Zanu-PF buoyed by AU stance

Zanu-PF has been cutting a lone figure in its push to hold an election on July 31 as directed by the Constitutional Court judgment passed last month.

In a rare show of unity, its rivals have formed a bulwark against Zanu-PF's bid for a July 31 election.

In fact the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) has suggested that elections must be held as late as October, basing their argument on a constitutional provision that allows for polls to be postponed by up to four months from the date of expiry of Parliament's tenure.

Regionally, Zanu-PF has also found itself fighting a lone battle.

At a special Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit held in Maputo, Mozambique recently, regional leaders pressed President Robert Mugabe to delay the election given the prevalence of an unfair political environment that strongly favours the revolutionary party.

The regional bloc is worried that a rushed election could precipitate a repeat of the sham 2008 election.

But despite the odds being staked against it, Zanu-PF's position appears to have been bolstered by the African Union (AU)'s recent utterances.

"The courts have said the elections must take place. And so do we listen to the courts? Or do we not listen to the courts? I thought a lot of you have always been talking to us about the rule of law and respect for the judiciary," said Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the AU commission's chief in a press briefing in Geneva, Switzerland.

"So I don't know. The Zimbabweans must sort it out, whether they listen to the judiciary and go with what the judiciary has said or ignore it."

Political observers have expressed mixed views over Dlamini-Zuma's comments that appear to rubberstamp Zanu-PF's election push for next month.

The AU position has placed the continental body at odds with SADC.

Fears are growing in the MDC-T and in civic society circles that the AU stance could provide a springboard for Zanu-PF to ignore the SADC election roadmap and adherence to political and institutional reforms.

Trevor Maisiri, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, said the position taken by the AU was a generic position and need not alarm various political stakeholders.

"What the AU has said is that there will be no interference in the legal processes of a member-state, but that does not mean the AU will not involve itself in the political processes of a member-state," said Maisiri.

"So the AU may have no say in the Constitutional Court ruling on the election date, but that does not mean the AU has no consequences on the political and electoral developments in Zimbabwe. That therefore means that President Mugabe is not necessarily off the hook, but is still bound by the political statutes of SADC and AU expectations."

Lovemore Madhuku, a constitutional law expert and chairperson of the National Constitutional Assembly, said the AU was preparing itself for the possibility that the urgent application for an extension on the election date would be dismissed by the country's highest court, as the judiciary was likely to protect its independence from non-legal bodies such as SADC.

Tanonoka Joseph Whande, a political commentator based in Botswana, said the AU was a weak continental body that had bite off more than it could chew and had given up on resolving the Zimbabwe political crisis.

"President Mugabe will do as he pleases anytime because there are no punitive measures in place. He will go ahead with the July 31 poll date claiming it is for 'national interest' and thereby prolong his stay."