Cde Beauty Chabaya celebrates winning the Bikita West by-election with her supporters, however, like in previous polls, some in the opposition cried foul
Nick Mangwana
View from the Diaspora
When Zanu-PF lost the Norton by-election in October 2016, it conceded defeat without delay. The party immediately embarked on a post-mortem. One of the most used phrases in the party was, “lessons have been leant”. It was clear that people within the ruling party had reflected and knew exactly where the party had gone wrong.Yes, there were recriminations within the party, but that same process still made everyone say “never again”. And to show that lessons had been learnt, the template that caused defeat in Norton could not be repeated in Chimanimani and it could not be allowed to rear its head in Bikita West as well.
That’s the beauty of graciously accepting defeat. It is not only in good taste. But it helps with an honest self-examination. But if one refuses to accept their defeat with benevolence, it will always be all others’ fault, but never theirs. They will never take ownership of their failures.
In Bikita West even the excitable Temba Mliswa went there with his Norton template, but saw that there was a new sheriff in the county, masamba asiyana, Bikita West was not Norton and quickly retreated.
He immediately declared that Zanu-PF would win the election, which it did resoundingly. But there was something missing. It was the concession from the losers. Instead of conceding defeat, excuses became the order of the day.
In America they call the concession speech the “rite of capitulation”. This is what the opposition has to learn. We cannot continue to have a system where the victors claim victory and the losers don’t want to concede.
That creates an unnecessary spotlight for the country and therefore undermines the economy and the country’s international standing. And all that for what? We have seen the effect of conceding defeat and what it does for the winner when Jammeh conceded in the Gambia. It shapes the whole interpretation of an election and also makes one recover from that defeat. Of course we also know what happened when he recanted his defeat.
But closer to home we know certain individuals could not do it as that meant that they had to relinquish the leadership of their organisation, for that would locate failure on their doorstep.
Conceding defeat establishes the legitimacy of the result. It helps to foster national unity. But some don’t seem to want that. They blame fraud and whatever else that excuses them from taking responsibility.
But there is no better way for a loser to honour the voters than conceding defeat. It says that the voters have made their choice and you are going to respect it. Not that because they have made a choice you disagree with, you are not going to respect that choice or you think it’s not legitimate. If that is not the height of conceit, then what is?
During the election campaign the current American president Donald Trump said, “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win.” That sounds so familiar.
Zimbabwe has been so cursed with an opposition that is not gracious enough to concede defeat after an election rout. Even in 1980 some did not concede defeat. Muzorewa was one such sore loser.
We should never forget that the nation pays the price for one’s ego. This is why Stephen Douglas said to Abraham Lincoln, “Partisan feelings must yield to patriotism”. It is unpatriotic not to concede defeat when you know very well you lost.
The so-called “disputed elections” are not always a result of a flawed process. They are also a reflection on the character of the losing candidates and their party.
If for example a party is led by a person with narcissistic or megalomaniac traits, they are very unlikely to concede defeat. They will find reasons for it being someone else’s fault or the system’s fault, but never their own. To them the only fair process is the one that gives them the victory.
Post-election disputes are said to happen in 21 percent of democracies and many of these have nothing to do with the process. That means that a fifth of elections have contested results. So this is clearly not a Zimbabwe problem.
The disputation of the legitimacy of one’s government, causes the questioning of the legitimacy of all the constitutional institutions that proceeds from it. That undermines the rule of law.
Sometimes there are sinister motives behind the refusal to concede such as a bid to bring chaos to a constitutional order. That is callously selfish.
In the 2013 Zimbabwe General Election, a top opposition leader voted with a lot of gusto declaring as he cast his vote, “we have won this election”. These five words were an emphatic validation of the process. Just the day before he had been encamped at a top Harare hotel setting up his “cabinet”. It was only when results started trickling in that he cried “rigged” and called the election a “sham”. A sham he had declared he was going to win? But those who knew better, those who privately realised their drubbing was not a fraud started questioning their leadership. The rest is history.
Soon we will be on the 2018 home run, if the “Rice! Rice! Rice!” campaign by a good comrade is anything to go by, we will witness the platform for disputing the next rout being meticulously set up.
Part of the reason for this, is for the losers to prepare a lair from where they will cling on to the leadership of their entities. These disputes are not a reflection on the quality of the election process at all.
They are an exercise in self-serving power clinging histrionics. Some researchers have suggested that a lot of political parties dispute an election result to strengthen their hand in any future negotiation.
In the 2013 Zimbabwean case it had the reverse effect. The good relationship that had been established in four years of weekly tête-à-tête between former enemies went straight down the drain.
One asked for a meeting. The other said if you want to meet me, first concede. The other one thought doing so was political suicide within the context of his own party dynamics.
In the meantime, because legitimacy is attacked or questioned, one billion dollars leaves the banking system. Liquidity challenges ensue. The banking system has not recovered since.
Every election will produce winners and losers. It is gracious for the losers to concede and save their countries from going into unnecessary post-election crisis and community polarisation.
You can’t just dispute the result of an election because it saves your face. It doesn’t work like that. There are real economic consequences to such an ego trip or self-serving electoral strategy. It is fraudulent to make unfounded allegations of a non-existent election fraud. What this sums to is a sore loser blackmailing democracy.
Elections should not just be disputed for the sake of building a capacity to prolong an incumbency at a political party leadership level. There must be genuine discontent with a process.
In life there are people who can never concede defeat. We have seen it with boxers who would have been technically knocked out. But some would go as far as questioning the speed of the count.
This is the same syndrome in Zimbabwe where national progress is being scuttled by individuals because they want to save their political careers. One hopes 2018 would set a new template for Zimbabwe. It serves the interests of this country to have dignity in defeat no matter how embittered one is by the loss. The country should come first.
Elections are naturally divisive. In Zanu-PF after every primary election the losing candidates join the campaign trail of the triumphant comrade. That helps the healing from the bitterness and the demoralisation their supporters would be feeling. This unites the supporters and they rally again under the party badge to work for the benefit of the party. This is the same unity that sees the party victorious in the election against an external opposition.
This same template needs to be applied nationally. When people have lost elections and they officially concede, that re-unites and depolarises the people and our communities. It rallies the people to focus on national challenges and not against each other. And those who refuse to concede miss an opportunity to learn.
How can you learn when you make your people think that the only reason you lost is because there was fraud? You will focus on public sympathy and de-legitimation instead of addressing the actual mistakes that made you get defeated. Many a time people lose because they are not in tune with the electorate. It is this optimal strategic positioning that parties should focus on and not focusing on scapegoating.
We should never forget that a gracious loser might not have power, but it makes the whole nation the ultimate winner. And when the nation is the winner everyone including the vanquished is a winner.