European Union Election Observation Mission
Republic of Zimbabwe
Harmonised Elections 2018
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Improved political climate, inclusive participation rights and a peaceful vote, but un-level
playing field, intimidation of voters and lack of trust in the process undermined the preelection environment. We now hope for a transparent and traceable results process
Harare, 1 August 2018
This preliminary statement of the EU EOM is delivered before the completion of the entire electoral
process. Critical stages remain, including collation of results and adjudication of petitions. The EU EOM
is now only in a position to comment on observation undertaken to date, and will later publish a final
report, including full analysis and recommendations for electoral reform. The EU EOM may also make
additional statements on election-related matters as and when it considers it appropriate.
Summary
The 30 July 2018 Harmonised Elections in Zimbabwe were the first since the stepping down from power
of the former president Robert Mugabe after 37 years in office. Many previous elections have been
contentious and with reports of abuses, and so while the commitment to hold credible elections by the
interim president was welcomed, a legacy of the past was a low level of trust in the democratic process
and institutions, which permeated the electoral environment.
The elections were competitive, the campaign was largely peaceful and, overall, political freedoms during
the campaign, including freedom of movement, assembly and speech, were respected. However, the
misuse of state resources, instances of coercion and intimidation, partisan behaviour by traditional leaders
and overt bias in state media, all in favour of the ruling party, meant that a truly level playing field was
not achieved, which negatively impacted on the democratic character of the electoral environment.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) undertook a biometric registration of voters and put in place
administrative arrangements for polling as scheduled. Stakeholder confidence in the institution, however,
was lacking, due to a lack of transparency and inclusivity and poor communications. A series of
decisions, including on the layout of the presidential ballot, raised concerns about its impartiality. The
new voter roll was generally inclusive, though it was not adequately shared with stakeholders and has
some errors and changes which need to be clarified. On Election Day, EU observers reported a large
turnout and a generally well-managed and peaceful process. However, in some places there were reports
of a high number of assisted voters and of voters not found on the voter roll. The count at the polling
stations was fairly well organised, though with some inconsistent organisational practices. It was noted
that while the result sheet was posted outside the polling stations in a majority of places, this was not the
case everywhere.
The legal framework provides for key rights and freedoms for the conduct of competitive
elections. However, shortcomings in the Electoral Act and the absence of campaign finance
regulations limit the integrity, transparency and accountability of the process. Furthermore,
delays in adjudication, dismissal of court cases on merely technical grounds and a number of
controversial judgments compromised the right to an effective legal remedy.
The introduction of a number of legal and administrative changes was welcomed, including
increasing the number of polling stations, limiting voters to voting only at their registered station,
and limiting the number of excess ballots to be printed. ZEC put in place administrative
arrangements for the holding of the 30 July polls as scheduled. However, the potentially positive