلي] يطبخون الكتب حيث هم يستطيعون. هو إنتخاب قريبة جدّا [إين موست كسس] لذلك كلّ نقطة حسابات. تركتني أعطيت أنت مثل من ماذا أنا أعني, دون يذكر خاصّة موقعات وحالات بما أنّ هذا استطاع يتلقّى [لغل يمبليكأيشن].

الإعتقاد واسع انتشار أنّ سيجهّز الحكومة الإنتخاب لأنّ هو يكون هكذا شعبيّة أنّ هو يستطيع لا يربح الإنتخاب تماما. هم يقولون سيجهّز هو هو لأنّ هو قد نشر [سفيل سرفنت] أن يراقب الإنتخاب. في حقيقة, الالناس الذي يتلقّى العداءة عظيمة نحو الحكومة [سفيل سرفنت]. معلمات, [نورسس], شرطة [إتك.]. هم الالناس منخفضة بمقابل في البلد [أند ت] يتلقّى ال أكثر يتوقّع من هم. هكذا أسّس نحن في 3 أماكن, وأنا أفكّر هذا عينة تصرف من ماذا أنت وجدت [نأيشن ويد], [وهربي] أنت تلقّيت مسؤولات انتخابيّة, يستخدم بالحكومة يحاول أن يعمل أشياء [إين ففوور وف] المعارضة.
في واحدة إقتراع محطة, حيث حكومة مرشح كان قد ربح والأوراق يؤكّد هذا كان وقعت في أنّ محطة, ال [دليفري نوت] يعنى أن يذهب إلى الأمر مركز مع النتيجة "يختفى." هناك كان تعداد ثان وأتى يزور من العملية كاملة أنا قد وصفت, النتيجة ثانية خارجا [إين ففوور وف] الحكومة. ثانية, اختفى ال [دليفري نوت]. أخيرا, عيّنت المتهمة كان ويوقف والعمليات كرّسوا [أنس غين] والنتيجة أخيرا ذهب كلّيّا. في أنّ مجموعة ناخبين, الحكومة كان ممثلة ل أنّ مقعد يربح, وهناك غيرمعقول يؤخّر في يطلق أنّ معطيات على لانهائيّة, [أوندسكريبد] صفة تقنيّة. أخيرا, ممثلات من العمولة انتخابيّة من المنطقة رأس مال اضطرّ كنت دعات داخل أن يقرّر هو.
آخر حادث, كان هناك حالة [وهربي] شخص يقف لمكتب من الحكومة تلقّى رصاص مريحة في مجموعت ناخبينهم مع هامش من على 1000 إقتراعات. كان اثنان حراسة [ستيلّ-ووتستندينغ] [حوالي 6 إقتراع محطات]. عندما أتى نتيجات داخل, ال [زنو] [بف] [ال يحكم حزب] ممثلة ربح واحدة مجموعة ناخبين, وخسر الأخرى. كان الهامش من الخسارة بشكل ملحوظ صغيرة من ألف. المرشح إقتراع ترك عاملة المشهد نصرة متعجرفة. هذا كان على يوم الإثنين صباح. يوم الإثنين العصر, سمع نحن النتيجات أعلنوا أنّ ال [زنو] [بف] مرشح قد خسر جانبا على 2000 إقتراعات. حسابيّا, ليس هذا يمكن. هناك كان أكثر بالتّأكيد "محاسبة خطأ" داخل أنّ سيتحدّى حالة والنتيجة أكثر على الأرجح كنت قانونيّا.
قد ثبت المعارضة فوق كلّ من هذا "موازية" بنى أن يغذّي الكلمة نتيجة انتخابات بما أنّ "هم" يرونهم. بعض من هم هكذا إجمالا خطأه يزعج. بالأمس سلّط هم أنّ من 210 مجلس الشّعب مقاعد, الحكومة قد ربح فقط 50, المعارضة 117 والميزان يذهب إلى عضو مستقلّ - أيّ [أف كورس] عنى أرض منزلقة للمعارضة. بما أنّ أنا أطبع, حوالي 90 أعلنت نتيجات للمنزل الاجتماع يتلقّى يكون مع 43 يذهب إلى [زنو] [بف], 41 يذهب إلى واحدة زمرة من ال [مدك] ([تسفنجري] زمرة) والميزان إلى عضو مستقلّ والصغيرة [مدك] زمرة.

واحدة شيء أنّ يكون يكون أتمّت أيّ استطاع كنت رأيت كخلافيّة أنّ أعلنت النتيجات في المرحلة مبكرة يكون تقريبا في طريقة متوازنة - [إي.], أنت يعلن واحدة نصرة للمعارضة, واحدة للحكومة [إتك.]. واحدة سبب ل يتمّ هذا يمكن كنت [س ثت] أنت لا ترفع توقعات من واحدة جانب وبعد ذلك يتلقّى [كن-تب] مجادلة عندما يترجّح النتيجات نهائيّة في تناقض إلى نتيجات مبكّرة. أنا أفكّر يجعل هذا إحساس لأنّ أنت تريد أن يبقي هدوء في هذا حالة متوتّرة. أنّ يدافع ل هذا أن يكون أتمّت "بما أنّ نتيجات يظهرون" يبدو أن لا يتلقّى علمت من ماذا حدث شمال صحيحة زمبابوي [ا فو مونثس غو].

أنا يوقن هناك حالات من حكومة ([زنو] [بف]) لازم يحدث أيضا, غير أنّ يفكّر أنا [زنو] ضرر أكثر يتلقّى يكون أتمّت قبل الإنتخاب, في العملية [لد وب] إلى هو [رثر ثن] أثناء أو عيّنت الإنتخاب. غير أنّ أنا يوقن يتلقّى أخرى في مكان آخر هم خاصّة تقارير و [برسبكتيفس] أن يشارك على هذا, خصوصا أنّ يساهم أو يلاحظ الإنتخاب لأماكن أنّ بشدّة يساند [زنو] [بف], [أف وهيش] [متبللند] ليس تقليديّا واحدة من هم.

عكس إلى "شعبيّة" توقعات
يتوقّع كثير معلقات خارج البلد ال يحكم حزب ورئيس أن يخسر الإنتخاب. ذكرت ال [إكنوميك ستثأيشن] وبيئة أنّ واقعيّا يسمح أكثر من تعبير [فرير] من الناس إرادة بما أنّ بعض من ال يأثر عاملات في أنّ حسابات. هذا محتملة يفكّر إلى بعض درجة. أنا لم أتوقّع الرئيس أن يتلقّى أيّ دعم في [متبللند] في كلّ. فاجأت يعطي التاريخ من هذا منطقة, يعطى ال [إكنوميك ستثأيشن] والدعم قوّيّة المعارضة يتلقّى دائما يتلقّى هنا, أنا كان أن يرى النتيجات في بعض أماكن.

أنت رأيت نتيجات في إقتراع محطة حيث الرئيس ربح بهامش هامّة على مقاوماته. أنت حصلت بعض حيث هو خسر ب جدّا يوسع هامش, وأخرى أنّ كان قريبة. أنا بالتّأكيد توقّعته أن يخسر في كلّ مكان في هذا جزء من البلد. هو لا [تثرن ووت] أنّ طريق. في كثير مناطق هنا حيث أنا لاحظت يغلق أشياء فوق, باستثناء [بولوو] و [أوربن سنتر], المسابقة رئاسيّة يبدوون أن يتلقّى كنت بين روبرت [موغب] و [سمبا] [مكوني]. بشكل عجيب, ليس هناك كثير عمليّة جرّ ل [مورغن] [تسفنجري] (أيّ يمكن كنت مختلفة في الشماليّة ومناطق شرقيّة من البلد). في واحدة مجموعة ناخبين كاملة, روبرت [موغب] نبض [سمبا] [مكوني] في اليافطة نهائيّة من حوالي 55 إقتراع محطات! هو كان هامش صغيرة غير أنّ جدّا يفاجئ. [إين جنرل,] يفكّر أنا هو سيخسر [متبللند], غير أنّ لا ب ال يوسع هوامش الناس تنبّأت.

حيث هناك يكون قد كان التطايرية عظيمة في الإنتخاب المجالس محلّية. أنّ حيث أنت تحصل ال أكثر يفاجئ نتيجات مع كثير, كثير مسؤول كبير يكون يرمى خارجا. في استعادة ماضي, يجعل هو إحساس لأنّ أنّ يكون المرشحات هم يعرفون الجيّدة, أنّ يتلقّى الاتّصال مباشرة أكثر ويأثر وأنّ يعمّرون يتلقّى بعض شكل التحكم على. ثانية, فاجأني أنّ, يعطي أنّ الإنتخابات يتلقّى دائما يكون فوترت كمسابقة رئاسيّة أوّلا.

الشيء مضحكة أنّ, أنت يتلقّى معلقات خارجيّة يفاجأ بالنصرة أنّ يحقّق الحكومة على الرغم من الحالة اقتصاديّا. أنا أشعر أنّ كثير الناس الذي يقترع للرئيس أو يحكم حزب مرشحات يتلقّى حقّا يتمّون لذلك من إرادتهم. قد اختار كثير لا أن يقترع [بالتّالي المنخفضة مقترعة [تثرن ووت]] ل أيّما أسباب. عندما يتلقّى أنت "ديموقراطيّة" إنتخاب, والمرشح أنّ دخيلات لا يفضّلون فوز, هناك دائما مشكلة. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

do the math. see if you can work out how hypocritical the media can be in this democracy thing .... this is just one [respected] publication.... but the hypocrisy i find across the board not just in The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Démocratie d'hypocrisie
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
faites les maths. voyez si vous pouvez établir comment hypocrite les médias peuvent être dans cette chose de démocratie…. c'est juste une publication [respectée]…. mais l'hypocrisie que je trouve d'un bout de l'affaire à l'autre pas simplement dans l'économiste.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Democracia de la hipocresía
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
haga la matemáticas. vea si usted puede resolverse cómo es hypocritical los medios pueden estar en esta cosa de la democracia…. ésta es apenas una publicación [respetada]…. pero la hipocresía que encuentro a través del tablero no justo en el economista.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Democrazia di ipocrisia
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
faccia il per la matematica. veda se potete risolvere quanto hypocritical i mezzi possono essere in questa cosa di democrazia…. ciò è appena una pubblicazione [rispettata]…. ma l'ipocrisia che trovo attraverso il bordo non giusto nell'economista.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Hypokrisie-Demokratie
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
tun Sie Mathe. sehen Sie, wenn Sie ausarbeiten können, wie heuchlerisch die Mittel in dieser Demokratiesache sein können…. dieses ist gerade eine [respektierte] Publikation…. aber die Hypokrisie, die ich das allgemeine nicht gerecht im Wirtschaftswissenschaftler finde.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Democracia do Hypocrisy
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
faça o math. veja se você puder trabalhar para fora como hypocritical os meios podem estar nesta coisa da democracia…. esta é apenas uma publicação [respeitada]…. mas o hypocrisy que eu encontro através da placa nao justo no economista.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Hyckleridemokrati
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
gör mathen. se, om du kan fungera ut hur skenheligt massmedia kan vara i detta demokratiting…., denna är precis en [respekterad] publikation…., men hycklerit som jag finner över stiga ombord inte precis i ekonomen.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

Народовластие лицемерности
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo
сделайте математику. см. если вы можете разработать, то как лицемерно средства могут находиться в этой вещи народовластия…. это как раз одно [уважаемое] издание…. но лицемерность, котор я считаю через доску справедливо в економисте.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

De Democratie van de schijnheiligheid
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
doe math. zie of kunt u uitwerken hoe schijnheilig kunnen zijn de media in dit democratieding…. dit is enkel één [geëerbiedigdee] publicatie…. maar de schijnheiligheid die ik over de hele linie niet alleen in The Economist heb gevonden.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

نفاق ديموقراطيّة
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
أتمّت الرياضيات. رأيت إن أنت يستطيع تطوّرت كيف منافقة الأوساط يستطيع كنت في هذا ديموقراطيّة شيء…. هذا فقط واحدة [يحترم] نشر…. غير أنّ النفاق أنا أجد [ث بوأرد] لا صحيحة في الإقتصادية.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

This Article is called the Fakebook Generation and recently appeared in the New York Times - rather interesting... I wonder how many young people can identify with Mathias's points, which i think are a very good reflection on our generation and emerging global on-line, interconnected culture!



Op-Ed Contributor
The Fakebook Generation

By ALICE MATHIAS
Published: October 6, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/opinion/06mathias.html?ref=opinion

Chicago

THE time-chugging Web site Facebook.com first appeared during my freshman year as the exclusive domain of college students. This spring, Facebook opened its pearly gates, enabling myself and other members of the class of ’07 to graduate from our college networks into those of the real world.

In no time at all, the Web site has convinced its rapidly assembling adult population that it is a forum for genuine personal and professional connections. Its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has even declared his quest to chart a “social graph” of human relationships the way that cartographers once charted the world.

Just a warning: if you’re planning on following the corner of this map that’s been digitally doodled by my 659 Facebook friends, you are going to end up in the middle of nowhere. All the rhetoric about human connectivity misses the real reason this popular online study buddy has so distracted college students for the past four years.

Facebook did not become popular because it was a functional tool — after all, most college students live in close quarters with the majority of their Facebook friends and have no need for social networking. Instead, we log into the Web site because it’s entertaining to watch a constantly evolving narrative starring the other people in the library.

I’ve always thought of Facebook as online community theater. In costumes we customize in a backstage makeup room — the Edit Profile page, where we can add a few Favorite Books or touch up our About Me section — we deliver our lines on the very public stage of friends’ walls or photo albums. And because every time we join a network, post a link or make another friend it’s immediately made visible to others via the News Feed, every Facebook act is a soliloquy to our anonymous audience.

It’s all comedy: making one another laugh matters more than providing useful updates about ourselves, which is why entirely phony profiles were all the rage before the grown-ups signed in. One friend announced her status as In a Relationship with Chinese Food, whose profile picture was a carry-out box and whose personal information personified the cuisine of China.

We even make a joke out of how we know one another — claiming to have met in “Intro to Super Mario Re-enactments,” which I seriously doubt is a real course at Wesleyan, or to have lived together in a “spay and neuter clinic” instead of the dorm. Still, these humor bits often reveal more about our personalities and interests than any honest answers.

Facebook administrators have since exiled at least the flagrantly fake profiles, the Greta Garbos and the I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butters, in an effort to have the site grow up from a farce into the serious social networking tool promised to its new adult users, who earnestly type in their actual personal information and precisely label everyone they know as former co-workers or current colleagues, family members or former lovers.

But does this more reverent incarnation of Facebook actually enrich adult relationships? What do these constellations of work colleagues and long-lost friends amount to? An online office mixer? A reunion with that one other guy from your high school who has a Facebook profile? Oh! You get to see pictures of your former college sweetheart’s family! (Only depressing possibilities are coming to mind for some reason.)

My generation has long been bizarrely comfortable with being looked at, and as performers on the Facebook stage, we upload pictures of ourselves cooking dinner for our parents or doing keg stands at last night’s party; we are reckless with our personal information. But there is one area of privacy that we won’t surrender: the secrecy of how and whom we search.

A friend of mine was recently in a panic over rumors of a hacker application that would allow Facebook users to see who’s been visiting their profiles. She’d spent the day ogling a love interest’s page and was horrified at the idea that he knew she’d been looking at him. But there’s no way Facebook would allow such a program to exist: the site is popular largely because it enables us to indulge our gazes anonymously. (We might feel invulnerable in the spotlight, but we don’t want to be caught sitting in someone else’s audience.) If our ability to privately search is ever jeopardized, Facebook will turn into a ghost town.

Facebook purports to be a place for human connectivity, but it’s made us more wary of real human confrontation. When I was in college, people always warned against the dangers of “Facebook stalking” at a library computer — the person whose profile you’re perusing might be right behind you. Dwelling online is a cowardly and utterly enjoyable alternative to real interaction.

So even though Facebook offers an elaborate menu of privacy settings, many of my friends admit that the only setting they use is the one that prevents people from seeing that they are Currently Logged In. Perhaps we fear that the Currently Logged In feature advertises to everyone else that we (too!) are Currently Bored, Lustful, Socially Unfulfilled or Generally Avoiding Real Life.

For young people, Facebook is yet another form of escapism; we can turn our lives into stage dramas and relationships into comedy routines. Make believe is not part of the postgraduate Facebook user’s agenda. As more and more older users try to turn Facebook into a legitimate social reference guide, younger people may follow suit and stop treating it as a circus ring. But let’s hope not.

Alice Mathias is a 2007 graduate of Dartmouth.

It's ridiculous how the US justifies its agricultural policy at the
expense of other peoples' livelihoods.

nothing really new in this article, but it's good to see this issue
getting media attention.



From http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/06/africa/web0406-zambia.php

For the hungry in Zambia, U.S. law may hinder urgent food aid
By Cecilia W. Dugger
Friday, April 6, 2007


MULONDO, Zambia: Traveling to school in wobbly dugout canoes, Munalula
Muhau and her three cousins, 7 and 8 year olds whose parents died of
AIDS, held onto just one possession: battered tin bowls to receive
their daily ration of gruel.

Within weeks, those rations, provided by the United Nations World Food
Program, will run out for them and 500,000 other paupers, including
thousands of people wasted by AIDS who are being treated with
American-financed drugs that make them healthier - and ravenously
hungry.

"Not to put too fine a point on it," said Jeffrey Stringer, an
American doctor who runs a non-profit group treating 50,000 Zambians
with AIDS, "but it will result in the death of some patients."

Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome, the World Food Program made
an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn
from Zambia's own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the
warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.

But United States law requires that virtually all donated food be
grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on
vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews - a process
that typically takes four to six months.

For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make
foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the
United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food
aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies.
The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of
agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial
stakes in the current food aid system.

Oxfam, the international aid group, and other proponents of the Bush
proposal, say it would enable the United States to feed more people
more quickly, while helping fight poverty by buying the crops of
peasants in poor countries.

The U.S. Agency for International Development estimated that if
Congress adopted the Bush proposal, the United States could feed at
least a million more people and save 50,000 more lives.

But Congress quickly killed the plan in each of the past two years,
cautioning that untying food aid from domestic interest groups would
weaken the commitment that has made the United States by far the
largest food aid donor in a world where 850 million go hungry.

Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California and chairman of the
House Foreign Relations Committee, warned last year at a food aid
conference in Washington that decoupling food aid from American
maritime and agribusiness interests "is beyond insane."

"It is a mistake of gigantic proportions," he said, "because support
for such a program will vanish overnight, overnight."

But James Kunder, acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, said in an interview that the
administration proposal - which would affect less than half of one
percent of American agricultural exports - would not undercut American
interests.

"The burden of proof is on producers and shippers to show this is
going to significantly damage their interests," he said, "because we
can provide compelling evidence that allowing local procurement is
going to save lives by speeding up delivery of supplies."

Here in Zambia, population 11 million, more than a million children
are already orphaned, mostly because AIDS killed their parents. Life
expectancy has plunged to 38 years, and countless sickened adults,
unable to work, can no longer feed their families.

On a recent day, patients on U.S.-financed AIDS drugs and their
families streamed into a food distribution point at the Lewanika
Hospital in Mongu town. Already, as the World Food Program's stocks
have run low, rations have been almost halved. Some were so hungry
that they scooped handfuls of corn-soy powder into their mouths
without even adding water to make porridge.

One of the patients, Annie Mubita, a 32-year-old mother of six, said
her strength is returning, and so is her appetite, which had shriveled
when she was sick. Mubita assumes her children are also HIV positive,
she said, but has not had them tested because if they, too, go on the
drugs, they will be as hungry as she is.

"If the children have an appetite like me, the food won't last even
two weeks," she said. If the rations end, she said, "me and my
children will die."

Kandundu Litia, a 12-year-old orphan with AIDS, also fears a cut-off
of food. Before the rations began, she said, her aunt, uncle and
cousins would eat when she was at school. "There was none left when I
got home," she whispered, her head dropping. The short shock of hair
springing from her head still had the telltale reddish tint of the
malnourished.

David Stevenson, who heads the World Food Program's Zambia office and
has worked for the organization in Africa for 15 years, through war
and drought, says he has never seen a crisis on the scale of what AIDS
and drought have wrought in Zambia. He worries as supplies dwindle.

With cash donations, the World Food Program could get Zambian corn to
the hungry in a month, far faster than the United States could
typically act.

The cash would also stretch further than in-kind food. In recent
years, the World Food Program has procured 75 percent more food for
Zambia, Kenya and Uganda by buying corn grown in those countries,
rather than shipping American food, according to Michigan State
University agricultural economists who studied crop and shipping data.

There is hope that Zambia, a relatively stable democracy, can become a
bread basket in a region roiled by conflict, disease and economic
collapse, at least in years when it is not devastated by drought.

In lean years, the World Food Program shuts down its buying operation
here for fear of driving up the prices of corn, the main staple,
beyond the reach of poor consumers. It imports food instead.

But during bumper harvests, the World Food Program has become a major
buyer of Zambian-grown corn. Since 2001, it has bought more than $1
billion worth of food in some of the poorest countries on earth.

For farmers like Catherine Hangama, 36, that money makes all the
difference. She works a small plot with her husband in the village of
Nakandyoli in Mumbwa district. For the first time last year they sold
a small surplus of maize for $53 to the Zambian government's Food
Reserve Agency, one of the World Food Programs biggest suppliers here.

That money bought soap and paid for uniforms and fees to send three
children to school. This year, she and her husband have planted more
and hope to sell 15 bags after this year's harvest.

"If I don't plow well, the children won't be able to go to school,"
she explained, with one twin baby at her breast and the other on her
back.

What Hangama earns is a pittance compared with the billions at stake
for the main players in American food aid.

Over the past three years, the same four companies and their
subsidiaries - Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Bunge and Cal Western
Packaging - have sold the American government more than half the $2.2
billion in food for Food for Peace, the largest food aid program, and
two smaller programs, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Shipping companies were paid $1.3 billion over the same period to move
the food aid overseas, the USDA figures show.

And nonprofit groups received over $500 million in donated American
food, which they sold at market rates in developing countries to raise
money for antipoverty programs, according to U.S. AID and a recent
study by Emmy Simmons, a retired U.S. AID official.

Agribusiness and shipping groups vigorously oppose the Bush
administration proposal to buy food in developing countries with cash,
which they argue is more likely to be stolen. They say American food
is safer and of higher quality and that the government can speed
delivery by storing it in warehouses around the world.

And they defend the idea that federal spending should benefit American
business and farming interests, as well as the hungry. Without support
from such interest groups, food aid budgets from Congress would
whither, they say.

"It would be at extreme risk of being diminished," said Paul Green, a
consultant to the North American Millers' Association, a trade
association for the milling industry that counts Archer Daniels
Midland, Bunge and Horizon Milling, a joint venture of Cargill and CHS
among its members.

Gloria Tosi, a lobbyist and immediate past president of the American
Maritime Congress, an association of U.S.-flag ship owners, agreed.
"There's no constituency for cash," she said.

Many charitable groups involved in food aid share that worry, and also
warn that a badly managed program to buy food in poor countries could
drive up food prices and worsen hunger.

The Alliance for Food Aid, 14 nonprofit groups involved in
distributing and selling American food aid overseas, maintains that
the Bush proposal is too ambitious and advocate a modest pilot
program.

"Do a demonstration," said Robert Zachritz, a senior policy adviser at
World Vision. "Does it work? Then you can go from there."

For now, the World Food Program is hoping other rich nations or
individuals will donate cash to keep rations flowing for the half
million needy Zambiams, among them Manaluna and 135,000 children fed
through community schools.

The pupils in this grass hut schoolhouse are from families so poor
they cannot afford the flip flops and $6 uniforms required to attend
public schools.

Beatrice Nyambe, 64, a retired public school teacher who serves
without pay as principal, worries that when food from school runs out,
most of the children will go back to day work in the fields so they
can buy a few handfuls of corn meal to fill their bellies.

Munalula, whose own mother was an untrained teacher before AIDS took
her, is the best student in the school and wants to be a teacher as
well. She helps her cousins with their homework, scratching out sums
in the dirt with a stick.

At school, she and 50 other children in the dirt-floored classroom in
the village of Nalusheke fell silent but for the smacking sounds they
made eating a boiled mush of American bulgur wheat. Each bowlful,
topped with split peas from Canada, cost 12 cents. The bulgur came
from sacks emblazoned with the words, "Gift of the People of the
United States of America."

Munalula and her barefoot cousins scraped their bowls clean, savoring
each unsweetened bite. But some children barely touched theirs.

Sisi Negenda, a six-year-old with little braids, shyly explained why.
She has a younger sister, 3, and several orphaned relatives at home.
She said she wanted to share with them. She carried off the bowl,
still heavy with porridge, as though it were a precious, breakable
object.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=304054&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/

US reveals its efforts to topple Mugabe

The United States admitted openly for the first time on Thursday that
it was actively working to undermine Robert Mugabe, the President of
Zimbabwe.

Although officially Washington does not support regime change, a US
state department report published on Thursday acknowledged that it was
supporting opposition politicians in the country and others critical
of Mugabe.

The State Department also admitted sponsoring events aimed at
"discrediting" statements made by Mugabe's government.

The report will be seized on by Mugabe, who has repeatedly claimed
that the US and Britain are seeking regime change.

The comments are contained in the state department's fifth annual
Supporting Human Rights and Democracy report. It sets out in detail
actions the US government is taking worldwide to promote human rights.

The report has had a troubled history. Three years ago publication had
to be hastily delayed when details emerged about US human rights
abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.

The US, compared with the United Kingdom, was initially slow to
criticise Mugabe, but has since adopted an increasingly critical
stance, most recently at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last
month.

In an unusual piece of candour, the State Department report says: "To
encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in
[Zimbabwe], the United States sponsored public events that presented
economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuses for
its failed policies.

"To further strengthen pro-democracy elements, the US government
continued to support the efforts of the political opposition, the
media and civil society to create and defend democratic space and to
support persons who criticised the government."

While the US and British governments still insist their aim in
Zimbabwe is not regime change, they have been encouraging the main
opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangarai, who was beaten up last month.

The report says that while Zimbabwe is nominally democratic, the
government of Mugabe is "now authoritarian".

At a press conference to launch the document, the Assistant Secretary
of State, Barry Lowenkren, said the US goal was not necessarily regime
change but to create a level playing field for all parties. He added
that where there was a country with record levels of inflation, denial
of basic human rights and other abuses, the US had a duty to speak out
so that people in Zimbabwe knew they had support.

Asked whether US efforts to promote human rights worldwide were being
undermined by the hundreds of of people being held at Guantánamo,
Lowenkren insisted the issue was not raised by non-governmental groups
at conferences he attended and participants were more interested in
what the US could do to help them in their own countries.

He also denied the report was softer on authoritarian governments
allied to the US, such as Belarus, than to Zimbabwe.

Lowenkren said $66-million was being spent on promotion of democracy
and human rights in Iran, about half of which was devoted to
broadcasts from outside the country and the rest spent on support for
non-governmental exchanges, cultural exchanges such as the visit by
the US wrestling team and a Persian internet service.

The report is critical of Russia, noting the killing of the journalist
Anna Politkovskaya.

It says: "Political pressure on the judiciary, corruption and
selectivity in enforcement of the law, continuing media restrictions
and self-censorship, and government pressure on opposition political
parties eroded the public accountability of government leaders.

"Security forces were involved in additional significant human rights problems."

University considers revoking degree
Meanwhile, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) is considering
revoking an honourary doctorate of law it awarded Mugabe in 1986.

Some students at the Boston campus have circulated a petition asking
for the university to revoke the degree, and officials say they are
considering doing so.

"Mugabe's actions during the past decade show he's fallen from being a
good citizen of the world," said Shauna Murray, a graduate student who
helped circulate the petition. "He has a track record of suppressing
basic human rights like free speech and the right to protest, and that
doesn't represent what students here stand for."

The issue also has surfaced at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland
and Michigan State University, which gave Mugabe honourary degrees in
1984 and 1990, respectively.

Terry Denbow, a Michigan State spokesperson, said administrators have
received letters requesting that Mugabe's degree be rescinded.

"There have been discussions, but I know of no formal process for
rescinding the degree," Denbow said.

Officials at Edinburgh said the issue of Mugabe's degree was under review.

According to the UMass policy, honourary degrees are handed out to
people "of great accomplishment and high ethical standards".

Recipients have included former South African president Nelson
Mandela, former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, author
Toni Morrison and comedian and educator Bill Cosby.

Once lauded as a model for African democracy, Mugabe has tried to
crush opposition to his power and has threatened to expel Western
envoys for criticising his government.

The country's Roman Catholic bishops said last month that health,
education and other public services "have all but disintegrated".

"Mugabe has become a scourge of his people and a scourge of Africa,"
said Michael Thelwell, a professor in the UMass Afro-American studies
department.

But Thelwell and others cautioned against revoking the degree just to
appease Mugabe's critics.

"The task of intellectuals is to seek the truth, not to be swayed by
pressures of the moment," said Bill Strickland, a UMass politics
professor. "If they take away the degree, they have to look at all the
facts surrounding what is happening in Zimbabwe and not simply blame
just one person." - Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian News and Media
Limited 2007, Sapa-AP

i never thought i'd say this about an article from the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday from Britain - but this is a great article :-) it's so well written that i don't think i need a comment to contextualize it.

enjoy it!



http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/fake_caring_abo.html
Fake caring about Zimbabwe

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Do I care about Zimbabwe? Should you? Every few months, the British media, together with a certain number of politicians, make a fuss about the misery now afflicting that sad country. They sympathise with its ill-fed, oppressed people and with the leaders of its opposition movements. Pictures and reports are published of the horrible beatings given to those who dare to oppose the country's tyrant, Robert Mugabe. The BBC makes a great to-do about how it is banned from Zimbabwe but still manages to get information out.


Nobody can read these accounts without a feeling of outrage and a desire to do or say something. But in my view this is in fact a selfish impulse, unless you are prepared to act personally in some way that will improve matters. We become inflamed with righteous anger about these things, only to prove to ourselves that we are nice, civilised people. In truth, we have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it.


And if we did, it would probably fail. I don't know how many of those who call for intervention in Zimbabwe could find it on a map, but the fact that the country has no coastline could present a small problem to anyone who wanted to invade it. In any case, this is all futile stuff.


The disastrous and irreparable defeat of British arms by the Japanese in Singapore in 1942 finished the British empire for all time, though it would take a little while for this truth to become obvious. India went first, and, after a pause ended by the Suez fiasco, the rest followed soon afterwards. Not only could we not afford the empire any more. Our reputation for invincibility had been smashed by Japan, and we had lost the psychological advantage we had gained in the 18th century and had reinforced by our merciless crushing of the Indian mutiny in 1857.


All over Asia, the Japanese had been careful to see that captured British officers and soldiers were visible to their former colonial subjects, reduced to the status of humiliated, suppliant slaves. The effects of this were enormous and permanent in Asia, and word spread to Africa quite quickly.


Britain, which during the war against Hitler was understandably paying less attention to the Empire than it would otherwise have done, was slow to realise how much things had changed. But by the end of the 1950s, its leaders decided it could not afford an African colonial empire.


Its influence in the area has been in decline ever since, replaced by the USA, China, Cuba and - to a surprisingly small extent - Russia. The problem with Zimbabwe, formerly Southern Rhodesia, was that it was already semi-independent and self-governing in any case, with a white minority that did not wish to lose its privileged way of life because of Britain's decline. It was very difficult for a British government, trying to soothe the feelings of the United Nations and to scrub away all traces of unfashionable colonial supremacy, to force the Southern Rhodesians into giving up their power. They had good reason to suspect that, when they did, they would swiftly lose their pampered way of life.


So London devoted much of the late 1960s and all the 1970s to trying to force a settlement there that would enable the British government to avoid all future responsibility and appear in tune with modern thinking. This ended in 1979, under the Thatcher government but endorsed by the whole British establishment, with the Lancaster House agreement.


This handed Zimbabwe to the sinister Robert Mugabe - mainly because he was too politically and militarily strong to be denied. there were better men available, but they were not strong enough, and the rigged elections which followed confirmed the Lancaster House settlement


The history of that process is long, complicated and not specially honourable on any side. It involves, as so often, the curious paradox that the campaigners for 'freedom' turned out to be tyrants themselves once they had power, and that life under the 'colonial oppressors' was in many ways more prosperous and peaceful than it was to become later. You do not have to be a sympathiser of Ian Smith, the leader of the Rhodesian Front and the chief opponent of majority rule, to recognise that Robert Mugabe has done terrible damage to the country and its people. You do not have to be a partisan of Robert Mugabe to recognise that Smith's Southern Rhodesia was a state based on racial discrimination, that could not survive and should not have survived as it was. Was this unavoidable? Possibly.

Mugabeepa2102_228x197

Intelligent British politicians and diplomats knew, or at least suspected back in the 1950s and 1960s that the end of empire might well mean severe suffering for the people involved. Most of them probably privately admitted that - as in India in 1947 - this country simply no longer had the strength to rule, and that it must make the best of a very bad bargain by trying to leave behind as much democracy, law and freedom, and as strong an economy, as it could manage.


Many of the British colonial administrators, in Africa and Asia, were genuinely devoted men who had worked very hard to bring incorruptible justice, education and prosperity. Such men did all that they could to leave good things behind - and I am always greatly moved by two legacies that seem to have lasted specially well.


Even where elections are rigged and parliaments fail, and civil servants are corrupt, it is amazing how often African judges defy the new tyrants of Africa, releasing political prisoners and halting torture. And it is equally amazing how often African journalists continue to print the truth, despite the very real danger of torture and death, or the smashing of their presses. Free speech and law, interestingly enough, may be more important and enduring than democracy in securing justice and liberty.


What practical conclusions can we draw from this? First, that our power in these parts of the world is gone for good, and it is just posturing to imagine that a protest in London will make any difference there. Comrade Mugabe's response that his critics could 'go hang' is rude and brusque, but also an accurate estimate of how things stand. He doesn't care what we think, and what's more he doesn't even pretend to care.


That's embarrassing of him. We would much prefer an expression of concern, some sign that we matter, even if don't. In fact, his taunting of us for our powerlessness may be his greatest offence against those interventionist liberals who like to imagine that a tough leading article in the Guardian will make Harare tremble.


Second, that the worst crimes of empires often come at the finish of them. Having persuaded people to rely on our power and our ability to protect them, we abruptly change our minds and disappear over the horizon, leaving them with a parliament building, a flag, an anthem, several unresolved territorial disputes and (quite often) a Mugabe figure who, if not very pleasant, is at least strong enough to take over the state.


This is, so far as I have been able to work out, the most powerful argument against empire - which in its British form was often highly benevolent so long as it existed. It has to end, and when it does, there is almost always tragedy. People often say, without thinking, that the winding up of the British empire was a civilised and creditable episode. I completely disagree. the scuttle from India, 60 years ago this year, and the smaller but more poisonous scuttle from Palestine soon afterwards, are among the most shameful episodes in British history. Our departure from Africa was not much better. The USA, and its ring of loyal client states in the former Soviet Union, from the Caucasus to the Baltic, should beware of a comparable bout of shameful departures, probably in the next 30 years, when Washington loses interest in this part of the world and Moscow reasserts its ancient dominance.


Third, that other countries do not exist to provide broad open spaces in which we can exercise our constipated, under-used consciences. It is incredibly easy, and rather enjoyable, to rail against tyrants and injustice a long way away. The tyrants cannot get at you, and if you travel to these places on a Western passport, the worst you are likely to face is expulsion. But it is so much harder, and less glamorous, to challenge the power-grabbers and would-tyrants, and petty but persistent injustices, in your own home country - where your targets can take revenge.


Fourth, that intervention cannot permanently alter the balance of power in foreign lands. Unless you are prepared to stay forever, the 'improvements' you achieve will not survive your departure by more than a few years. Worse, people who trusted you and relied on you will be left to dreadful fates.


Caring about a foreign injustice is futile unless you have the means to express your concern through effective, sustained action. It is an impulse designed to make the carer feel good to himself, and look good in the eyes of others, rather than to do good. So the honest answer, for most of us, is that we do not really care. But who dares say so? To say in a public place that you do not think Britain should intervene in Zimbabwe is to court shocked disapproval. Yet those who say they think we should intervene are applauded - even if they have no intention of doing anything.

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation

i found these two articles in South Africa's Sunday Times to be
somewhat refreshing and worth reading as opposed to most of the
sensational pieces floating over the internet and other newspapers.

Complicated times over here - but we're living through them... somehow!



From http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=414960

Peering through Zimbabwe's layers of deception

18 March 2007
Mohau Pheko


I have become jaded over the Zimbabwe issue.

I've been reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins,
which describes how highly paid professionals lurk in the shadows to
cheat countries around the world out of trillions of dollars. When
they emerge, their modus operandi includes overthrowing heads of
state, rigged elections, manufactured terrorist attacks, payoffs, sex,
murder and extortion.

It has me wondering whether recent events in Harare are not the
makings of an over- productive mastermind trying , through make-
believe scenarios, to evoke sympathy and outrage for what may actually
be seeds of deception.

Frankly, the reported situation in Zimbabwe has become the perfect
script for a spy movie.

On October 12 2005, Morgan Tsvangirai precipitated a fatal split in
his six-year-old opposition when he stormed out of a Movement for
Democratic Change meeting, prompting the faction led by the party's
deputy secretary, Gibson Sibanda, to suspend him .

In return, Tsvangirai supporters suspended Sibanda and members of his
faction. Stunned by their party leader's dishonesty and dictatorial
tendencies, the MDC found itself divided.

It has to be said that Tsvangirai's bizarre behaviour that day left
many formerly enthusiastic supporters baffled. Why, some question, was
he committed to boycotting the election? Why would he not countenance
an alternative plan? Why was he dogmatic and unyielding in his view,
prepared to trample on the MDC's constitution, lie to the media and
even declare to the national council, "If the party breaks, so be it"?
Why has he not done anything since to reconcile the two opposing
factions? Could a secret meeting with Zanu-PF kingmaker Solomon Mujuru
— husband of vice-president Joyce Mujuru — have changed his mind?

In the tradition of the espionage movie, conspiracy theories abound.
The Gibson Sibanda faction has been accused of secretly conniving with
President Thabo Mbeki to undermine Tsvangirai. On the other hand,
there are those who believe that President Robert Mugabe and
Tsvangirai are colluding on a blueprint that is mutually beneficial.
There are accusations that Tsvangirai has been colluding with Zanu- PF
in a plot by Mujuru's husband, betraying the MDC by pulling out of
senate elections in exchange for undisclosed political rewards.

If one links these events, recent statements by various leaders of the
ruling Zanu-PF make perfect sense. The government of Zimbabwe declares
its innocence in recent events by implicating opposition forces within
the MDC for the latest calamity. In essence, it is said the opposition
came with pangas to the recent march to deal with each other. In the
interest of public safety, the police had to intervene to stop the
altercation.

In the mind of many, this ongoing war within the opposition in
Zimbabwe is a perfect cover for the country's Central Intelligence
Organisation to meticulously deepen divisions within the opposition,
and undermine any credible opposition or threat to the ruling party.

The government's response to recent events is consistent with the
words of Emmerson Mnangagwa, shortly after the deployment of the Fifth
Brigade in Mata beleland North in 1983. As minister of State Security
responsible for the CIO, he stated: "Blessed are they who will follow
the path of the government law, for their days on earth shall be
increased. But woe to those who will choose the path of collaboration
with dissidents for we will certainly shorten their stay on earth."

In trying to discover who is culpable in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mugabe's
statement is instructive: "I would like to see an African country that
has gone this length in those directions ... abiding by the rule of
law, accepting the reign of human rights and establishing democracy.
You also have nongovernmental organisations here telling them [the
British government] the opposite of what we are. In the meantime, they
are enjoying the freedom of organising our people without hindrance."

It is clear from this that Mugabe perceives accusations levelled
against his government as baseless and unfounded.

As the plot thickens, the sad ending is that after 26 years as
distinguished architects of their own liberation, Zimbabweans pin
their hopes on the retirement of one man. Even more disappointing,
conversations in Zimbabwe have centred on dubious characters for
leadership. It is time Zimbabwe ended the personality cult in
politics. It is time to pause and not blindly follow popular and
charismatic personalities who have already shown that they are
seriously flawed as leaders. For outsiders to support and intervene in
Zimbabwe, solidarity needs to be built on a vision of a new Zimbabwe.

The lesson to be learnt from Zimbabwe is that a construction of
democracy, where the majority vote and the minority elites govern,
does not lend itself to participatory democracy where citizens can
recall their leaders. Perhaps the real lesson is, presidents do not
assume power through an exam. They are the product of the choices made
by the governed.

It is incumbent upon all Zimbabweans to elevate the level of debate to
provide a vision of their new society. This will reinforce solidarity
in the region in such a way that those who find themselves in wrong
jobs after 26 years of rule will be conscious of the pressure to step
aside in the interest of a new national vision and thereby end the
seeds of deception.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=415095

Inaction lets Zimbabwe crisis play itself out

18 March 2007
Francis Kornegay


Second opinion Francis Kornegay says SA and the region have little
choice but to let Robert Mugabe's country stew

The arrest and brutal detention of Movement for Democratic Change
leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his colleagues have refocused the
spotlight on South Africa's "quiet diplomacy" towards Zimbabwe.

The assumption, as reflected in Mondli Makhanya's recent commentary
"The joke will be on us if we don't wake up to Zimbabwe's pain" (March
4), is that diplomacy is not working, though what may be the real
source of frustration is Pretoria's lack of effective public diplomacy
regarding Zimbabwe.

This becomes especially apparent during episodes of overt repression
as witnessed over the past week, though the South African government
did counsel Harare on the need to observe the rule of law and the
rights of all concerned.

If diplomacy has failed, perhaps a closer look at what is unfolding in
Zimbabwe is in order, accompanied by suggestions of what more South
Africa and/or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) should
undertake.

At the same time, it is useful to note observations about the recent
Franco-African summit to which Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was
not invited and at which his fellow heads of state made not a peep.
The loud and clear message from their silence was that they had
"washed their hands" of and were not willing to go to bat for their
tarnished icon.

Silence can be golden and, in the Taoist tradition of "dynamic
inaction", the best approach to certain intractable situations. Here,
South Africa and the SADC are not alone. Witness the equally lengthy
stalemates between China-North Korea, the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations and Burma or even the US and Cuba.

Given the fact that the military option is ruled out and cutting off
electricity and a border blockade are equally unpalatable for what
these would convey to our neighbours — the return of the neighbourhood
bully — a protracted crisis-management containment strategy has been
the only realistic option.

Pretoria has gone the extra mile in searching for a negotiated
internal settlement to Zimbabwe's crisis, to no avail. As this
diplomacy interacted with the dynamics within and between the ruling
Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC, there was less and less scope within
which to work such a settlement. Both parties became internally
divided. But these internal divisions, especially within Zanu-PF, are
what may eventually bear fruit as the country's economic meltdown,
underneath the apparently loosening grip of Mugabe, seems to be
pushing the party's rival factions towards the exit as they search for
a way out of Zimbabwe's predicament.

Once the negotiating phase of quiet diplomacy had run its course, the
only thing Pretoria and the SADC could do was sit back and, in effect,
let Zimbabwe stew in its own juices.

South Africa and the SADC must prepare for whatever emerges from this
current "dynamic inaction" phase of quiet diplomacy, which allows
Zanu-PF's internal contradictions to play themselves out towards the
long-awaited "endgame".

As a result of the growing flood of desperate Zimbabweans streaming
into Zambia — not to mention South Africa, Botswana and Malawi —
Zambian Foreign Minister Mundia Sikatana has suggested that the next
SADC summit in August take up the Zimbabwean crisis. This may signal
the need for a more highly profiled diplomacy on Pretoria's part.

Sikatana's suggestion that the SADC facilitate dialogue between
Zimbabwe and the European Union could complement some of the
diplomatic outreach being reportedly attempted by some among Zanu-PF's
divided elite. His suggestion would also be in line with the
International Crisis Group's recommendation that Pretoria engage the
EU and the US in devising a strategy to resolve Zimbabwe's crisis.

Rather than hammering Pretoria without knowing all the facts about
what is and is not happening between South Africa and Zimbabwe, the
media need to focus on breaking developments, with the aim of
stimulating constructive dialogue on Zimbabwe's future and the role
that South Africa and others should play to ensure an internally and
regionally stabilising post-Mugabe transition.


Francis Kornegay is senior researcher in international affairs at the
Centre for Policy Studies

The ICG has yet again released a STUPID report on Zimbabwe. The
summary to their report is below and has some pretty out of touch
synopses of things over here. Below are a few highlights. What country
are these people talking about…? Sometimes I just feel that these
think-tank and advocacy and journalistic types will really never get
it!

The country is in a very fragile condition: the economy is near
meltdown, and discontent among underpaid police and troops, combined
with the willingness of opposition parties and civil society to
protest in the streets, all increase the risk of sudden major
violence
The economy is really really bad. I don't know what they mean by
'meltdown' because predictions of a meltdown have been in place since
2000. but it is rather horrific. So perhaps on that, I'd agree with
them. Public servant are well underpaid but the government seems to
manage to ease their pain whenever it gets too much. Both teachers and
doctors have now called off strikes and are back at work. The cops and
the military going on strike or protest - now that would be something!

President Mugabe must give up efforts to extend his term, and the
opposing parties must negotiate a compromise
This issue of the president's term being extended is really reported
on badly. The other option which the government is weighing is to cut
the term of parliament by two years and have harmonized elections for
the executive and legislature next year - which very well might
happen. Nothing is a done deal yet. But also, it's rather simplistic
to look at this in terms of just the president hanging on to power. If
mugabe wanted to remain president, he would keep the election on next
year and win another six year term. Why have two years when you can
have six ... if staying in power is really your end objective..? this
whole issue is taken out of context and ignore the importance of the
succession debate and process within ZANU PF. It can be critiqued all
we want, but the reality is that they are zimbabwe's dominant
political force at the moment. The opposition couldn't organize a mud
fest in a mud bath and couldn't govern Zimbabwe in its current state.
(not to say the current performance of the entire zim government
leaves much to be desired). The "opposing parties" that "must
negotiate a compromise" are all in ZANU PF. The opposition party just
loves to make itself useless to the whole political future of
Zimbabwe. And speaking of people not extending their terms, the
leader[s] of the opposition my also give up their terms of office
because they have quite frankly failed. A new start at the top level
across the board may not be a bad thing...


Pressure by the European Union and the U.S., through targeted
sanctions and isolation, has helped divide the ruling party, ZANU-PF,
persuading key figures whose business interests have been hard hit by
the current crisis, that change is needed.
Again - whoever reached this conclusion does not really understand how
the "key figures" in ZANU PF are making their money. This crisis
enables the rich to get richer more than ever. Disengagement never
helped to address a situation like the one we have in Zimbabwe. Keep
the sanctions on, and normal people suffer, are closed off from
accessing key parts of the economy because shortages mean that those
with power access the much needed resources (most of the time) and you
get a case where people made millions. The prohibition in America (a
form of sanctions) taught us all how much money is made when you try
and restrict things to achieve some idealistic pie in the sky
objective. Al Capone died a millionaire. These "key figures" are
millionaires in US dollar terms thanks to these 'targeted' or 'smart'
sanctions. Easy money. Why would they just want to let that go...? get
rid of these sanctions. Allow the economics to normalize and perhaps
most of the country will once again be interested in political
engagement. Survival as an M.O doesn't leave much room for political
analysis and participation.

These sanction also affect Zimbabwe more than anyone else because the
government runs a lot of state enterprises that are starved off
foreign investment. These enterprises (electricity, fuel, transport,
health services etc) serve a lot of normal, average Zimbabweans. Their
failure to perform because of the indirect results of these sanctions
means that the majority of Zimbabweans suffer. Not the small elite
driving gas guzzling cars which never run out of gas or have
generators to work through power outages. When a zimbabwean government
official cannot talk to potential investors in Europe or the US or any
other place, how is the economy not expect to 'meltdown' ... ? that
coupled with internal mismanagement...? so yeah, these sanctions and
isolation are really helping us. Not at all.

This pressure should be increased if ZANU-PF does not cooperate
with the opposition to implement a transitional government and restore
democracy.
And beating a dead donkey always arose it from the dead! NO! increased
pressure will ultimately help ZANU PF on a number of fronts. The
opposition will probably not get consulted or involved in any
transitional government process primarily because they take some of
their queues from thinkers people who wrote this report. They
unfortunately need to find a way to engage with the government - not
the other way round. We're being practical here, not academic. The
truth is, as much as ZANU PF is failing to administer things, for a
number of different reasons, most people in Zimbabwe today would vote
for ZANU PF (also for a number of varying reasons) regardless of how
much external forces increase pressure on ZANU.



The Southern African Development Community (SADC), the organisation
of regional countries, should work as a mediator for negotiations
between ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) and join the EU and the U.S. in defining a clear sequence of
benchmarks leading to a genuinely democratic process
SADC has tried that. Hasn't worked. The opposition leaders themselves
have helped to foil some of these efforts. I think we should stop
seeing the MDC as an alternative because most Zimbabweans just don't
think that it is. They can not govern this country effectively in
their present state. SADC is unlikely to place sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Could the writers of this report try to at least understand African
Politics 101.

"The situation today is reminiscent of the last stages of Mobutu's
reign in the Congo", says Crisis Group President Gareth Evans.
"Zimbabwe has the potential to fall into chaos and bring large chunks
of the region down with it unless both domestic and international
parties act now".
The Congo...??? the Congo...??? and Zimbabwe are similar? Mugabe and
Mobutu (who was placed in power by the US government in place of
Lumumba-which is fact and not conspiracy?) how do you compare Mugabe
and Mobutu and their situations. They ran/run two totally different
countries in very different contexts with very different approaches,
systems, achievements, etc. how can the situation in Zimbabwe (where
there is no rebel army fighting the government amongst other things)
compare to that of the Congo?

Final Comments if I was a donor to the International Crisis
Group I would be very embarrassed with the results of my
contributions. The major international crisis is the one that they
create through putting forth such ignorant, ill-informed and unhelpful
reports on countries and situations they clearly seem to know very
little about.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

From: International Crisis Group [mailto:notification@crisisgroup.org]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate? - New Crisis Group report

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW REPORT
Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate?
Pretoria/Brussels, 5 March 2007: The long political stalemate in
Zimbabwe may be breaking at last, but regional intervention and
continued Western pressure are needed to ensure a peaceful restoration
of democracy.
Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate,* the latest report from the
International Crisis Group, examines the deadlock in Zimbabwe and sees
in the current moment a chance to resolve the situation through the
retirement of President Robert Mugabe when his term ends in 2008 and a
power-sharing deal to create a transitional government tasked with
preparing a new constitution and holding elections by 2010.

The country is in a very fragile condition: the economy is near
meltdown, and discontent among underpaid police and troops, combined
with the willingness of opposition parties and civil society to
protest in the streets, all increase the risk of sudden major
violence. For Zimbabwe to begin to recover, President Mugabe must give
up efforts to extend his term, and the opposing parties must negotiate
a compromise. The months leading to the July parliament session, when
decisions will be taken on Mugabe's fate or transition, are
crucial.

"The prospect of President Mugabe's retirement has created an
exceptional rallying point among varied constituencies within the
country", says François Grignon, Crisis Group's Africa Program
Director. "There is widespread agreement that he must leave so that
the country can finally make progress on the needed economic and
political reforms".

Pressure by the European Union and the U.S., through targeted
sanctions and isolation, has helped divide the ruling party, ZANU-PF,
persuading key figures whose business interests have been hard hit by
the current crisis, that change is needed. This pressure should be
increased if ZANU-PF does not cooperate with the opposition to
implement a transitional government and restore democracy.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC), the organisation of
regional countries, should work as a mediator for negotiations between
ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and
join the EU and the U.S. in defining a clear sequence of benchmarks
leading to a genuinely democratic process. SADC leaders have an
opportunity to talk to Mugabe now about a retirement package to be
implemented not later than 2008 – and at last get him to listen. The
MDC needs urgently to reconcile its feuding factions.

"The situation today is reminiscent of the last stages of Mobutu's
reign in the Congo", says Crisis Group President Gareth Evans.
"Zimbabwe has the potential to fall into chaos and bring large chunks
of the region down with it unless both domestic and international
parties act now".
________________________________________
Contacts: Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) 32 (0) 2 541 1635
Kimberly Abbott (Washington) 1 202 785 1601
To contact Crisis Group media please click here
*Read the full Crisis Group report our website: http://www.crisisgroup.org
________________________________________
The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an independent,
non-profit, non-governmental organisation covering over 50
crisis-affected countries and territories across four continents,
working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to
prevent and resolve deadly conflict.
________________________________________

from the Financial Gazette... a weekly newspaper in zimbabwe

http://www.fingaz.co.zw/story.aspx?stid=2031


Forget about hunger, Zimbabweans just love sex
*Charles Rukuni Bureau Chief *
**
*BULAWAYO — Forget about rampant inflation, high unemployment, or the fact
that more than one million people need food aid. *

Forget that you are lucky to live beyond 34. Zimbabweans just love sex. That
is the impression one gets when one looks at the amount of money being
poured into HIV/AIDS when an estimated 1.4 million are said to have no food.

The major food
donor, the World Food Programme, last month said it might cut down on the
number of people it was feeding because it did not have enough food for an
estimated 1.4 million hungry people until the end of March next year when
the current season's harvest is expected to start rolling in.
It said that it would require US$16 million to purchase 26 000 tonnes of
grain needed to meet the anticipated shortfall.
At about the same time, Britain said it
had awarded 20 million pounds (US$38.7 million) to Zimbabwe to fight the HIV
and AIDS epidemic.
The disease currently affects 1.8 million people. The money would be used to
distribute more than 250 million condoms through 700
hair salons over the next five years. International Development Secretary
Hilary Benn was quoted as saying: "People should not die because they have
sex."
As if to support the appropriateness of the donation, The Sunday Mail
reported that Zimbabwe led the world in the use of condoms. Some 163 million
male condoms and 3.8 million female condoms — the highest in the world — had
been sold in Zimbabwe over the past five years.
While the HIV/AIDS epidemic has devastated the country, Zimbabwe is now
reportedly winning the war against HIV/AIDS. Prevalence is reported to have
declined to 18.1 percent from over 30 percent at one stage.
But some 3 200 people are still reportedly dying each week, a figure
controversial Roman Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube says is higher than the
deaths in Sudan's war-torn Darfur region.
This has prompted some AIDS activists to question why so many people are
still dying while the prevalence rate is reportedly declining. Others are
questioning the efficacy of aid, who this aid actually benefits, and who
determines who needs what.
South African AIDS activist, Theo Smart, in an article entitled: Zimbabwe
observes a reduction in HIV prevalence, but why said while there had been a
substantial reduction in national HIV prevalence, it could not all be
attributed to the ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms). The extremely
high mortality rate could also have contributed greatly to the reduction in
prevalence, he argued.
"Mortality plays more than one part in this, because it doesn't only
decrease prevalence directly, it can decrease incidence as well, by
decreasing the pool of infectious individuals who can spread the
infection," Smart argued, citing several case
studies that were released at the 2006 HIV/AIDS Implementers Meeting
of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief that was held in Durban
early this year.
"This is particularly the case when most of those who have died are men
because infected men are much more likely than women to spread the infection
to more than one partner."
He also said Zimbabwe's economic decline over the past seven years could
have played a part.
"The collapsing economy could have additional effects that could decrease
mobility, and therefore risk of HIV infection," he said. "Unemployment has
sky-rocketed in Zimbabwe, and there have been major fuel shortages."
"The commercial mining sector has collapsed, and factory work has
evaporated. Cities no longer offer much work. So as a result of Zimbabwe's
economic contraction, many of the old hotspots for HIV transmission — near
the factories and mines, at truck stops along the highway — could be
dwindling or people no longer have a reason or the means to go there . . .
"It's important to remember that this is, after all, Zimbabwe. Since the
year 2000, Zimbabwe's economy has ground to a halt; the country suffered
from floods, followed by severe drought and endemic food insecurity. In this
context it is odd, to say the least, that the official mortality rate
reportedly peaked before all that trouble began. But even if famine and
inflation didn't increase the numbers of people dying, the calamity would
have increased the costs of caring for a person with HIV tremendously."
Smart argued that the stigma attached to people with HIV/AIDS was an
effective deterrent on its own as people with HIV/AIDS had been variously
described as being "in the departure lounge", or having "crossed the red
robot" or "bewitched by goblins". These were all things very few people
wanted to be associated with and therefore would not take that route.
He, however, stressed that this was not to say that ABC strategies did not
work. But a balanced prevention campaign was needed.
Those who argue that aid is not working in Africa, even in the case of Aids,
said most of the money reportedly being poured into the disease was
trickling back to the donor countries.
Michael Holman, former Africa editor of the Financial Times said in an
article in The Africa Report of last month that the irony about the aid
industry into Africa was that an estimated US$4 million was spent annually
to recruit 100 000 expatriates while at the same time about 70 000 skilled
Africans such as doctors, nurses and engineers, left to work abroad.
"The multi-billion dollar aid industry has largely failed in Africa. Not
only have they failed along with others in the aid industry, most
nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have become part of the problem," he
wrote. "Not that they will admit their failure. They refuse to share the
blame for the grim record. Instead they have closed ranks - along with UN
development agencies and bilateral agencies — and all sing from the same
hymn sheet: 'Aid works', they claim. 'Give us even more money and we will
complete the job . . ."
A British-based non-governmental organisation, Action Aid, painted an even
grimmer picture. It said of the US$79 billion aid that was meant for Africa
this year, US$37 billion was "phantom aid" which meant that it was not
genuinely available to the countries which were supposed to benefit. It said
too much aid continued to be haphazardly allocated with little reference to
need. It was tied to requirements that it be spent on donor countries' own
companies. It was double counted as debt relief, or was lost through
cumbersome and poorly coordinated procedures and systems.
Condoms available in Zimbabwe, for example, are "specially imported" from
Britain by an American organisation Population Services International.
Action Aid said about two-thirds of aid from the world's biggest donor, the
United States, was phantom aid. In Zimbabwe, most of the programmes being
sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
are implemented by United States-based organisations such as the Futures
Group, the Centres for Disease Control, Population Services International,
the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation and John Snow Inc.
"Too much (aid) continues to be identified, designed and managed by donors
themselves, (is)tied to donor countries' own firms, (is) poorly coordinated
and based on a set of often untested assumptions about expatriate expertise
and recipient ignorance," Action Aid said. As a result, this aid was often
overpriced and ineffective "and in worst cases destroys rather than builds
the capacity of the poorest countries".
Social commentator Claude Mararike agreed. Zimbabweans had to realise that
the West had its own agenda which was not necessarily that of Zimbabweans
and should therefore question what was in it for those countries that
provided aid to the country, he said.
"Anyone who puts his or her money into any activity, gets mileage from that
activity," he said. "Governments in Europe have always been interested in
numbers in Africa and to some extent Asia. How are they increasing? What is
the mortality rate and so on? The question is resources. The fewer the
people in Africa, the better for Europe."
"People must realise that our survival is more important than sex.
Munozofunga the sex madya (You will only think about sex after eating)," he
said.

Continuing my theme for this week, an interesting article from Business Day, a leading South African daily newspaper.

In other news, the BBC put together excerpts from leading african newspapers commenting on
Botha's death. Notably, they are not very polite about the passing of
P.W. Botha. one of the few South African 'leaders' to say something of
value on this issue was Tokyo Sexwale [former Premier of Gauteng
Province and a political prisoner on Robben Island] who is quoted on
the BBC website as saying:
"We should not forget the kind of regime he represented, he was
ruthless, he was brutal, he was a leader of apartheid during the
harshest years of that regime, the sad truth is that he is leaving
with many secrets which he should have revealed perhaps during the
time of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission."

I agree a lot with the article below by Mvoko and also feel that the
South African government and civil society has missed a great
opportunity to deal effectively with the negative history that their
country is still trying to succesfully emerge from.



Groot Krokodil: when moving on obscures historical perspective
by Vuyo Mvoko
________________________________


THERE are times when I do get to appreciate just how lucky I am. In a
country of more than 40-million people, I'm one of very few people who
have the privilege to occupy, and sometimes command, a public space
many other South Africans only dream of.

Every week, through this column, I get to speak to elected public
representatives, as well to business people who have every right to
conduct their affairs and spend their millions the way they deem fit.
Members of the public greet me and are sometimes full of praise for a
job they say I sometimes do well.

It can only be good for a fragile but extraordinary ego of a boy from
an Eastern Cape township, brought up by a domestic worker
grandmother and a "painter's boy" grandfather. I have sat in front of
presidents and other world leaders, and now tell them what they should
be thinking, saying and doing.

But I must also say that secretly I often battle with under- or
overplaying my role and influence, to say nothing of the discomfort
that sometimes comes with thoughts such as: What if I get proven
wrong? and, Am I imposing my "narrow" world view on others? It
particularly struck me this week, as I listened, watched and read what
everyone was saying about PW Botha, following the apartheid SA prime
minister's death. I felt an awkward sense of betrayal when people I
regard ay my leaders — Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Desmond Tutu —
chose to say very little, if anything, about the atrocious man that we
came to know as Die Groot Krokodil.

Born in the ordinary Free State town of Paul Roux and of ordinary
Afrikaner parents, Pieter Willem Botha died this week with a solid
reputation of being one of the most appalling men to have presided
over the apartheid machinery. He chose to be evil, killing and maiming
thousands of innocent black people, and imposed his narrow world view
on all of us. Until the second he died, we took care of his basic
needs, his health, welfare, security and comfort: privileges which
still remain beyond the reach of millions of black people.

I was ready to dance on Botha's grave when, on behalf of all citizens,
including me, Mbeki expressed "heartfelt condolences" to the Botha
family. Botha's death, I sincerely believed, should have been used to
teach generations that may have never directly experienced his
viciousness that we would have indeed gone very far as a nation had we
not had people like that finger-wagging racist.

Albeit temporarily, Botha made apartheid succeed where it could have
failed. His relaxation of some laws — such as the Immorality Act and
for which some, FW de Klerk included, now believe Botha deserves
credit — were never about a change of heart but were dismal attempts
at buying time. Botha's half-hearted "reforms" remain inconsistent
with everything he did afterwards. For me, there were no obvious
reasons for a liberation movement that the African National Congress
(ANC) says it still is to be as kind to Botha and his rotten legacy.

It prompts the question: does being "a nation at work" now mean that
when opportunities arise for us to put our history into perspective,
we will shy away from that because we need to "move on"? And if that
is the case, is it the sort of thing that the ANC leadership will,
from now on, seek to impress on the minds of its cadreship that it has
deployed in every sphere of our public lives? Will the ANC leadership,
for example, tell its deployees in the SABC that what they committed
themselves to after meeting a parliamentary committee early this week
is perhaps not the right thing to do?

SABC board chairman Eddie Funde, still pissed off at the leak of the
"blacklisting" report implicating news head Snuki Zikalala, apparently
made an undertaking to investigate the source of the leak. This means
that there is still another sideshow in the Zikalala saga — before the
SABC even begins to deal with the issues raised around Zikalala's
management style and journalistic integrity.

Long after everybody else was reporting on Botha's death, the SABC's
10pm news bulletin was still leading with a Helen Zille piece. If the
SABC board focused on the real issues, it could start by confronting
the challenges facing the national public broadcaster, which have a
lot to do with journalism. While the SABC is not really short of money
or bodies it can call journalists, getting scribes with skills, and
keeping them, remains an elusive goal, something that is not helped by
Zikalala's management style and (mis)conception of what a journalist
should do.

My ego notwithstanding, and my thirst for dead Botha's blood refusing
to go away, I am, for once, prepared to let bygones be bygones.
Focusing on the past; hunting down those who may have wronged you;
listening to your ego; abusing your privileged public position;
wanting to be right all the time — all those things may be good for
revenge and point-scoring, but they may just keep your eyes away from
your goal.

Time to let any old and poison-filled Groot Krokodil die, lest we wake
it up only to destroy our future.

Mvoko is an independent media and political consultant.

So there's actually more to the P.W. Botha thing. This guy gets a
State Funeral!!! The BBC just reported that South Africa will be giving this guy a state
funeral... are you kidding me! what is the ANC smoking! We actually
have a debate about whether it's appropriate to name South Africa's
main international airport after O.R. Tambo, a giant in making South
Africa the country that it is today, and then we have a crazy dictator
get hero status? People like Botha and Ian Smith and Adolf Hitler
cannot get state funerals, at least not from the same states that they
have helped to destroy.

(note how the BBC article does use the word racist or racism not even
once. call a spade a spade. this dude was a racist dictator. when will
we all wake up...?)

so PW Botha, one of the worst leaders of an African country EVER died
last night. it's interesting how the NY Times gives this extra long
obituary, but doesn't even paint him in the negative light that he
deserves. the whole thing tastes like a cucumber. plain and bland.
this guy, who was responsible for one of Africa's most brutal regimes
EVER gets this, as an obituary? He is not even refered to as a racist
in this article. not once. infact, the WORD "racist" comes up once to
refer to "racist policies." When people like Idi Amin died, i bet
their obituaries didn't read this rosy. when other african 'dictators'
died, there are articles of good riddance to bad rubbish. this guy was
a dictator. let's call a spade a spade. he was a horrible, cold, mean,
racist, unrepentant brutal dictator who led one of africa's worst
governments ever... let's see what the NY Times will say about robert
mugabe when he dies. i bet the title of their obituary will not say
"R.G. Mugabe, Zimbabwe's ex-leader dies at [age]." the word dictator
will be mentioned. is that because there are different shades of
african leaders and dictators. how does Pik Botha not fit in amongst
the WORST...?

perhaps we should be the ones calling the NY Times racist, because
this is just sickening, to see the subliminal endorsement of what
Botha stood for.

CNN had a little clip they showed on TV (at least on CNN
international. i know CNN in the US is different) and its tone was the
same. not hard hitting, not standing against the values this man
represented. at the end the voice over said "until the very end, the
crocodile (and Botha was known) was unrepentent, unrelenting..."
what!?

can someone turn up the al jazeera...?



P.W. Botha, South Africa's ex-leader, dies at 90

By JOSEPH R. GREGORY The New York Times

Published: October 31, 2006



P.W. Botha, the hard-nosed South African leader who struggled vainly
to preserve apartheid rule in a tide of domestic racial violence and
global condemnation, died today at his home in South Africa. He was
90.

His death was reported by the South African Press Association in Cape
Town, quoting security staff at Mr. Botha's home on the southern Cape
coast.

Mr. Botha was a combative, irascible son of a well-to-do Afrikaner
farm family who dropped out of college to work for the right-wing
National Party, then rose through the ranks of South Africa's
political establishment, gaining a reputation as the "Old Crocodile"
for his ability to charm, outwit and crush his opponents.

In 1978, Mr. Botha became prime minister and proceeded to engineer the
creation of a new constitution, one that held out the promise of a
limited relaxation of the nation's apartheid policies and paved the
way for him to become president in 1984. "We must adapt or die," Mr.
Botha told his constituents after becoming Prime Minister.

But the constitution only roiled the battle over race. Though it
allowed Asians and people of mixed race to be represented in a
white-controlled Parliament, it continued to exclude the nation's
black majority. Some apartheid laws, like a prohibition on mixed
marriages and a requirement that blacks carry special passes, were
relaxed. But the measures only fueled the anger of apartheid's
opponents. One opposition leader, Frederik van Zyle, said Mr. Botha's
changes in apartheid were the political equivalent of rearranging the
deck chairs on the Titanic.

Holding out the promise that apartheid would eventually be dismantled,
he opened negotiations with Nelson Mandela, the imprisoned leader of
the African National Congress. The talks went nowhere, and Mr. Mandela
remained confined.

At the same time, Mr. Botha, who first achieved national prominence as
defense minister, gave the military and police unprecedented power.
His government repressed dissent, encouraged rivalries among Zulus,
Xhosa and other tribes and ethnic groups, and tried to destabilize
neighboring countries opposed to white rule.

Mr. Botha used the climate of the cold war to justify his actions. He
portrayed a growing Marxist threat in southern Africa and warned that
Communists had infiltrated the anti-apartheid movement at home. South
Africa, he said, was engaged in a "total war" and must develop a
"total strategy" to fight the battle.

As opposition to apartheid spread, Mr. Botha's room to maneuver
shrank. "He was caught in a bind between wanting to show the
international community that he was not inflexible, and not wishing to
appear weak within his own country," the journalist Allister Sparks
wrote in his 1995 account of the end of apartheid, "Tomorrow Is
Another Country: The Inside Story of South Africa's Road to Change."

In 1985, Mr. Botha was supposed to announce a giant step away from
apartheid, but his proposals, which offered black Africans the vote
under a legislative system that gave them no real power, disillusioned
South Africa's few remaining friends in the world.

Yet for a while Mr. Botha's methods seemed to belie Alexis de
Toqueville's dictum that "the most perilous moment for bad government
is when it seeks to mend its ways." Mr. Botha was re-elected in 1987.
Two years later, amid growing opposition within his own party to his
intransigent style, the president suffered a stroke and resigned. He
was succeeded by F.W. de Klerk, who legalized opposition parties,
freed Mr. Mandela and other political prisoners, and made the
agreements that eventually brought apartheid down.

Pieter Willem Botha was born on Jan. 12, 1916, in the Orange Free
State to a Boer farm family with deep roots in southern Africa's
"White Tribe" - descendants of mainly Dutch settlers who had had been
living on the continent's southern tip for more than three centuries
and who referred to themselves as Afrikaners.

Beleaguered, stubborn and insular, they saw themselves as heirs to a
promised land watered with the blood of their ancestors in wars
against Zulus, Ndebele and other tribes.

The Boers and the British, with their imperial aims, were also old
enemies, rivals for land, diamonds and gold. Their enmity culminated
in the Boer war of 1899-1901, which ended in a British victory and the
eventual consolidation of the country under the empire.

Mr. Botha's father fought the British, who burned his mother's family
farm. She and her family fled but were eventually captured and
interned. Their experiences forged their son's attitudes. Raised in
the traditions of the Bible and the gun, he learned to ride and shoot
and to embrace the embattled self-image of the Afrikaner.

"I grew up on a farm where I came to know black people very well," Mr.
Botha told Joseph Lelyveld of The New York Times in an interview in
Mr. Lelyveld's 1985 book "Move Your Shadow: South Africa, Black and
White." "I played with them, I worked with them. I was taught by my
father to be strict with them, but just."

As World War II approached, tensions mounted among those who believed
South Africa should side with Britain, those who advocated neutrality
and those who sympathized with the Nazis. Mr. Botha sided with the
latter, joining the right-wing Afrikaner nationalists in the
Ossewabrandwag, or Ox Wagon Fire Guard, which was closely related to
Daniel Francois Malan's Reunited National Party. A paramilitary group
within the Guard, modeled after the Nazi Brown shirts, agitated
against the pro-Allied government of Jan Christian Smuts.

But Mr. Botha, who in 1935 had left the University of the Orange Free
State to become an organizer for the Nationalists, did not like the
Wagon Guard's "emphasis on national socialism instead of Christian
nationalism," a South African biographer, Brian Pottinger, wrote in
1988 in "The Imperial Presidency: P.W. Botha, the First 10 Years."
"With some courage and a fine nose for the prevailing wind," Mr.
Pottinger wrote, Botha publicly condemned the Ossewabrandwag, charging
it with "interference" in national politics.

By 1944, with victory looming in Europe, the Wagon Guard had become an
embarrassment to Mr. Malan, and he banned National Party members from
associating with it.

A year earlier, Mr. Both married Anna Elizabeth Rossouw, who went by
the name Elise and who died in 1977. They had two sons and three
daughters. He married Barbara Robertson in 1998.

In the postwar years, economic and social uncertainty eroded the
popular base of the Smuts government, which had advocated a
comparatively liberal approach toward race relations. In the 1948
general election, Mr. Malan's Nationalists, campaigning on a platform
of white supremacy and racial segregation, were swept to power. Mr.
Botha, who had become secretary of the party's National Youth League
in 1946, won a seat in Parliament.

Over the next six years under Mr. Malan's leadership, the foundations
of the Apartheid state were laid. The Nationalists imposed segregation
on almost all aspects of South African life. They passed laws
prohibiting mixed marriages and extramarital sex between races and
regulated almost all other social relations. Freedom of movement was
limited: most blacks were required to carry passbooks. And
"independent" homelands, or tribe-based states, were created to make
the various African ethnic groups easier to control.

Throughout the 1950's there were protests and other forms of passive
resistance. In 1960, some 70 protesters were killed and nearly 200
wounded when the police opened fire on a demonstration in Sharpeville,
near Johannesburg. The climate changed after that.

Within the African National Congress, founded in 1912 to advance the
cause of blacks, the leadership diverged, with men like Nelson Mandela
advocating violent opposition to the racist state. By 1970, many
anti-apartheid leaders, including Mr. Mandela, were either in jail or
living in exile.

Meanwhile, Mr. Botha rose through the government ranks. In 1961, he
became the minister of colored affairs; in 1966, minister of defense.
His rise coincided with the country's deepening political isolation.
In 1961, South Africa left the Commonwealth of Nations, whose members
were strongly critical of apartheid policies. As the country's
neighbors achieved independence from colonial rule in the 1960's and
70's, many cut off diplomatic, cultural and commercial ties with South
Africa.

In 1974, the United Nations revoked South Africa's seat in the General
Assembly. Three years later, it imposed a weapons embargo. In the
West, particularly in the United States, debate over imposing trade
sanctions on South Africa reached a fever pitch.

But the disciples of apartheid hung tough. Huge reserves of gold and
diamonds fueled the Afrikaners' ability to circumvent economic
embargoes and political sanctions. As defense minister, Mr. Botha
increased military spending to 20 percent of the government's budget,
conducted a clandestine weapons trade with Israel and other states and
pushed for the development of nuclear weapons.

In the early 1980's, Mr. Botha's government launched military strikes
on the forces of the African National Congress and other insurgent
groups in neighboring countries where they had taken sanctuary. Air
and ground forces struck at targets in Angola, and South African
commandos conducted raids in Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia and
Zimbabwe.

South African forces also equipped and trained rebel movements against
the left-leaning African governments that had replaced the ousted
Portuguese colonialists. Moreover, under the direction of the State
Security Council, created in 1972, Mr. Botha's government carried out
a program to kill anti-apartheid activists.

Racial violence and political protests continued to rise. Increasing
numbers of white South Africans joined the demonstrations. Although
Mr. Botha had come to power with the pledge to uphold apartheid as
well as improve race relations, the two goals were mutually exclusive.
Despite a seeming willingness to relax some apartheid laws, he
remained adamant in his refusal to grant blacks political power.

The situation deteriorated. Police stations and other government
installations were attacked. In 1985, the government announced an
indefinite state of emergency. In 1986, the Anglican anti-apartheid
campaigner Bishop Desmond Tutu addressed the United Nations and urged
further sanctions against South Africa.

Mr. Botha grew defiant. "We are not a nation of jellyfish," he
declared in a party speech in 1986. An aide, Hendrik Jacobus Coetsee,
recalled: "The Old Crocodile was obsessed with looking tough and in
control. He never wanted to show any sign of weakness."

But even within the Botha government, pressure was growing for
negotiations with the African National Congress. Clandestine overtures
were made to Mr. Mandela, who had been in prison since 1963. The Botha
government, hoping to appear reasonable to the world, was looking for
a way to free Mr. Mandela without appearing weak to its own Afrikaner
constituency.

In March 1989, Mr. Mandela offered to negotiate a political
settlement, reversing the African National Congress's commitment to
overthrowing the white government by force. Mr. Botha, who had had a
stroke that January, replied that the two men should meet. The did so
on July 5, 1989.

In the end, the encounter turned out to be little more than a courtesy
call. "Yet, in some subtle way a line had been crossed," Mr. Sparks
wrote. "After that there was no stopping the process. It was just a
matter of time and the man."

Mr. Botha's days in office were numbered. Increasingly ill-tempered
and authoritarian, he remained reluctant to move on with reforming the
nation's apartheid policies. In February 1989, a month after his
stroke, for reasons that are unclear, he had renounced his position as
National Party leader while keeping the presidency. The move left him
open to younger rivals. That August, at a cabinet meeting, his
successor as party leader, Mr. de Klerk, followed by other ministers,
suggested that he step down. That night, in an angry, rambling
broadcast, the president announced that he would resign.

Under the new government, led by Mr. De Klerk, apartheid unraveled. In
1990, Mr. Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison and the African
National Congress became a legal political party. In April 1994, the
republic's first multiracial election was held. The African National
Congress won an overwhelming victory, and Mr. Mandela became
president. In May 1996, a new national constitution was adopted.

Apartheid was finished. In the late 1990's, the brutal methods to
prolong its existence were exposed during hearings of South Africa's
Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Actions by the country's security
forces and police during Mr. Botha's years in power had killed 4,000
people; as many as 50,000 others were held without trial.

The aging Botha derided the commission as a witch hunt. After failing
to attend a hearing in Cape Town on Dec. 19, 1997, he was found guilty
of contempt of the law, fined 10,000 rand and sentenced to a suspended
12-month prison term. The conviction was overturned on appeal, and the
Old Crocodile remained as intransigent as ever.

"I have nothing to apologize for," he said. "I will never ask for
amnesty. Not now, not tomorrow, not after tomorrow."


P.W. Botha, the hard-nosed South African leader who struggled vainly
to preserve apartheid rule in a tide of domestic racial violence and
global condemnation, died today at his home in South Africa. He was
90.

His death was reported by the South African Press Association in Cape
Town, quoting security staff at Mr. Botha's home on the southern Cape
coast.

Mr. Botha was a combative, irascible son of a well-to-do Afrikaner
farm family who dropped out of college to work for the right-wing
National Party, then rose through the ranks of South Africa's
political establishment, gaining a reputation as the "Old Crocodile"
for his ability to charm, outwit and crush his opponents.

In 1978, Mr. Botha became prime minister and proceeded to engineer the
creation of a new constitution, one that held out the promise of a
limited relaxation of the nation's apartheid policies and paved the
way for him to become president in 1984. "We must adapt or die," Mr.
Botha told his constituents after becoming Prime Minister.

But the constitution only roiled the battle over race. Though it
allowed Asians and people of mixed race to be represented in a
white-controlled Parliament, it continued to exclude the nation's
black majority. Some apartheid laws, like a prohibition on mixed
marriages and a requirement that blacks carry special passes, were
relaxed. But the measures only fueled the anger of apartheid's
opponents. One opposition leader, Frederik van Zyle, said Mr. Botha's
changes in apartheid were the political equivalent of rearranging the
deck chairs on the Titanic.

Holding out the promise that apartheid would eventually be dismantled,
he opened negotiations with Nelson Mandela, the imprisoned leader of
the African National Congress. The talks went nowhere, and Mr. Mandela
remained confined.

At the same time, Mr. Botha, who first achieved national prominence as
defense minister, gave the military and police unprecedented power.
His government repressed dissent, encouraged rivalries among Zulus,
Xhosa and other tribes and ethnic groups, and tried to destabilize
neighboring countries opposed to white rule.

Mr. Botha used the climate of the cold war to justify his actions. He
portrayed a growing Marxist threat in southern Africa and warned that
Communists had infiltrated the anti-apartheid movement at home. South
Africa, he said, was engaged in a "total war" and must develop a
"total strategy" to fight the battle.

As opposition to apartheid spread, Mr. Botha's room to maneuver
shrank. "He was caught in a bind between wanting to show the
international community that he was not inflexible, and not wishing to
appear weak within his own country," the journalist Allister Sparks
wrote in his 1995 account of the end of apartheid, "Tomorrow Is
Another Country: The Inside Story of South Africa's Road to Change."

In 1985, Mr. Botha was supposed to announce a giant step away from
apartheid, but his proposals, which offered black Africans the vote
under a legislative system that gave them no real power, disillusioned
South Africa's few remaining friends in the world.

Yet for a while Mr. Botha's methods seemed to belie Alexis de
Toqueville's dictum that "the most perilous moment for bad government
is when it seeks to mend its ways." Mr. Botha was re-elected in 1987.
Two years later, amid growing opposition within his own party to his
intransigent style, the president suffered a stroke and resigned. He
was succeeded by F.W. de Klerk, who legalized opposition parties,
freed Mr. Mandela and other political prisoners, and made the
agreements that eventually brought apartheid down.

Pieter Willem Botha was born on Jan. 12, 1916, in the Orange Free
State to a Boer farm family with deep roots in southern Africa's
"White Tribe" - descendants of mainly Dutch settlers who had had been
living on the continent's southern tip for more than three centuries
and who referred to themselves as Afrikaners.

Beleaguered, stubborn and insular, they saw themselves as heirs to a
promised land watered with the blood of their ancestors in wars
against Zulus, Ndebele and other tribes.

The Boers and the British, with their imperial aims, were also old
enemies, rivals for land, diamonds and gold. Their enmity culminated
in the Boer war of 1899-1901, which ended in a British victory and the
eventual consolidation of the country under the empire.

Mr. Botha's father fought the British, who burned his mother's family
farm. She and her family fled but were eventually captured and
interned. Their experiences forged their son's attitudes. Raised in
the traditions of the Bible and the gun, he learned to ride and shoot
and to embrace the embattled self-image of the Afrikaner.

"I grew up on a farm where I came to know black people very well," Mr.
Botha told Joseph Lelyveld of The New York Times in an interview in
Mr. Lelyveld's 1985 book "Move Your Shadow: South Africa, Black and
White." "I played with them, I worked with them. I was taught by my
father to be strict with them, but just."

As World War II approached, tensions mounted among those who believed
South Africa should side with Britain, those who advocated neutrality
and those who sympathized with the Nazis. Mr. Botha sided with the
latter, joining the right-wing Afrikaner nationalists in the
Ossewabrandwag, or Ox Wagon Fire Guard, which was closely related to
Daniel Francois Malan's Reunited National Party. A paramilitary group
within the Guard, modeled after the Nazi Brown shirts, agitated
against the pro-Allied government of Jan Christian Smuts.

But Mr. Botha, who in 1935 had left the University of the Orange Free
State to become an organizer for the Nationalists, did not like the
Wagon Guard's "emphasis on national socialism instead of Christian
nationalism," a South African biographer, Brian Pottinger, wrote in
1988 in "The Imperial Presidency: P.W. Botha, the First 10 Years."
"With some courage and a fine nose for the prevailing wind," Mr.
Pottinger wrote, Botha publicly condemned the Ossewabrandwag, charging
it with "interference" in national politics.

By 1944, with victory looming in Europe, the Wagon Guard had become an
embarrassment to Mr. Malan, and he banned National Party members from
associating with it.

A year earlier, Mr. Both married Anna Elizabeth Rossouw, who went by
the name Elise and who died in 1977. They had two sons and three
daughters. He married Barbara Robertson in 1998.

In the postwar years, economic and social uncertainty eroded the
popular base of the Smuts government, which had advocated a
comparatively liberal approach toward race relations. In the 1948
general election, Mr. Malan's Nationalists, campaigning on a platform
of white supremacy and racial segregation, were swept to power. Mr.
Botha, who had become secretary of the party's National Youth League
in 1946, won a seat in Parliament.

Over the next six years under Mr. Malan's leadership, the foundations
of the Apartheid state were laid. The Nationalists imposed segregation
on almost all aspects of South African life. They passed laws
prohibiting mixed marriages and extramarital sex between races and
regulated almost all other social relations. Freedom of movement was
limited: most blacks were required to carry passbooks. And
"independent" homelands, or tribe-based states, were created to make
the various African ethnic groups easier to control.

Throughout the 1950's there were protests and other forms of passive
resistance. In 1960, some 70 protesters were killed and nearly 200
wounded when the police opened fire on a demonstration in Sharpeville,
near Johannesburg. The climate changed after that.

Within the African National Congress, founded in 1912 to advance the
cause of blacks, the leadership diverged, with men like Nelson Mandela
advocating violent opposition to the racist state. By 1970, many
anti-apartheid leaders, including Mr. Mandela, were either in jail or
living in exile.

Meanwhile, Mr. Botha rose through the government ranks. In 1961, he
became the minister of colored affairs; in 1966, minister of defense.
His rise coincided with the country's deepening political isolation.
In 1961, South Africa left the Commonwealth of Nations, whose members
were strongly critical of apartheid policies. As the country's
neighbors achieved independence from colonial rule in the 1960's and
70's, many cut off diplomatic, cultural and commercial ties with South
Africa.

In 1974, the United Nations revoked South Africa's seat in the General
Assembly. Three years later, it imposed a weapons embargo. In the
West, particularly in the United States, debate over imposing trade
sanctions on South Africa reached a fever pitch.

But the disciples of apartheid hung tough. Huge reserves of gold and
diamonds fueled the Afrikaners' ability to circumvent economic
embargoes and political sanctions. As defense minister, Mr. Botha
increased military spending to 20 percent of the government's budget,
conducted a clandestine weapons trade with Israel and other states and
pushed for the development of nuclear weapons.

In the early 1980's, Mr. Botha's government launched military strikes
on the forces of the African National Congress and other insurgent
groups in neighboring countries where they had taken sanctuary. Air
and ground forces struck at targets in Angola, and South African
commandos conducted raids in Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia and
Zimbabwe.

South African forces also equipped and trained rebel movements against
the left-leaning African governments that had replaced the ousted
Portuguese colonialists. Moreover, under the direction of the State
Security Council, created in 1972, Mr. Botha's government carried out
a program to kill anti-apartheid activists.

Racial violence and political protests continued to rise. Increasing
numbers of white South Africans joined the demonstrations. Although
Mr. Botha had come to power with the pledge to uphold apartheid as
well as improve race relations, the two goals were mutually exclusive.
Despite a seeming willingness to relax some apartheid laws, he
remained adamant in his refusal to grant blacks political power.

The situation deteriorated. Police stations and other government
installations were attacked. In 1985, the government announced an
indefinite state of emergency. In 1986, the Anglican anti-apartheid
campaigner Bishop Desmond Tutu addressed the United Nations and urged
further sanctions against South Africa.

Mr. Botha grew defiant. "We are not a nation of jellyfish," he
declared in a party speech in 1986. An aide, Hendrik Jacobus Coetsee,
recalled: "The Old Crocodile was obsessed with looking tough and in
control. He never wanted to show any sign of weakness."

But even within the Botha government, pressure was growing for
negotiations with the African National Congress. Clandestine overtures
were made to Mr. Mandela, who had been in prison since 1963. The Botha
government, hoping to appear reasonable to the world, was looking for
a way to free Mr. Mandela without appearing weak to its own Afrikaner
constituency.

In March 1989, Mr. Mandela offered to negotiate a political
settlement, reversing the African National Congress's commitment to
overthrowing the white government by force. Mr. Botha, who had had a
stroke that January, replied that the two men should meet. The did so
on July 5, 1989.

In the end, the encounter turned out to be little more than a courtesy
call. "Yet, in some subtle way a line had been crossed," Mr. Sparks
wrote. "After that there was no stopping the process. It was just a
matter of time and the man."

Mr. Botha's days in office were numbered. Increasingly ill-tempered
and authoritarian, he remained reluctant to move on with reforming the
nation's apartheid policies. In February 1989, a month after his
stroke, for reasons that are unclear, he had renounced his position as
National Party leader while keeping the presidency. The move left him
open to younger rivals. That August, at a cabinet meeting, his
successor as party leader, Mr. de Klerk, followed by other ministers,
suggested that he step down. That night, in an angry, rambling
broadcast, the president announced that he would resign.

Under the new government, led by Mr. De Klerk, apartheid unraveled. In
1990, Mr. Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison and the African
National Congress became a legal political party. In April 1994, the
republic's first multiracial election was held. The African National
Congress won an overwhelming victory, and Mr. Mandela became
president. In May 1996, a new national constitution was adopted.

Apartheid was finished. In the late 1990's, the brutal methods to
prolong its existence were exposed during hearings of South Africa's
Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Actions by the country's security
forces and police during Mr. Botha's years in power had killed 4,000
people; as many as 50,000 others were held without trial.

The aging Botha derided the commission as a witch hunt. After failing
to attend a hearing in Cape Town on Dec. 19, 1997, he was found guilty
of contempt of the law, fined 10,000 rand and sentenced to a suspended
12-month prison term. The conviction was overturned on appeal, and the
Old Crocodile remained as intransigent as ever.

"I have nothing to apologize for," he said. "I will never ask for
amnesty. Not now, not tomorrow, not after tomorrow."

So, South Africa has new leadership in its national AIDS programs and in managing the policy of dealing with HIV. The Deputy President of the Country, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, some one I have high regard for and totally have confidence in as a politican, is leading the new initiative. This new article has an obvious bias against Thabo Mbeki (South Africa’s President) and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. The line that’s been (wrongly) repeated world wide is that Mbeki and Tshabalala-Msimang (aka, Manto) deny that HIV causes AIDS, and some reports are ridiculous enough to suggest that they completely deny that AIDS exists and hence you have had the blind leading the blind on AIDS.

I think that this is a wrong interpretation of the situation. First of all, Thabo Mbeki is probably one of the most intelligent heads of states in ANY country in the world. I’d like to have any one suggest anything else. There is no way he would deny obvious science, but rather, the mistake he made, as a head of state, was to apply some critical thinking. It was to ask clever questions which could lead to some other response. Obviously that’s not something that you can encourage heads of states to do [hence some other countries have really really stupid people leading them. They don’t think, they just do as they are told.] the main thrust of Mbeki’s inquiry was on the overall causes of AIDS and its devastating impact. The article in the Washington post actually does mention this but I believe, glosses over it and actually misinterprets what Mbeki meant/means:

"President Mbeki said, 'It cannot be the virus alone, we must look at other, other issues that predispose people to the immune system being depressed,' and I am of the same view also," Tshabalala-Msimang said on "Nightline."
The main point is that, people are not dying because of the “virus alone.” So Mbeki’s argument was really, only supposed to lead people to look at the wider system that was causing the extreme impacts of HIV and AIDS. In Africa, poverty is probably the worst killer. Poverty is that parent of violent conflict, disease—including HIV/AIDS, malaria and many others, corruption, dictatorships, hunger and malnutrition. So to have a rallying call to pour millions of dollars into repainting one side of a house falling apart is not doing much justice to the situation either.

I am not saying ARVs are not important or urgent, or that treatment must not be a priority. But we must answer the question of why are the conditions that “predispose people to the immune system being depressed.” These are questions of nutrition and health care systems more than anything else. If the South African government spend all of its money on treatment (i.e. paying global pharmaceutical corporations that own the patents to ARV) millions of dollars to provide the wonder-drugs, what is the real impact…? People will continue to live in environments that do not really compliment the effectiveness of the drugs.

So perhaps one of the greatest blunders of Mbeki’s presidency has not being ‘doing nothing’ about HIV and AIDS, but rather, miscommunication the complexity of the issue. We live in a world where the media simplifies every issue to much for its average reader or viewer that we often fail to understand the multiple dimensions to some of the world’s most complex problems. You need to be able to communicate complexity, with simplicity. Not an easy task. So I actually see the whole “beetroot and lemon” show that Manto has been pushing over the years as a tongue in cheek way of getting people to see beyond the complexity of it all. I am not sure it work so well because, hey, government officials dealing with serious issues are not supposed to have a sense of humor.

But let’s look at bit closely at the beetroot message. What Manto and Co are saying are, let us find simple ways, accessible to people for them to mitigate some of the impacts of AIDS through addressing nutritional issues. Getting South African tax payers to boost the stock prices of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer isn’t always the best way to go. Of course just giving people beetroots and lemon juice won’t solve the issue, but how do you make the ‘cocktail’ more than just plastic capsules, but also basic issues that people can do something about. So there was a lot of mismanagement in how to communicate these issues. I don’t think the SA government will reduce their emphasis on the nutritional side of things, but this article is really more about changing tune and direction in engaging different stakeholders, especially on the treatment end of things. It’s not about replacing health and nutrition with treatment. It never has been. It’s been about finding the strategy that best compliments other efforts and the deals with the systemic dimension of the problem, and not just the sound bite friendly aspect of free pills for all.

I hope with this ‘new’ take on the AIDS issues, we’ll see less tension around the issue and more partnership and solidarity to really make a difference on a situation that is causing a lot of death, pain, and suffering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601874.html?referrer=email

In South Africa, a Dramatic Shift on AIDS
Treatment, Prevention Get New Emphasis as Deputy President Takes Key Role

By Craig Timberg

Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A01

JOHANNESBURG -- The South African government is seeking to shake off years of international denunciation for its handling of the AIDS epidemic -- including a fixation on the supposed protective powers of beets and lemons -- while expanding treatment, testing and prevention programs, officials and activists say.

In public comments and private meetings over the past six weeks, Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka has emphasized that the government now believes unequivocally that HIV causes AIDS, a connection that President Thabo Mbeki once publicly questioned. She has also said that antiretroviral drugs must be the centerpiece of the government's response while playing down the dietary recommendations long cited by Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang as key to fighting AIDS.

"The beetroot and all that lemon stuff is out the window," an adviser involved in recasting the government's policy said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about it. "These guys are now serious about getting it right."

Driving the recent change is a growing realization of the severity of AIDS in South Africa -- an estimated 5.4 million of 47 million citizens have HIV, among the highest totals in the world -- and concern that the controversy surrounding the disease was damaging the country's international reputation.

The Treatment Action Campaign, the country's leading AIDS activist group, said that after years of hostility and legal battles, government officials were working cooperatively with members to realize some of their long-standing demands, such as setting targets for dramatically expanding the availability of antiretroviral drugs through the public health system. Mlambo-Ngcuka, who has taken control of the national AIDS commission, has met privately with the group.

"There's clearly a shift taking place," said Zackie Achmat, the head of the Treatment Action Campaign.

Officials say that Tshabalala-Msimang, often ridiculed as "Dr. Beetroot," will maintain some role in AIDS policy, but activists say they are confident she has been effectively marginalized by the appointment of Mlambo-Ngcuka to oversee the government's response to the disease. Government officials privately acknowledge that Tshabalala-Msimang had become an embarrassment, and activists say the tenor of conversations with the government has changed dramatically since the deputy president took over.

"I'm still skeptical, and I'm still waiting for the proof," said Francois Venter, head of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society. "But there's been a switch, the most hopeful switch in years, over the past four or five weeks."

Mbeki's comments questioning the relationship between HIV and AIDS stirred international outrage in 2000, and the government lagged even some less developed African nations in introducing subsidized antiretroviral drugs, which can prolong the lives of those with the disease by many years, perhaps decades. The first government program distributing the drugs began here in April 2004. South Africa's far smaller northern neighbor, Botswana, began two years earlier.

The South African program has grown steadily in the past 2 1/2 years and now reaches about 200,000 people with AIDS -- roughly one-quarter of those estimated to need the medicine immediately. But the demand for the drugs has grown faster than the program could handle despite major new government spending, including $400 million for AIDS programs this year alone.

"There were weaknesses on the implementation side of things," a government spokesman, Themba Maseko, said from Pretoria.

A turning point came in August, at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, where Tshabalala-Msimang sponsored a display featuring lemons, beets and garlic but no antiretroviral drugs. An interview that Tshabalala-Msimang had with ABC's "Nightline" that same week renewed fears that she and Mbeki did not accept the two-decade-old scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.

"President Mbeki said, 'It cannot be the virus alone, we must look at other, other issues that predispose people to the immune system being depressed,' and I am of the same view also," Tshabalala-Msimang said on "Nightline."

The following day, Stephen Lewis, the U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, denounced the South African government's view as "wrong, immoral and indefensible." Two weeks after that, 81 AIDS scientists from South Africa and around the world signed a letter calling on Mbeki to fire Tshabalala-Msimang.

The president refused. But those events, combined with a government report blaming AIDS for a massive surge of deaths among South Africans in their 20s, 30s and 40s, prompted Mbeki to appoint Mlambo-Ngcuka to lead an urgent review of AIDS programs, pushing Tshabalala-Msimang out of the spotlight, officials say.

In a speech to labor leaders on Sept. 19, Mlambo-Ngcuka said, without qualification, that HIV causes AIDS. She acknowledged "shortcomings" in the government's response to the disease so far. She mentioned the value of a sensible diet but made clear its limits.

"It should be stressed that a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition are not alternatives to treatment," she said, according to a transcript.

Mlambo-Ngcuka also called for peace between the government and its many critics on AIDS. "Our collective response has for too long been undermined by finger-pointing and despair. I appeal to you that we change that," she said.

AIDS activists said they initially reacted warily, but after meeting privately with Mlambo-Ngcuka, including a session Tuesday in Cape Town that lasted nearly two hours, they have grown more confident of the government's desire to improve its handling of the disease.

The activists say they are pushing for several concessions, including a target of treating 1 million South Africans with antiretroviral drugs. They also want targets for expanding HIV testing and for cutting the rate of new infections. Prevention efforts have largely failed in South Africa, experts say, even as Zimbabwe and several East African countries are showing success in curbing new infections.

Maseko, the government spokesman, said that after years of resisting calls from activists, officials have decided to set firm targets for expanding prevention programs and the availability of antiretroviral drugs in the five-year government plan due for release Dec. 1, celebrated around the globe as World AIDS Day.

"We will be accelerating implementation to make sure those who need treatment are getting it," he said.

As discussions continue, activists say the shift in the government's intentions is tangible and hope officials are capable of carrying through on their new promises.

"They have lost at least five years," said Mark Heywood, head of the AIDS Law Project at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg. "They're behind on prevention. They're behind on treatment. They're behind on planning for the social impact of HIV. But it's not too late to prevent a whole other generation of people from getting HIV."

i was a little confused by the immigrant demonstrations in the US on monday [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/03/news/immig.php] because i can't figure out who exactly the immigrants are. is it
a. any one in the US, working there who doesn't have US citizenship?
b. anyone whose family originally came from the US?"
c. anyone working illegaly in the US?

this story got a lot of coverage, but i don't think it was well told.

there's a lot of self interest in the US in not really tackling this issue. that way, immigrants can keep being exploited as cheap labor in the country, and the US Congress can keep pretending there are no questions of humanity and justice that need answering.

does anyone have any links to good perspectices or other blogs that focus on this issue?

~ dvb


immigrants protest, but the results are mixed
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006
WASHINGTON A nascent immigrant rights movement has shown that it can build an organization, mobilize hundreds of thousands of people across the United States and wield economic power.

But the protesters do not appear to have achieved their primary goal - changing votes in Congress. And some critics say the demonstration Monday may have generated a backlash, hardening positions on Capitol Hill.

The protests, which began in March and resumed Monday with a boycott of work, school and shops, has clearly grabbed the attention of Americans when the issue of illegal immigration is high on the agenda in Washington.

The heightened attention will make it difficult for Congress to duck the question of what to do with the estimated 11 million to 12 million people living illegally in the United States.

Although the outpouring has drawn comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, questions remain about whether the protesters can translate their passion into political results.

Although some companies closed, it is too early to assess the economic effects of the boycott. The effects were diminished because many workers notified their employers ahead of time that they planned to take the day off.

"This was a one-day deal," said Randel Johnson, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supports legislation to legalize immigrants. "If immigrants decided to abandon their jobs for two weeks, that would definitely have an impact."

Some advocates who support "comprehensive immigration reform," the idea that illegal workers should be put on a path to citizenship, say the protests have given that concept an important lift in the debate on Capitol Hill.

Other people say that few if any minds were changed and described the demonstrations as a Rorschach test in which people simply saw their own view reflected in the sea of mostly Latino marchers.

"I have no effective data on this, but it has probably hardened positions and maybe done a little bit of wedging," said Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat and former senator who said he supported the protesters' cause. "I think that the people that were really fired up about this still are, and the position that they had to start with, they still carry."

The protesters have discovered that there is a thin line between promoting national pride and pushing the buttons of their opponents. They made tactical errors - flying the Mexican flag, recording the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish - that have left even some of their supporters feeling a little bit queasy.

"I have a great respect for a lot of the people that did the protesting, but I think their message is all confused," said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, whose sympathy dates from his childhood, when his mother, an Italian immigrant, was nearly deported. "The flag, the anthem, all that, it got everybody all mixed up. Take off work, it sounded wrong to some people, right to others."

The American public is deeply divided on illegal immigration; a survey in March by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, found that 53 percent of respondents say people who are in the United States illegally should be required to go home, while 40 percent say they should be granted some kind of legal status that allows them to stay here.

That divide is reflected on Capitol Hill, controlled by Republicans. The House of Representatives opposes citizenship for illegal workers, and has passed legislation aimed only at controlling the borders, while a more comprehensive Senate bill is backed by Republicans like Domenici.

Some say the protests have given the Senate approach a boost.

"While you could never point to a specific vote, they moved the tone and the thrust where now a balanced bill has the upper hand, and it's in part because of the protests," Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said.

A Republican split over the issue is complicated because it is not just the immigrants who are weighing in. Among their biggest allies are employers, large and small, who are demanding assurances that they will continue to have the labor pool they need. Business groups are important for the Republican base, and many employers gave their immigrant employees the day off Monday in solidarity with the marchers.

"Obviously there's tremendous pressure on lawmakers to fix the problem," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group.

Julia Preston in New York and Rachel L. Swarns in Washington contributed reporting for this article.

does any one know where one can find a link for the cartoons that have caused the global islamic outrage? i think a lot of people have no idea what they are protesting or arguing about as i'm sure millions have not seen them. so in the interest of having an informed discussion, could someone please point us to where they can perhaps be seen online ...

thanks

These writers, journalists and thinkers that don’t really understand Africa, but like to think that they do, and then go on to show their inability to grasp what’s going on through their writing, really annoy me. If I didn’t believe that debate, dialogue and discussion were by far the best way of learning and bringing about change, I would ask them all to put their pens and cameras down. But debate is informative so let it be …

Did you see Simon Robinson’s article in the European version of Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901051205-1134693,00.html) ? I have pasted a copy of it below my comment. A friend of mine mentioned in his blog that he thinks it’s a good article on Africa. I’m disappointed. The idea that democracy is simple, in a place as complex and as torn apart as Africa is just a shallow idea. Living here, I see every day, the levels at which democracy and governance are so hard to make function in a continent like Africa. The leadership needs and requirements to make Africa succeed a very much different to what a western country would need. I agree that there is largely a void of such skills that you end up with people resorting to a totalitarian approach as the ‘easiest’ way to deal with things in the absence of those competencies. Let me elaborate:

To run an African country must be complex. I don’t claim to ever know how to run one, or that I will ever do so some day. No way! But you have to deal with several key factors in a very deep way:
• A history of oppression and abuse
• Tribal tensions that were engineered to keep people fighting each other – and they do not go away over night
• Poverty, and the pressures it puts on people to acquire and hold on to resources to stay out of poverty [those resources often go hand in hand with (political/military) power]
• Cultivating a culture of democracy

I could probably write a long thesis on these points, but I won’t!

You can’t reduce the leadership challenges of Africa to just ‘leaders’ and institutions. Institutions can be manipulated, no matter how strong they are. Look at the institutions in a ‘strong’ democracy like the US. Are they not being manipulated … ? I think so! I also think that for the most part, American people at large are like a frog in a pot of boiling water and will only notice that the water’s getting hot when it’s too late.

Anyway, back to Africa, I read the article below by Simon Robinson and he just makes Africa sound so simple, and by virtue, its people stupid and powerless … it’s disgusting. Here are my objections with his perspective:
1. statements by leaders like Clinton of praising African leaders when they don’t really understand Africa set the wrong tone. You get mad men like Museveni being made to look like models of what the rest of us should aspire you. Forget that for the most part, Museveni had suspended democracy in Uganda. Even now as he allows it to make a come back, he’s not tolerating any opposition. Yet you’ll find the noise being made against him to be really a slap on the wrist. If mugabe had put the opposition leader in jail before an election, imagine the outcry and reaction and action [sanctions etc] from the ‘west.’ The noise would be so loud, your ear drums would pop!

Yet putting the Musevenis on pedestals reinforces what they do and their tactics and ways of sucking up to the west as the way forward if you’re to stay in power, and have the world’s big shots back you!

2. You also have to understand the underlying motivations in Africa and in African society and politics. It is not always as simple as saying people want to stay in power. That’s true in some cases, but there are many other reasons for it too … some of the issues that these ‘leaders’ put on the table are bona fide, important issues that need to be addressed, but then again addressing them is not always in the interests of big business, western foreign policy and other excuses. So they are brushed aside and the leaders are just brashed as power hungry and their cases are made illegitimate. The inconsistencies are amazing. It’s pick and choose. So as partners in developing democracy in Africa, the west often makes itself irrelevant because of how they will treat the same situations in country by country with such colossal differences.

Again, allow me to make comparisons between Zimbabwe and another African country – Kenya. Zimbabwe had a constitutional referendum in 2000 which the government lost. The president in Zimbabwe, as in Kenya, accepted the result, did not suspend elections or his cabinet or people’s right to meet. Yet Zimbabwe’s elections a few months later in which people voted and the government wasn’t overthrown, were called ‘unfree and unfair.’ Kenya’s president has, in my eyes, responded very undemocratically to the whole referendum thing. Today they decided that attending opposition rallies was a threat to national security. No one’s really bothered about asking Kenya to behave herself. So if you’re a politician in Zimbabwe, you take those cautions you receive when you ban opposition rallies as just ‘unfairness and bias’ against you. So it doesn’t help to foster that culture of democracy. Your influence as a partner is zero because you’ve shown such inconsistency in reacting to similar breaches of democratic processes.

With all due respect, constitutional issues in many countries just confuse things. People almost never vote on the constitution presented. They use the occasion to show the sitting government the finger. Constitutions are complex documents and their drafting, such complex and delicate processes that you can't assumt everyone will understand the legal implications of a document that lawyers themselves disagree so much on their natures and interpretations. Look at the recent examples of Zimbabwe, Kenya, France, the Netherlands … so for Robinson to look at the constitutional process in Kenya and use it as a benchmark for measuring democractic process - - hogwash!

3. by the way, Mr. Robinson, the opposition in Zambia last won an election in the early 1990s. since then, they have NOT won an election. That opposition became government and has stayed in power ever since. So please don’t get your facts confused. They once again show how much you don’t understand what you’re really talking about. You’re almost as bad as those people who point to Botswana as a model of African democracy! Ha!

4. Robinsons once again gets it wrong. Look at his analysis of Zimbabwe in this paragraph:
“Take Zimbabwe. Even five years ago, the country boasted one of the best judiciaries in Africa. Voters could make their voices heard, as they did in 2000 when they rejected a new constitution backed by President Robert Mugabe. The independent press was amongst the feistiest on the continent. Over the past few years, though, Mugabe and his henchmen have bludgeoned the opposition into near submission, rigged elections, closed down the independent press and forced most of the country's best judges into retirement. Mugabe, once hailed as a great new African leader himself, has proved more powerful than his country's institutions. “

First of all, the judiciary that was in place in Zimbabwe was still largely a white judiciary from pre-Independence days that protected a very conservative agenda that was not in the interests of most Zimbabweans. The same people who had legislated to maintain and uphold apartheid in Zimbabwe were somehow amongst the “best judiciaries in Africa.” When they disagreed with the government, and left, or ‘were forced out,’ and replaced by capable black Zimbabwean judges, our judiciary is suddenly not credible? Because it doesn’t just rule in favor of white minority or foreign interests… ? when was the last time Robinson was in Zimbabwe, or bought a Zimbabwean independent newspaper? Who is he kidding? There are still independent newspapers in Zimbabwe that are very critical of the government in many ways. We’ve never had private TV or radio. Even in the good days. So there’s no benchmark there. One newspaper was closed down in around 2002, for refusing to register with the regulatory authority. Every other paper registered and is still in business. Yet we are told that all the free press has been shut down. Again, another lie that western media likes to promote. I am not saying journalists here write have all the freedoms in the world and it’s an easy environment to be a journalist. Not at all. But again, there’s reasons for that, and if people understand those reasons, they can make meaningful contributions to addressing those problems. Not advocating for sanctions or punishments to fix things. That never works. But those that don’t understand end up writing trashy generalizations about Africa like Mr. Robinson just did. my question is, how would he like to see the judiciary in zimbabwe therefore ... ? full of old white judges who are good at matters of the law [zimbabwean trained black judges are just as good and competent, and don't always agree of rule in favor of the government], and yet want to rule in contra to the interests of the majority of citizens? it cannot work. not in africa. not in any country. (there's a reason why the appointment of supreme court judges in the US is such a hot issue ... )

5. finally, why are these journalists [Michael Wines of the NY Times fame, as well as Rachel Swans and many others who write for different newspapers as the “Africa specialists”] always dodging the core real issues affecting democracy and good governance and good living in Africa. The issues haven’t changed for over 500 years – the desire to have and control those resources that flow out of Africa. If we’re honest, we’ll admit that democracy in Africa is by and large corrupted by the need to access and control those resources. Often in arrangements involving parties on both sides of the equation. But it’s much, much easier and more acceptable to write about failed leadership and weak institutions. It keeps the dogs of the scent. And it keeps us obsessing about voting for the next loser in Africa and missing the real point. Once you raise the topic, you’re labeled an out of touch nationalist who isn’t in touch with the needs of today’s Africa – modern democracies, run by western educated technocrats [if I hear of the fact that Liberia’s new president studied at Harvard just one more time, I’ll throw my TV out the window!] focusing on building institutions and leadership! Blah!

Good leaders and institutions are important yes. But also understanding the underlying, fundamental issues is important as is having the guts to be fair and objective in dealing with the governance challenges in Africa across the board, not in isolated cases country by country while we pretend that other villains are the “hope for our continent’s future!”

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901051205-1134693,00.html

ESSAY
Africa's Game of Follow the Leader
Why strong institutions matter most when once promising politicians start to fail

By SIMON ROBINSON

Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005
For brutal honesty on the causes of Africa's woes, it's hard to beat Chinua Achebe's The Trouble with Nigeria. Written during the country's rowdy 1983 election campaign, the book, just 68 pages long, is an outpouring of frustration at Nigeria's problems. You only have to read the contents page to tap into Achebe's angst. The author — best known for Things Fall Apart, a powerful work of fiction that almost half a century after its release still tops lists of Africa's greatest novels — uses blunt prose to deliver the message in Trouble. Chapter headings telegraph his views: "False Image of Ourselves"; "Social Injustice and the Cult of Mediocrity"; "Indiscipline"; "Corruption." Achebe lays out his case in the book's very first sentence: "The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership."

Many Nigerians agreed, and Africans across the continent reached similar conclusions about their own countries. Which is why, in the mid-1990s, when a new generation of leaders emerged, Africans dared to hope that things could finally be changing. People like Issaias Afewerki in Eritrea, Laurent Kabila in Democratic Republic of Congo, Paul Kagame in Rwanda, Yoweri Museveni in Uganda and Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia promised a new style of leadership that focused on building economies and democratic nations instead of shoring up their power by force and ensuring that they and their friends got rich. When President Bill Clinton visited Africa in 1998, he touted this generation as Africa's great hope.

The reality has rarely matched the hype. Within months of Clinton's visit, Rwanda and Uganda had invaded Congo, and Eritrea and Ethiopia had gone to war with each other. While some leaders — notably Museveni and Zenawi — still did enough to remain darlings of Western donors, even they have now begun to slide. In Ethiopia, Zenawi has sent troops onto the streets to stop opposition supporters protesting the results of a general election last May. In Uganda, an increasingly dictatorial Museveni announced two weeks ago that he will run for office again, following Parliament's decision to scrap term limits that would have forced him to retire. That long-expected bulletin came just days after his main opponent was thrown in prison on charges — vehemently denied — of treason and rape. Demonstrations have been temporarily banned.

So, Achebe's lament still holds true, then? No. Fixing Africa was never as simple as changing its leaders. And that's why the fall from grace of Museveni and Zenawi may prove a positive thing, even if they hurt their own countries in the short term. It's a reminder, especially to Western countries that invested so much in Africa's new leaders, that strong institutions are far more important than personalities. Good leaders can turn bad if they stay in office long enough: faults become obvious; people compromise to hold onto power; supporters get frustrated with the inevitable slow pace of change. It's not just Africa. There are plenty of erstwhile supporters of Tony Blair who would be happy to see the back of him. The same goes for one-time fans of Jacques Chirac and George Bush. A key difference is that the institutions in the countries those men lead — parliament, the judiciary, the press — are bigger than any one person and counterbalance the worst excesses. That's still not a given in Africa.

Take Zimbabwe. Even five years ago, the country boasted one of the best judiciaries in Africa. Voters could make their voices heard, as they did in 2000 when they rejected a new constitution backed by President Robert Mugabe. The independent press was amongst the feistiest on the continent. Over the past few years, though, Mugabe and his henchmen have bludgeoned the opposition into near submission, rigged elections, closed down the independent press and forced most of the country's best judges into retirement. Mugabe, once hailed as a great new African leader himself, has proved more powerful than his country's institutions.

There is progress, of course. Kenyans last week rejected a new constitution backed by lackluster President Mwai Kibaki — elected just three years ago in a wave of reformist zeal — because of concerns that the proposals vested too much power in his office. (Kibaki promptly sacked his entire Cabinet.) Voters in Ghana, Senegal and Zambia have all elected opposition parties since the turn of the century. Such peaceful shifts prove that institutions in some countries are becoming strong enough to survive change and are not merely dependent upon, or at the mercy of, whoever sits in the presidential palace. Ethiopia and Uganda are also vastly better off than they were before Zenawi and Museveni took power; the backsliding hasn't wrecked all the good work the men have done. But their tainted legacies are a lesson. "A leader's no-nonsense reputation might induce a favorable climate but in order to effect lasting change, it must be followed up with a radical program of social and economic reorganization," writes Achebe in The Trouble with Nigeria. In other words, good leaders are good, but strong institutions are even better.

Now don't you dare marry more than one wife ... especially you crazy african men out there! you're contribute to social unrest, riots and burned cars. and who would want that?

this article is ridiculous! france is ripped apart by social tensions, mainly based on issues of equity and economics and, at the same time an incredible opportunity for genuine dialogue and transformation opens up and what do people in political leadership do...? blame it on the number of wives a man has? young french men are angry because their society does not give them opportunities to participate and engage in productive activities. they respond violently to years of picked on and stereotyped as trouble causers; they are unhappy with being referred to [by government ministers] as 'scum' or filth; they are marginalized and not made to feel like they belong where they have settled. they are threatened with deportation should they break the law. yet the root cause of this trouble is polygamy? and we have people preaching to us in africa about creating diverse, multi-racial [emphasized more than multi-ethnic] societies ... what for? so that immigrants to made themselves at home through brutal means 300 years ago can feel at home, but those who are trying to make them feel at home on other continents are to the thrown out, together with their "filthy" cultural practices. but we have to create multi-racial societies that comfortable accommodate other people's cultural practices -- democracy, religion, 'modernization'

why does something about this whole picture JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME!

oh no, hold on dumi -- it's simple. tell you people to limit the number of women they sleep with, and everything with be ok.

the article in the new york times points to this ridiculous claim made by some french thought and political leaders that Polygamy is a key factor in this french unrest! in all fairness, there have been effort to address the other issues too and to highlight them, but the fact that this one gets this much air time repulses me!

d.



Immigrant Polygamy Is a Factor in French Unrest, a Gaullist Says


By ELAINE SCIOLINO <http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ELAINESCIOLINO&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ELAINESCIOLINO&inline=nyt-per>

Published: November 18, 2005

PARIS, Nov. 17 - In the search for explanations for the riots that have rocked France , some politicians and intellectuals are pointing to a novel one: polygamy.

In an interview with RTL radio on Wednesday, Bernard Accoyer, the parliamentary leader of President Jacques Chirac's Gaullist party, the Union for a Popular Movement, called polygamy "certainly one of the causes, though not the only one" for France's worst unrest in four decades. He blamed the former Socialist government of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin or being "strangely lax" in enforcing the ban on polygamy. Pierre Cardo, a deputy in Parliament from Mr. Chirac's party, said that the most difficult juvenile delinquents were "often products of polygamous families."

Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, one of the country's most eminent historians and the permanent secretary of the Académie Française, was even more pointed. "Everyone is astonished; why are African children in the streets and not at school?" she said on Russian television in Moscow on Sunday. "Why can't their parents buy an apartment? It's clear why. Many of these Africans, I tell you, are polygamous. In an apartment, there are three or four wives and 25 children." Even the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has suggested that polygamy makes it harder for North African Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans to integrate into French life.

"There are more problems for a child of an immigrant of black Africa or of North Africa than for a son of a Swede, a Dane or a Hungarian," said Mr. Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian father, in an interview with France 2 television on Nov. 10. "Because culture, because polygamy, because social origins contribute to more hardships for him."

The remarks have set off an uproar in France and charges of racism. In a statement on Wednesday, MRAP, an antiracist group, accused political leaders on the right of "playing an extremely dangerous role in feeding our country with the racism that causes the damage we know."

No official figures are available on polygamy in France, although some women's rights groups estimate the number of polygamous families as high as 30,000. They come mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, including Mali, Senegal and Gambia. The practice is less prevalent among the much larger and older immigrant population of North Africa.

Bigamy is illegal in France, and punishable by a year in prison and a $53,000 fine. But the practice of polygamy among immigrant families from countries where it is part of the culture and tradition is more complicated. Polygamy was effectively banned by a 1993 law that prevented second wives from getting visas. But it created difficult situations for families that had lived in France for years, and pushed many wives to enter France illegally. Polygamy is therefore largely tolerated, particularly if the marriages took place before the 1993 law went into effect.

To end polygamous living arrangements, local authorities encourage wives to seek separate accommodations. "We tell them, 'It may be legal in Africa, but in France, it's not,' " said a City Hall spokeswoman who would not allow her name to be used, citing City Hall policy.

The issue also has caused a furor in the French news media. Le Monde put the article on its front page Thursday afternoon. An editorial Thursday in Le Courrier Picard, a northern French newspaper, said, "Then like this, it's because Papa is polygamous that the son burns cars." It called such statements "a call for a new and hypocritical apartheid."

In an effort to calm the waters, Jean-François Copé, a Chirac spokesman, sought to distance the government from remarks linking polygamy and the unrest. "You cannot draw such a tight link between polygamy and urban violence," he said Thursday in a radio interview. "The crisis of disadvantaged neighborhoods has multiple causes."

Community groups acknowledge there is a problem of polygamous families, but say the causes of the riots run much deeper. "A culprit has to be found," said Claudette Bodin, co-president of Afrique Partenaires Services, a support group for families from sub-Saharan countries in France, in a telephone interview. "It's easier to accuse polygamous families than to question your own society." Daniel Vaillant, the Socialist mayor of the 18th Arrondissement, which has a large number of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, also said the problem was much larger. "You cannot say that polygamy created or aggravated the riots," he said in a telephone interview. "This is transferring the blame." The root problems, he said, were "those of jobs, of housing, of bitterness."

Ariane Bernard and Hélène Fouquet contributed reporting for this article.

latin american countries seem to be leading in defining a different, more independent poltical agenda, less dicated to from D.C. i guess it helps that there's a huge leadership defecit in washington, and also that there are leadership gain in those countries i guess. plus the fact that people can see that most policies prescribed from places like Washington DC are not in their best interests. i am interested though in the perspective of people in countries like uruguay, argentina, venezuela and brazil to learn about how they seem the impacts of the shift in the outlook and perspective of their political leadership. is life much different from the days when policies were more dominated by world bank and IMF idealogies [not that they are completely free now]? what are the long term prospects?

the rest of us (especially in africa) have a lot to learn from latin america. the article below does a good job of breaking it down, although it is from the perspective of a major US newspaper.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20051031/ts_chicagotrib/bushheadingintodenofleftists

Bush heading into den of leftists
By Colin McMahon Tribune foreign correspondentMon Oct 31, 9:40 AM
ET

For a guy with the headaches President Bush faces, quiet time away and a pleasant visit with friends might be just the ticket. Too bad Bush is booked for South America this week.

The fourth Summit of the Americas will bring Bush into territory that is not quite enemy but far less allied than before. Half the hemisphere's leaders have changed since Bush took office in 2001 promising to make Latin America a priority. The region's politics have changed too.

A resurgent left is reshaping Latin America. This year alone, leftist protests toppled governments in Ecuador and Bolivia. A socialist took power for the first time in Uruguay. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, swimming in oil profits and brimming with bravado, is rallying the region against the United States and its economic prescriptions.

All told, more than 320 million Latin Americans have seen their nations turn to the left in recent years--in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

Yet this turn is not nearly so dramatic as some had feared and others had hoped. So far, complex economic and political realities have softened Latin America's leftist wave.

"The elections in Uruguay and elsewhere have been a referendum against failed policies. People have started looking for alternatives," said Ernesto Talvi, an economist and executive director of the think tank CERES in Montevideo. "But I don't think they are looking for alternatives that revert us to the failed policies of the past."

Markets failed the poor

During the 1990s and early in this decade, free-market policies--low tariffs, fiscal discipline, privatization--remade Latin American economies. But they failed to significantly reduce poverty or expand the middle class. Poor and working-class voters felt robbed by relentless austerity measures, the loss of state jobs and the cutting of government subsidies.

Leftist precepts that analysts had written off only a decade ago underwent a revival. And so did anti-Americanism. Growing numbers of Latin Americans came to accuse Washington of imperialism in foreign policy and of pushing neo-liberal economic policies that enrich the United States and the region's elite at the expense of the masses.

Bush in particular is identified with the policies that have come under criticism. Suspicion from fellow leaders and derision from protesters will greet the American president at the summit, which starts Friday in Argentina. But most of the hemisphere still looks to the United States for leadership, aid and investment.

This presents the Bush administration with an opportunity but also a thorny foreign policy challenge. Push its agenda too much, as the United States is accused of doing in confronting Chavez in Venezuela, and Washington is seen as meddling. Stand too far back, as the United States is accused of doing regionally since the Sept. 11 attacks, and Washington is seen as abandoning Latin American nations trying to do the right thing on human rights, trade and immigration.

U.S. officials acknowledge that the so-called pink tide rolling across Latin America has a mellow tint.

A few governments have raised tariffs to protect domestic industries, but there has been no wholesale return to protectionism. Social spending is rising, but treasuries remain committed to fiscal discipline. Leaders across the region extol the importance of attracting capital and investment, and last year two nations with left-of-center leaders, Brazil and Chile, recorded the highest percentage increases in foreign investment. Economic opportunity is hardly washing away.

Some left-of-center presidents, such as Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, have even come under criticism for being too conservative.

Brazilian turnabout

During his long career as a labor leader and his unlikely slog to the presidency of Brazil, da Silva railed against the free-market economic policies that have transformed his nation. But as the elected leader of the world's fifth most-populous country, da Silva is gambling that fiscal discipline and free markets will spur sustained growth, create jobs and provide the revenue da Silva's government needs to address Brazil's crushing social inequalities.

"Lula changed," said Marcilio Marques Moreira, a former finance minister who also was Brazil's ambassador to the United States. "I don't know if it was by conviction or by pragmatism, but in the process there was a certain type of conversion, at least in economic policy."

This conversion breaks the heart of da Silva's leftist allies. But da Silva's orthodox policies are credited with stabilizing Brazil's economy--and helping to insulate da Silva from an all-out political attack--during a corruption scandal that threatened his government.

That scandal has cost da Silva standing and influence in the region, and Chavez has benefited.

Because of the value of Venezuela's oil, Chavez for now can afford to challenge economic liberalism and even chase off some foreign investors. The Venezuela leader has won many fans with his calls for a "Bolivarian revolution" that would restore a large state role to national economies.

But elsewhere the new leftists are wary of isolating their countries from international credit markets and foreign capital. They are searching for a Latin American third way between unfettered capitalism and state-dominated socialism. They see private business as the engine of growth, but they are not content to leave job creation to the unforgiving market. They believe in free trade but want safeguards to make sure trade is fair.

This may not work, and most Bush administration officials and conservative economists say it will not. They blame corruption and poor execution of market policies, not the policies themselves, for their failure across Latin America. But the hardships and inequalities across Latin American have convinced most voters and the new breed of leftist leaders that the economic orthodoxy of the so-called Washington Consensus has failed them.

Holding off the radicals

The challenge now is for the new leftists to make their way work before radical approaches gain more favor. In some countries, the throwing out of the old has coincided with the rise of new political movements with a strong populist bent and a fervent anti-American agenda. Their commitment to electoral democracy is at best unproven.

So far, the Latin American third way is being built most convincingly by the market-minded socialists running Chile.

Chile has one of the world's most open economies, according to an annual international survey by the conservative Heritage Foundation. And it is the region's beacon for free traders. The left-of-center government of President Ricardo Lagos has aggressively pursued trade deals with countries in Europe, Asia and North America, and Chile's economy has grown more robustly and consistently than any other in the region.

Trade between Latin America and the United States has grown steadily every year since 2001 and has risen to a historic high. But trade between Chile and the United States has positively soared. A bilateral agreement that went into effect in 2004 between the United States and Chile spurred U.S. exports to that country by 33 percent last year, according to U.S. government statistics.

Chile, however, departs occasionally from orthodox neo-liberalism. It has placed limits on how quickly investors can move money in and out of the country, for example, to encourage long-term direct investment and advance "growth with equity."

At the same time, the Lagos government has expanded social programs. In the last 15 years, Chile has slashed the poverty rate to 18 percent of the population from 40 percent. And by doing so, Chile's leadership has brought voters on the far left more toward the center.

"We are being very aggressive in liberalizing and opening the economy," said Chilean Foreign Minister Ignacio Walker. "But we never lose sight that liberalization is the means and not the ends in itself--the means to achieve equitable and sustainable growth."

Argentina is more complex. President Nestor Kirchner's government flirts with price controls, protectionism, currency manipulation and other state interventions that dismay free marketers. But Kirchner has been far more fiscally conservative than his 1990s predecessors, who became darlings of the financial markets even as Argentina was borrowing its way toward a collapse that threw millions of its citizens into poverty.

"It is impossible to conceive of a country without fiscal discipline, correct administration, the care of reserves," Kirchner told the Buenos Aires newspaper Pagina 12, sounding more like a neo-liberal than a leader of his Peronist party.

Since Argentina defaulted more than three years ago on $100 billion in loans and interest, Kirchner has taken a hard line in dealing with creditors and foreign investors. Economists and other Latin governments are closely watching whether he can hold that hard line while ensuring that Argentina gets the capital it needs to continue its recovery.

Already leftists in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia are calling for their nations to follow Argentina's lead. They want to suspend debt payments and force renegotiations on private creditors and multinational lenders. But even left-of-center economists agree that such moves carry great risks. The populism espoused by Chavez and advocated by his followers would severely damage most Latin American economies by shutting them off from foreign investment, economists argue.

Bolivia, where street protests have forced two presidents from office in the past 18 months, is considered particularly worrisome. U.S. officials accuse Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro of seeking to use proxies such as coca farmer-turned-opposition leader Evo Morales to turn Bolivia into a Marxist, anti-American state. Even leftists such as da Silva and Kirchner, who rely on Bolivia for natural gas, have expressed concerns about a potential economic collapse in Bolivia and the splintering of democratic institutions.

Bush administration officials say a government's political shade is less of an issue than a nation's democratic stability. For one thing, the soundness of institutions matters more to investors than whether a government calls itself left or center or right. Foreign investors seek such qualities as consistent and transparent taxes and regulations, and a judicial system not overrun by corruption. The governments that deliver, no matter what their shade, are deemed suitable partners.

Rice `not worried'

"I am certainly not worried about the rise of left-of-center governments," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared before the June summit of the Organization of American States.

But in an interview with the Miami Herald that was released by the State Department, Rice made clear that not all left-of-center governments were viewed the same way. She offered indirect if not exactly veiled criticism of Chavez. And she praised the Brazilians under da Silva: "They have been absolutely committed to a social agenda ... but doing it in a way that is responsible economically."

Da Silva has stuck with his current economic policy even under extreme pressure from his Workers Party base to employ populist and socialist remedies for Brazil's widespread poverty. That shows how deeply certain principles of the Washington Consensus have penetrated Latin American political and economic thinking.

"When Lula came into office, there was a lot of fear about how the government would manage the economy and a lot of confidence about how ethical the government would be," said Ricardo Ribeiro, an economist and political analyst with MCM Consultants in Sao Paulo. "It is ironic that we are seeing just the opposite."

----------

cmcmahon@tribune.com

i am trying to create a budget for my organization over the next year ... with year on year inflation figures at around 400%, it's a night mare. i have never dealt with this many 000s before!

if any one out there has good tips about business management in a hyperinflationary economy, send them to me please!

i love how real democracy works... all scripted! every thing from what he says, to waht people say to him!

and i don't understand why people in america put up with it! okay, so there were demonstrations in DC last month. then everyone put away their picket signs and went home. and they get dooped the very next month. too bad there's no country out there with a government like, eeeeh, the united states of america has, to sponsor "public rebellion" against such rubbish! perhaps we would have a purple-orange-rose-red-white-and-blue revolution!

d.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051014/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq


Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

this article (below) in the NY Times is really frustrating! instead of using 'aid' money to invest in african agriculture to address the problems of hunger [and the money would go SO much further to really averting poverty], the US Congress road blocks the passage of a bill that would make buying food for aid from african farmers. i understand they have a farming industry they feel they need to protect, but obviously some people don't really understand the larger effects of such policy and legislation. or perhaps they do, but don't really care about sustainable development!


From - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/international/africa/12memo.html?ex=1286769600&en=1bc36f245d786ce8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

October 12, 2005
Poverty Memo
African Food for Africa's Starving Is Roadblocked in Congress

By CELIA W. DUGGER
It seemed like a no-brainer: changing the law to allow the federal government to buy food in Africa for Africans facing starvation instead of paying enormous sums to ship it from the American heartland, halfway around the world. Not only would the food get to the hungry in weeks instead of months, the government would save money and help African farmers at the same time.

The new approach had an impeccable sponsor in Republican-dominated Washington. The Bush administration, famous for its go-it-alone style, was trying to move the United States - by far the world's biggest food donor - into the international mainstream with a proposal to take a step in just this direction. A lot of rich countries had already done so, most recently Canada.

So why is this seemingly sensible, cost-effective proposal near death in Congress?

Fundamentally, because the proposal challenges the political bargain that has formed the basis for food aid over the past half century: that American generosity must be good not just for the world's hungry but also for American agriculture. That is why current law stipulates that all food aid provided by the United States Agency for International Development be grown by American farmers and mostly shipped on United States-flag vessels. More practically, however, it is because the administration's proposal has run into opposition from three interests some critics call the Iron Triangle of food aid: agribusiness, the shipping industry and charitable organizations.

Just four companies and their subsidiaries, led by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, sold more than half the $700 million in food commodities provided through the United States Agency for International Development's food aid program in 2004, government records show. Just five shipping companies received over half the more than $300 million spent to ship that food, records show.

Members of Congress often applaud the benefits of food aid for American farmers, but that is not really how it works, as Christopher B. Barrett, a Cornell University economist and co-author of "Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting its Role," noted. "It's the middlemen who enjoy most of the gains," he said, "not the farmers."

Mr. Barrett's research has established a third side to the triangle of interests with a deep stake in the status quo: nonprofit aid organizations. He and his co-author, Daniel Maxwell, a CARE official, found that at least seven of them, including Catholic Relief Services and CARE itself, depended on food aid for a quarter to half their budgets in 2001. Those groups distribute food in poor countries. But what is less well known is that they have also become grain traders, selling substantial amounts of the donated food on local markets in poor countries to generate tens of millions of dollars for their antipoverty programs. Given that at least 50 cents of each dollar's worth of food aid is spent on transport, storage and administrative costs, selling food to raise money in, say, Africa, is an exceedingly inefficient way to finance long-term development, Mr. Barrett said. Better to just give nonprofit groups the money directly.

Had the Agency for International Development had the authority to buy food in Ethiopia in the mid-1980's, when a million perished, or in 1999-2000 when 20,000 died, it could have saved many more lives, said its administrator, Andrew S. Natsios, who added, "Speed is everything in a famine response."

He pushed within the administration for a proposal that would allow up to a quarter of his agency's food aid budget to be spent in developing countries. President Bush approved the idea, he said, and it was included in the proposed 2006 budget introduced in February.

Ed Fox, the agency's assistant administrator for legislative and public affairs, said the issue was deliberately given a low profile. Little was to be gained from putting members of Congress in the position of choosing between agricultural constituencies and starving children, he said.

But if the proposal was little noticed by the general public, it did not escape the attention of groups representing the so-called Iron Triangle, who argued that cash used to buy food was more likely to be misused or stolen than were in-kind food donations. They maintained that the administration's proposal should not come at the expense of a program "upon which American producers, processors and shipping companies rely," as a statement from an ad hoc coalition of 17 companies and associations put it.

The Coalition for Food Aid, which represents 16 nonprofit groups, also opposed it. While supporting the idea of buying food in poor countries, said Ellen Levinson, the coalition's lobbyist, its members favored a more limited pilot program paid for only with additional appropriations, not money from the agency's core budget.

Ms. Levinson criticized the administration for failing to spell out how its plan would work, and said a carefully monitored pilot was needed to ensure that food bought in poor countries was safe and that the purchases did not drive up food prices for the poor. She also cautioned that food bought near a crisis would not necessarily be quicker to arrive, noting that the European Union has been very slow to release cash for food in some cases.

But Oxfam, which accepts no direct American food aid and is not part of the coalition, has actively supported the administration's proposal. In testimony submitted to Congress, it pointedly noted that the current system offered too many opportunities "for a variety of private interests to skim off benefits in the procurement, packaging, transportation and distribution of commodities."

And CARE, the second largest distributor of United States food aid and a member of the coalition, had a change of heart. It has now given unconditional support to food purchases in developing countries.

The food aid debate will flare again later this year as global trade talks approach, with the European Union proposing that rich countries give a growing portion of their food aid as cash. But, for now, the administration's proposal is going nowhere. Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, still hopes Congress will ultimately allow up to 10 percent of food aid to be spent in poor countries. "It's a question of trying to save lives," he said.

But opposition remains strong. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican who heads the House Agriculture Committee, said even Mr. DeWine's modest compromise "would break a coalition that has resulted in one of the most successful food aid programs in world history."

In Canada this year, the politics of food aid has unfolded in a starkly different way, with the leading nonprofit group, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the country's main umbrella organization of farm groups, supporting a sharp reduction of the amount of food bought in Canada. "Canadian farmers are not going to say you have to source food in Canada regardless of whether starving people are waiting for it," said the federation's president, Robert Friesen.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

interesting piece from Gloria Steinem, posted at http://digital.guardian.co.uk/guardian/2005/09/13/pages/ber28.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm a hopeaholic. There's nothing George Bush can do about it

We have imposed our disastrous president on the world — but America's finest quality is already turning the tide at home


Gloria Steinem

It's hard to travel or send words out of the US now. How can any American expect to be welcomed in the rest of the world when we have imposed the narcissistic and disastrous George Bush on it? I could explain that almost none of his policies has majority support here. Even among those who voted for him, a poll showed that 60% to 80% thought they were voting for the opposite of his actual positions: they supported the comprehensive test ban treaty (he didn't); they supported the Kyoto treaty on global warming (he didn't); they supported the international criminal court (he threatened to sanction any nation that did); and so on. This tells you a lot about the level of information in mass media that prefer celebrities, yelling matches and advertising to investigating what is and isn't accurate.

But never fear, Americans are being punished. Having re-elected Bush as a wartime president, we have to watch him alienating more allies and inspiring more people to join the war against us every day.

Still, I have hope. I have hope because majority opinion has turned against the invasion of Iraq in far less time that it took to wake up to Vietnam. I have hope because Bush's selling-off of the US government, one function at a time, has stumbled on the privatisation of social security. I have hope because Americans are finally connecting, via the internet, with what the rest of the world thinks. I have hope because the only long-term solution to rightwing extremism was visible in the last election; I've seen people willing to vote before, but for the first time I saw people fighting to vote. Only an end to our status as one of the lowest-voting democracies in the world can keep a focused and financed minority from cutting through the majority like a hot knife through butter.

Hard times have made me realise that hope might be the most American of qualities, the reason why many immigrants come here and our best export by far. When I've lived in other countries, it's what I've been most homesick for. After all, unless we make a place in our imaginations for what could be, there's not much point in believing in anything. You might say I'm a hopeaholic.

I owe this not only to being born here, but to working as a feminist organiser. Terminal hopefulness is an occupational hazard. None the less, I've come to feel that hope is natural, a necessity of human evolution — and hopelessness has to be carefully taught by those who benefit from the status quo. Here's why.

I had the good luck of missing school until I was 12 or so. My parents thought that seeing the country from a trailer or caravan was as educational as a classroom, so I escaped the discouragement that, especially in my generation, came with it. I wasn't taught that boys and girls were practically different species, that America was "discovered" when the first white guy set foot on it, or that Europe deserved more space in my textbooks than Asia and Africa combined. I didn't even learn that people at the top were smarter than people at the bottom.

Instead I grew up seeing with my own eyes, following my curiosity, falling in love with books and learning mostly from being around grown-ups — which, except for the books, was the way kids had been raised for most of human history. With no one to tell me that some people were born to poverty or that women weren't leaders, but married or gave birth to them, I just assumed that hope could lead anyone anywhere.

Needless to say, school hit me like a ton of bricks. I wasn't prepared for gender obsession, race and class complexities or the new-to-me idea that war, male leadership and a God who mysteriously resembled the ruling class were inevitable. Soon I gave in and became an adolescent trying to fit in, pretending I didn't know what I knew, and keeping my hopes to myself — a stage that lasted through college. I owe the beginnings of rebirth to living in India for a couple of years and falling in with a group of Gandhians, then coming home to the Kennedys, the civil rights movement and protests against the war in Vietnam.

But most women, me included, stayed in our traditional places until we began to gather, listen to each other's stories and learn that the subordinate roles we played, even in otherwise admirable movements, weren't just or inevitable. Soon a national and international feminist movement was challeng ing the notion that what happened to men was political, but what happened to women was cultural; that the first could be changed, but the second could not. I had the feeling of coming home, of waking from an inauthentic life. I didn't think this refound self-authority was more important than external authority, but it wasn't less important either.

Since then, I've spent decades listening to kids before and after social roles hit. Faced with some inequality, the younger ones say "It's not fair!" — as if some primordial expectation of empathy and cooperation helps the species survive. By the time they are teenagers, social pressures have nourished or starved this hope. I suspect that a natural need for fairness, or any whisper of it that survives, is the root from which social justice movements grow.

So hope is contagious. With that in mind, I offer you a few of my hopes from early and late in life.

I hope we learn that whatever is done to children, they are likely to do to soc-iety. If we can raise even one generation without violence, we have no idea what might be possible on Spaceship Earth.

I hope that spirituality overwhelms religion. I say this because spirituality links, religion ranks; spirituality sees God in all living things, religion rations out God to some more than others; spirituality celebrates life, religion celebrates life after death.

I hope we choose self-authority over hierarchy. We will have to, because the purpose of the latter is to undermine the former.

I hope we learn that the end doesn't justify the means; on the contrary, the means create the ends.

I hope that racism is finally seen as a fiction invented to justify the taking over of land and power. This remains true whether its objects are Africans or Arabs, Jews or the Kwei/San people.

I hope the female half of the world takes back control of the means of reproduction: our own bodies. After all, women are in the original secondary spot because some men wanted to control reproduction, establish paternity and ownership of children and force the bearing of more workers, more soldiers. That's how we got into this mess. Reversing it is the only way to get out.

I hope that men break out of the masculine prison that: a) justifies males dominating females; b) separates men from the full circle of their human qualities; and c) cons the many men at the bottom into endangering their lives to protect the few men at the top.

All these hopes become much more practical when you consider that either/or thinking, patriarchy, hierarchy, nationalism and monotheism, and much more that we've wrongly been sold as inevitable, have been confined to less than 5% of human history. We won't be the first to strive toward such hopes.

Will this fragile Spaceship Earth survive long enough? Only if we act on our hopes every day.



Gloria Steinem is a writer and activist. Her books include Moving Beyond Words and Revolution from Within www.equalitynow.org

i spent three days in the east of france--in lorraine, where world war one started. a few weeks ago, i just happened to have been chatting to one of my best friends on TIG, Trevor Kellog , and it turns out he was arriving in the same area to live there for a year as a Rotary Exchange Student. Awesome! so we decided to meet up for breakfast. little did we know what was in store for us.

i was staying with a good friend of mine, Sabrina and her family was really nice to both Trevor and I. we ate like mad, dranks lots of amazing wine [ooops trev, i hope the rotary people don't read my blog!] went for a walk, got lost, drove through many cool, tiny french villages and laughed all afternoon.

trevor's french improved before my very eyes! it was amazing!

anyway, here's a picture of trevor and sabrina at sabrina's home. trev is giving sabrina an iPod lesson!

vive la france!