5. CHALLENGES During the monitoring mission, ZHRC faced the following challenges; 5.1. Lack of Clear Communication and Access ZHRC monitors were not issued with a written commitment, by the Party leadership at the National Level, to facilitate access to monitor the processes. The confirmation was granted at senior party level with assurances that the Constitutional mandate of the ZHRC would be appreciated and permit monitors to undertake their work. However, when ZHRC teams were deployed they faced resistance from party leadership. In some cases the ZANU PF officials requested the monitors to show proof of accreditation in order for them to receive clearance to monitor the intraparty election process. The ZHRC ended up contacting the Party’s Secretary for Administration to assist in allowing the teams to monitor the process. This derailed the progress of the ZHRC work as monitors spent a lot of time trying to get access. For example, in Matabeleland North Province, ZHRC monitors only managed to start work around 3:45pm. 5.2. Lack of Preparedness by the Elections Commissariat ZANU PF Electoral Board lacked of preparedness to conduct the election. This was shown by the general confusion which marred the whole process, including the delay in availing voting material at polling centres. The party might have placed itself under unnecessary pressure by moving its primary election dates forward from the 5th of May 2018 to the 29th of April 2018 while ballot paper printing and other logistical arrangements had not yet been finalised. 5.3. Involvement of “The Generals” in the Processes Throughout the monitoring mission, in almost all the Provinces, there was constant reference to “The Generals”. Such references were made, apparently, to imply that some decisions or instructions were not open to questioning. ZHRC tried to establish who “the Generals” were, but the response was that “they are the big guys”, which still remained unclear to ZHRC to pinpoint who exactly these people were. The reference to “Generals” was quite intimidating to both the electorate and some aspiring candidates. Use of intimidating language is a clear threat to any democracy as it stifles freedoms of expression and political choices. Page 20 of 22