Online Reporter
The reluctance of some losers in some elections to accept their loss and to encourage, or at least condone violence by their supporters negates the whole point of multi-party democracy, that the majority chooses who runs the Government and legislature of a country.
Central to the whole democratic process is that someone wins each election with the obvious corollary that everyone else loses the election. If there were no losers there would be no multi-party democracy and no real election, simply the imposition of candidates and electorates limited to choosing, if choice was offered, from a very narrow range of approved candidates from one party.
It can be hard to lose, but that is the result of democracy, that more people voted for the other candidate or other party and so someone else had the most votes and won. Losers should brace themselves, accept the result, work out why they had fewer votes and try and offer better candidates and policies the next time round.
They also need to reign in their most enthusiastic supporters who might want to vent their disappointment through violence, or, as has happened, hope for violence to mask other criminal activity such as looting.
Africa has had more than its fair share of losers refusing to accept results, creating headlines of “contested election results” when usually the election results are not contested, but rather losing candidates refusing to accept them.
But Africa is not alone as the refusal by a large block of Republican Party voters showed in their refusal to accept the 2020 American election results, with resulting violence and some deaths. So this problem of refusing to accept results, violence and deaths can happen anywhere.
Mozambique, after a string of peaceful elections across SADC in recent years, is the latest country in the region to have the second-placed presidential candidate and the second largest parliamentary party refusing to accept results and their supporters taking to the streets and indulging in violence.
The Mozambique Constitutional Council, the top court for deciding all issues based on the constitution and the final court for all election petitions, ruled on Monday that the results of the October Presidential and Parliamentary elections did see Daniel Chapo win the Presidency with 65 percent of the vote and his Frelimo party winning an increased Parliamentary majority.
Mozambique has been seeing very high economic growth rates in recent years, and the militant insurgency in the north has been largely successfully dealt with as Mozambican security forces, backed by SADC, boosted their training and efficiency and found effective ways of dealing with the menace.
These sort of successes almost certainly increased the Frelimo vote as more people thought the party was the best for developing the country and coping with non-democratic violence. Openings for the opposition to leverage on were limited when the government was doing so well.
But the constitutional ruling resulted within hours with more violence, at least in Maputo and Beira, the two largest cities, and another 21 people killed, including two police officers, plus 13 civilians and 12 police injured and 25 vehicles set on fire, including two police vehicles. Once again large numbers took advantage of the violence to engage in burning and looting shops, according to video footage.
There has been a tendency in some new reports to blame the violence since October on the Government suppressing protests, but the fact that police are dying and comprise almost half the injured suggests otherwise, and that police are being targeted by violent protesters. The widespread looting is not a protest, but rather widespread thieving and crime, and the setting of vehicles on fire seems to be pure arson, not politics.
SADC itself through its observer mission, as did the African Union, confirmed earlier that the elections, despite the odd hiccup, had been effective in finding out the will of the Mozambican population and that the results would be accurate. The Mozambican courts of course would have delved further, looking at all the objections and petitions that elections can generate, and then on the evidence making the final decision.
SADC itself does not have any opinion of who should win any election in the region, except that the winners must have the majority support of their own population. Some elections result in a governing party maintaining its majority, some result in a change of government and a president from another party.
This year Botswana changed its government in an election, and every SADC leader sent their congratulations and the neighbours turned up at the inauguration. A few years ago Zambia saw the same, and once again that was accepted by all and once again the new president was congratulated. When a president wins another term, or at least their party’s designated successor wins that is accepted and congratulations follow as has happened this year in South Africa, Namibia and now Mozambique.
The point is that SADC does not choose the winners, only confirms that the elections were adequately run and the local courts have settled any disputes. Presidents, governments and parties are chosen by the people.
But where SADC does make a stand after an election is that its recognises the winner, as SADC Chairperson President Mnangagwa did this week when the Mozambique Constitutional Council made its ruling, and makes it clear that it will support the country and those whom a majority of the people selected.
This support has been unconditional and absolute since SADC was formed, as the region saw so many violent wars before all people could vote freely and recognises that only the people can choose governments.
Losers need to recognise this. Just because they cannot imagine voting for the winner does not mean that others may come to different opinion and they need to accept that despite their own opinion of the respective talents and policies, the people thought differently.
daniel chigunwe
