subversion as defined in that Act. Registration of Political Parties in Zimbabwe: the state of the disputation In its report on the Senate elections and the Gutu House of Assembly by-election of 2005, the now disbanded Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC), notes that the absence of laws for the registration of political parties had led to the emergence of “nondescript small parties with little content and no standing, let alone sustainability” (The Herald, 8 June 2006). The ESC then recommends that this problem could be curbed if parties were required to register with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. It goes on to claim that this would also ensure the observance of national security as the state could use the information so availed through registration to carry out investigations to ascertain the party’s intentions and to weed out potential saboteurs. Below we will critically engage this proposition to determine its merits, suffice to say for the moment that there appears to be questionable grounds for so recommending, especially twenty six years after Independence in 1980. Ruling party and government circles have praised the recommendation while opposition forces have roundly condemned it. The pro-registration camp has argued that this regulation is long overdue, and it will deal with the fly– by-night parties that go underground after losing the election by embarrassing margins, whilst at the same time having divided the electorate. “There is no guarantee that the nation’s detractors would not one day sponsor such political parties in order to cause mayhem in the country,” the state-controlled The Herald commented (June 8, 2006). For instance, Zanu-PF Secretary for Administration and also Minister of State for National Security, Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement supported the recommendation saying it would separate the grain from the chuff. “We welcome such provisions because this will distinguish serious political parties from pretenders. We should have political parties that are truly Zimbabweans and not those bent on championing foreign interests.” The Mutasa statement suggests that the proposed legal provision would have “Zimbabwe nationality test” however this is defined. Proponents of registration say the exercise is a formality that will make sure that unscrupulous people will not ride on the goodwill of established parties by adopting names and symbols almost similar to those of established parties, in the hope of confusing the electorate, Thus registration will ensure that a party establishes its trade mark so that no other grouping will in a way that will mislead voters. This may be important in the case of the Movement for Democratic Change, where both factions are not prepared to let go of the party open palm symbol, slogan, name and other paraphernalia for identifying and distinguishing political parties. It is also contended in support of party registration that political party registration will not be unique to Zimbabwe as Namibia has a law that requires signatures and particulars of 500 supporters, a registration fee, the party constitution and a list of members of the executive are required before a party is registered. The counter-argument is that the ESC recommendations fail to take into account is that political parties are voluntary organizations; legal requirements will undermine the volunteer character of parties, and lead to their privatization and bureaucratization. The essence of electoral democracy is that political parties involve individuals and organizations that are independent of undue control by the state and hence should be left alone to determine their internal affairs. 25