HARARE: Debate over the vexing question of what constitutes a free and fair election is raging in Zimbabwe after the historic presidential elections that returned 78-year-old Robert Mugabe to power.

For some, what matters is what actually happens on polling day - whether people can cast their ballots without undue influence, intimidation, or fear of being beaten.

Others consider the whole process - what occurs from the day the election is first announced, through the entire campaigning period, to the final casting of votes with independent observers present to observe that the laws apply.

And some judge it fair if the opposition is allowed to campaign with free and unfettered access to the media and to the voters.

Some argue that elections are free and fair if an opposition party is permitted to participate. Some judge it by the level of violence that prevails. How many were killed during pre-election violence?

In some cases, merely holding elections irrespective of the conditions under which they are held, is to be hailed and celebrated.

Such are the widely varying interpretations of the term “free and fair” with which local and foreign monitors and observers of the recent Zimbabwe presidential election have been grappling.

The answer seems to depend on where you come from and what political system prevails in a particular country.

To Westerners, most of whom have pronounced the Zimbabwe elections a fraud and a sham, an election is one where the playing field is level.

In their experience, all contesting parties must have access to media coverage, be able to advertise and campaign freely, display posters. Moreover nobody gets roughed up, let alone killed.

The Zimbabwean experience shows that some African observers believe the democratic norms espoused by the West are a trick to re-colonize Africa and that their responsibility is to close ranks and validate each other’s elections - no matter how flawed.

Democracy too, it seems, is now a variable concept, subject to a broad range of definitions and coming in different shapes and forms. The Western definition, some feel, should not apply to Africa. African standards should define the African experience.

To some African observers, the fact that people were killed during the run-up to the Zimbabwe elections is a normal part of an election. It happens all the time and does not render the electoral process flawed. Provided there is no wholesale massacre, such killings can be classed as “unfortunate incidents”.

Even South African President Thabo Mbeki, who heads one of Africa’s new democracies, has made excuses for the violence in Zimbabwe. He points out that in his own country, during the 1994 elections, more than 1,000 people were killed and yet the elections were deemed free and fair.

Even within Africa, the definition of free and fair elections is a moving goal post. For example, the two Southern African Development Community (SADC) delegations sent to Zimbabwe - one ministerial and the other parliamentary - reached conflicting judgments.

The ministers were satisfied that the elections had been free and fair. Their leader, an Angolan cabinet minister, was seen on Zimbabwean TV congratulating Mugabe for winning and the people of Zimbabwe for holding elections in a peaceful manner.

Their statement produced a spontaneous outburst of disbelieving laughter from journalists when it was read out at a crowded press conference.

It said the elections were “legitimate but not necessarily free and fair”. One journalist asked: “What the hell does that mean?” The ministers went on to say the election had been a “reasonable reflection of the peoples’ wishes”.

Meanwhile, the SADC parliamentary delegation issued a damning report, saying the SADC code of conduct pertaining to elections had been breached. In their view, the conditions for a free and fair election did not exist in Zimbabwe, a signatory to the SADC code of conduct on elections.

In a move seen as closing African ranks against the evils of imperialism and the dangers of re-colonisation, Nigerian observers sided with the South Africans.

Former Nigerian president, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, led the group which included observers from around 30 Commonwealth countries in Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Caribbean and North America. They cited pre-election violence, intimidation, abduction, torture, murder, misuse of government resources, and denial of the use of state-controlled media by the opposition.

But the African Union team saw no violence, heard no stories of torture or abduction and issued a report wholeheartedly endorsing the electoral process, while the Namibian delegation said it was “free and fair and a normal robust African electoral experience”.

Many Zimbabweans, and indeed many Africans, believe the idea that the Zimbabwe election was acceptable by African standards, is racist and denigrating. A Zimbabwean political commentator said: “The standards by which we want to be judged are universal standards - standards that have been established over the years.—Dawn/Gemini News Service.