This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/world/africa/mugabe-declared-winner-of-disputed-election-in-zimbabwe.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Mugabe Wins Again in Zimbabwe, Leaving Rival Greatly Weakened Mugabe Wins Again in Zimbabwe, Leaving Rival Greatly Weakened
(about 5 hours later)
HARARE, Zimbabwe — Robert Mugabe, who has led Zimbabwe since it threw off white rule in 1980, won another term as president after a hotly disputed election held on Wednesday, defeating his main challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, with 61 percent of the vote, the Zimbabwe Election Commission said Saturday. HARARE, Zimbabwe — President Robert Mugabe, who has led Zimbabwe since it threw off white rule in 1980, won another term on Saturday as the official results were announced for last week’s hotly disputed election, defeating his main challenger with 61 percent of the vote and roaring back to secure his grip on power after having to share it for the past five years.
The results were announced moments after Mr. Tsvangirai denounced the voting, saying it had been rigged. The Zimbabwe Election Commission announced the results moments after the challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, denounced the voting, saying it had been rigged.
Mr. Tsvangirai won 33 percent of the vote, the election commission said. “This fraudulent and stolen election has plunged Zimbabwe into a constitutional, political and economic crisis,” Mr. Tsvangirai, who won 33 percent of the vote, said in a news conference at his house. He demanded that a new election be held so that Zimbabweans could “freely and fairly elect a government of their choice” — a step that a spokesman for Mr. Mugabe’s party, ZANU-PF, quickly rejected.
Mr. Mugabe’s party also won more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament, giving it a supermajority that can make changes to the Constitution without the support of any other parties, including Mr. Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change. Secretary of State John Kerry also cast doubt on the validity of the election in a statement on Saturday. “In light of substantial electoral irregularities reported by domestic and regional observers, the United States does not believe that the results announced today represent a credible expression of the will of the Zimbabwean people,” Mr. Kerry said.
It was a stunning comeback for Mr. Mugabe, and the culmination of a long list of missteps and miscalculations that have the left Mr. Tsvangirai’s party, the most credible threat to Mr. Mugabe, with less than a third of the seats in Parliament and few options to contest the election results. But regional election observers suggested that any flaws were not serious enough to invalidate the voting.
On June 14, when the leaders of the Movement for Democratic Change arrived for a meeting in the Mozambican capital, Maputo, they were outraged. Mr. Mugabe, 89, a wily political survivor, had unilaterally declared that an election must be held by the end of July, usurping Parliament. The party’s leaders were prepared to tell the heads of state who had gathered for the meeting of the regional trade bloc, the Southern African Development Community, that Mr. Tsvangirai’s party would boycott the election. The victory was a stunning comeback for Mr. Mugabe. After the disputed 2008 election, in which he won fewer votes than Mr. Tsvangirai did, he was forced into forming a unity government. This time, Mr. Mugabe’s party won more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament, giving it a supermajority that can make changes to the country’s Constitution without votes from other parties.
But the foreign leaders persuaded Mr. Mugabe to agree to ask the country’s constitutional court for a two-week extension, and Mr. Tsvangirai agreed to go ahead with the voting, according to Douglas Mwonzora, the party’s spokesman. The election was also a vivid illustration of how Mr. Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change, or M.D.C., has been outmaneuvered and outfoxed at every turn by Mr. Mugabe, 89, a wily survivor who endured colonial rule, a brutal guerrilla war and multiple attempts to unseat him during his 33 years as Zimbabwe’s leader.
“We didn’t expect the Zimbabwean courts and Mr. Mugabe to go against the resolution of S.A.D.C.,” Mr. Mwonzora said. The courts refused to extend the deadline, and a messy, rushed election was held on July 31. Mr. Tsvangirai responded angrily to the election commission’s announcement on Saturday. “This fraudulent and stolen election has plunged Zimbabwe into a constitutional, political and economic crisis,” he said in a news conference at his house. He demanded that a new election be held so that Zimbabweans could “freely and fairly elect a government of their choice.” “The party has been to blame for ZANU’s success across the board,” said Stephen Chan, a professor at SOAS, the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, who has written a biography of Mr. Mugabe. After the 2008 vote, the M.D.C. agreed to work with Mr. Mugabe’s party, but did not become an equal partner.
But exactly how this would be achieved is unclear. Mr. Tsvangirai can go to court, which he said he planned to do, but the higher courts in Zimbabwe are filled with Mr. Mugabe’s loyal appointees. Election observers from the African Union have declared the vote peaceful and credible. Regional observers noted problems with the election, but did not dismiss it as unfair. “What they got was a compromise deal that was almost worse than being in opposition,” Mr. Chan said.
Rugare Gumbo, a spokesman for Mr. Mugabe’s party, ZANU-PF, called on Mr. Tsvangirai to accept the results. One of the party’s biggest missteps came in June, after Mr. Mugabe unilaterally declared that an election must be held by the end of July, just six weeks later, usurping Parliament. The M.D.C.’s leaders were prepared to tell the heads of state who had gathered for the meeting of the Southern African Development Community, a regional trade bloc, that the party would boycott the election.
“He must accept the will of the people of Zimbabwe,” Mr. Gumbo said. But the regional leaders at the meeting persuaded Mr. Mugabe to agree to ask the country’s constitutional court for a two-week extension, and his main challenger for the presidency, Mr. Tsvangirai, agreed to go ahead with the election, according to Douglas Mwonzora, the M.D.C.’s spokesman.
In 2008, Mr. Mugabe won fewer votes than Mr. Tsvangirai in the first round of that disputed election. Neither man won an outright majority, and Mr. Tsvangirai refused to participate in a runoff because of attacks that killed hundreds of his supporters. The courts refused to extend the deadline, and a messy, rushed election was held on Wednesday.
The two formed an uneasy unity government after the Southern African trade bloc intervened. That government, which left Mr. Mugabe in place as president and installed Mr. Tsvangirai as prime minister, was supposed to last only 18 months. Instead it stretched on for nearly five years, during which the economy stabilized with the introduction of the United States dollar as the national currency and a new constitution was written and passed in a referendum. “We didn’t expect the Zimbabwean courts and Mr. Mugabe to go against the resolution of S.A.D.C.,” Mr. Mwonzora said.
But major overhauls of the armed forces and the police were left undone, and the electoral process ended up being rushed when Mr. Mugabe declared that the vote must be held by July 31. It would turn out to be just one of a long list of miscalculations that have left the M.D.C., the most credible threat to Mr. Mugabe’s long rule, with not quite a third of the seats in Parliament and few options to contest the election results.
Almost twice as many people voted in this election than in 2008, and according to the figures released by the election commission, Mr. Mugabe benefited most from the swell of new voters. The total number of votes for him doubled, while Mr. Tsvangirai’s level of support remained the same. Mr. Tsvangirai plans to go to court, but the higher courts in Zimbabwe are filled with Mr. Mugabe’s loyal appointees.
The voting was peaceful but plagued with problems. The parties did not get a copy of the roll of voters until the day before the election, raising fears of fraud. The election results were a far cry from the 2008 vote, in which neither man won a majority. Mr. Tsvangirai then refused to participate in a runoff because of attacks that had killed hundreds of his supporters.
In addition, earlier versions of the voters’ roll had vastly underrepresented young urban voters, a major blow to the opposition party, which counts them as its base. Election observers also noted that far too many extra ballots were printed and too many voters were reported as needing help. Mr. Tsvangirai said that at one constituency where 17,000 people had voted, 10,000 were assisted by poll workers, a high rate of people needing help in a country with one of Africa’s highest literacy rates. The two men formed an uneasy unity government after the regional trade bloc, S.A.D.C., intervened. That government, which left Mr. Mugabe in place as president and installed Mr. Tsvangirai as prime minister, was supposed to last only 18 months.
But analysts say that his party was maneuvered and outfoxed at every turn by a wily survivor who endured colonial rule, a brutal guerrilla war and multiple attempts to unseat him during his 33 years as Zimbabwe’s leader. Instead it stretched on for nearly five years, during which time the economy stabilized with the introduction of the United States dollar as the national currency, and a new Constitution was written and passed in a referendum.
The Movement for Democratic Change “has been to blame for ZANU’s success across the board,” said Stephen Chan, a professor at SOAS, University of London, who has written a biography of Mr. Mugabe. “What they got was a compromise deal that was almost worse than being in opposition.” But major overhauls of the armed forces and the police were left undone, and the M.D.C.’s leaders were tarnished by allegations of corruption and an abiding perception, fairly or not, that they had grown comfortable with the trappings of power.
Top ZANU-PF officials crowed at the size and scale of their victory, dismissing outright the challenger’s assertions that the vote was rigged. Top ZANU-PF officials crowed over the size of their victory, dismissing the challenger’s claims that the vote was rigged.
“They are a confused lot,” said Saviour Kasukuwere, a senior ZANU-PF minister, of the challengers. “They are not strategic. They are just a bunch of chancers. Their mantra was ‘Mugabe must go.’ But what else did they offer the people?”“They are a confused lot,” said Saviour Kasukuwere, a senior ZANU-PF minister, of the challengers. “They are not strategic. They are just a bunch of chancers. Their mantra was ‘Mugabe must go.’ But what else did they offer the people?”
Job Sikala, a leader of one of the breakaway factions of the Movement for Democratic Change that boycotted the vote, said that Mr. Tsvangirai and his fellow leaders had been naïve to expect the election to be fair. The voting last week was peaceful, but plagued with problems. The parties did not get a copy of the voters’ roll until the day before the vote, raising fears of fraud. Earlier versions had vastly underrepresented young urban voters, a major blow to the M.D.C., whose base is among young city dwellers.
Election observers also noted that far too many extra ballots had been printed and that too many voters had been reported as needing assistance. Mr. Tsvangirai said that at one constituency where 17,000 people had voted, 10,000 had been assisted, a high rate of people needing help in a country with one of Africa’s highest literacy rates.
Almost twice as many people voted in this election as in 2008, and according to the figures released by the election commission, Mr. Mugabe benefited most from the swell of new voters. His total number of votes doubled, while Mr. Tsvangirai’s level of support remained the same.
Job Sikala, a leader of one of the breakaway factions of the M.D.C. that boycotted the vote, said Mr. Tsvangirai and his allies had been naïve to expect that the election would be fair.
“We noticed that the political playing field was tilted on behalf of ZANU-PF,” Mr. Sikala said. “We knew in advance what the result would be.”“We noticed that the political playing field was tilted on behalf of ZANU-PF,” Mr. Sikala said. “We knew in advance what the result would be.”
Indeed, by agreeing to a power-sharing government after the 2008 election, which was marred by political violence, the Movement for Democratic Change helped rescue ZANU-PF from its own excesses, Mr. Sikala said, echoing the views of many analysts. Indeed, by agreeing to enter into a power-sharing government after the 2008 election, which was marred by political violence, the M.D.C. helped rescue ZANU-PF from its own excesses, Mr. Sikala said, echoing the views of many analysts.
“The day they joined the inclusive government they resuscitated a decomposing, dead donkey,” Mr. Sikala said. “They gave ZANU time and legitimacy to regroup, re-energize and reorganize. Now they are back on top and Tsvangirai is finished.” “The day they joined the inclusive government they resuscitated a decomposing, dead donkey,” Mr. Sikala said. “They gave ZANU time and legitimacy to regroup, re-energize and reorganize. Now they are back on top, and Tsvangirai is finished.”