electoral administration and management; • Legislation should provide for publication of a preliminary and subsequently final voter’s roll in sufficient time prior to an election. Both of these lists should be made available for easily accessible public inspection, rather than only in offices of constituency registrars; • All parties should subscribe to a Code of Conduct regarding the activities of political parties and candidates during the campaign and election period; • Regulations governing the use of public media by the political parties and a Code of Conduct on media coverage and advertising during the campaign and election period need to be devised; • There is a need to review the Constituency delimitation exercise and the number of polling stations attached to constituencies; • A well-organised and ongoing voter education programme should be initiated and carried out by election officials, political parties and civil society. None of these recommendations were followed by the Government of Zimbabwe in any of the by-elections or local government elections held up to the Parliamentary Elections in 2005. All the available evidence indicated even greater partisan control by the government of all electoral processes and procedures. The 2005 Parliamentary Elections were held against the background of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections that were passed in Mauritius in August 2004. It was strongly argued by the Zimbabwe government, and supported by a number of SADC states, that this ushered in a new era in elections, and that these standards overcame many of the previous objections to the conduct of elections in Zimbabwe. However, once again the elections produced a disputed result, and the results were not widely accepted as free and fair. Furthermore, most international observers, including the Commonwealth, were excluded from these elections, and observer groups declined to endorse the elections as meeting accepted democratic standards. Whilst undoubtedly less violent than the preceding elections, there were cogent allegations of intimidation and undue influence. Also of concern is the inexplicable delay in the adjudication of all election petitions. An election petition under the Electoral Act is a major democratic tool for judicial evaluation of elections, and the Act provides that these should be heard and decided expeditiously. This must be so, as the matters entailed in election petitions speak to the heart of political power and good democratic practice, and the provision for petitions ensures that there can be no inappropriate elections: it is the safeguard against electoral fraud and the theft of the right to govern and the people’s will. 17