The dilemma in interpreting the will of the people in the 30 July 2018 Zimbabwe election

Nelson Chamisa's ConCourt application disputing the Presidential election result announced by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), is premised on the claim and belief that he (Chamisa) resoundingly beat the Zanu-PF candidate, Emerson Mnangagwa. Zanu-PF, on the other hand, claims a mandate to continue ruling through the two-thirds majority they got in the Parliamentary vote result.

If Nelson Chamisa would be right in his claim and win the presidency, it would mean that the electorate have endorsed the continuation of Zanu-PF rule against the MDC Alliance's claim that people have voted for change, resoundingly. It would also mean that the electorate have rejected Emerson Mnangagwa as president. How does this make sense? In my view, if the above scenario is true, this comes down to the battle between Emerson Mnangagwa and his former boss Robert Gabriel Mugabe. The results of the election would mean that the G40 element was crucial in giving Nelson Chamisa a fighting chance. Without the G40 element, Chamisa's defeat would have been decisive and uncontestable.

Let us go back to November 2017. When Emerson Mnangagwa was fired from his post as vice President, it all seemed as though the G40 faction within Zanu-PF had won the battle for control of the party and government. At that point Emerson Mnangagwa sprung a surprise by roping in the military that then led the process to overthrow Robert Gabriel Mugabe as president installing instead Emerson Mnangagwa as president. That frustrated Mugabe and scuppered the former president's plans to hand over the presidency to his wife.

During the campaign period, we witnessed the partnership of the MDC Alliance with the G40 through their new political outfit the National Patriotic Front (NPF). The NPF gave open support to the MDC Alliance and in particular, its presidential candidate, Nelson Chamisa. On the eve of the election, Mr Robert Gabriel Mugabe publicly endorsed Nelson Chamisa's presidential bid. What that meant was that the G40 and Robert Gabriel Mugabe had roped in Nelson Chamisa as their weapon in fighting Emerson Mnangagwa. This would mean that while the general feeling within Zanu-PF was that of continued rule over the politics of the country, Emerson Mnangagwa had to be punished for embarrassing Mugabe and scuppering the plans for a Grace Mugabe presidency.

If this is correct, it then means that Zanu-PF would be back in government with a strong two-thirds majority with initially a weak MDC Alliance presidency, without Emerson Mnangagwa. The G40 faction within Zanu-PF would have managed to still get rid of Mnangagwa and control the party and government. The road would again be opened for a Grace Mugabe presidency. (I hope I am wrong).
It would, therefore, appear as though the ConCourt is going to be settling a Zanu-PF factional dispute in their decision on the Nelson Chamisa application to have Emerson Mnangagwa's declared victory overturned.
I hope that the personal differences between Emerson Mnangagwa and Robert Gabriel Mugabe or indeed between Lacoste and G40 do not cost the lives of innocent citizens who are only looking for ways of daily survival.
Have the electorate voted for change or for continuity?

Two-thirds majority Zanu-PF in Parliament means continuity. Does a 60% (as claimed) Chamisa victory mean change? How effective can the presidency be over parliament? Is that not in itself a reason for conflict. Could we be heading for another election shortly. I have not talked about the local ( Council) elections because no one seems to be talking about them. I am not sure how they reflect the choices of the electorate.

GOD SAVE ZIMBABWE!