Above it was noted that torture was the largest single category of violation in 2002, the year of the
Presidential election, and it was evident from the reports of the Human Rights Forum in 2002 that
most of this torture was reported in connection with the Presidential election, both in the run-up to
the election and in the reprisals that followed the highly disputed result.
Table 3
Comparison of violations in election months compared with other months
Abduction
Assault
Attempted murder
Death threat
Disappearance
Displacement
Interference with freedoms
Murder
Political discrimination
Property violation
Rape
School closure
Torture
Unlawful arrest & detention
No elections
230
713
9
45
27
798
2,101
47
969
848
11
45
1,168
2,519
Elections
242
743
12
93
5
219
1,029
66
1,109
662
9
1
1,722
1,459
However, such simple statistics mask important trends. As has already been seen above, torture
in 2002 accounted for a very significant proportion of the total number of cases of torture reported
(41%), but the torture reported in March 2002, the month of the Presidential election, itself accounted
for 21% of all torture in the period July 2001 to December 2005.
In examining the frequencies of the violations over the reporting period, it can be seen that there are
some interesting associations between months in which there are elections and other months.
Here it is important to underscore the point made earlier: that there have been marked changes
in the patterns of human rights violations, and that there has been a significant movement away
from what are commonly termed ‘gross human rights violations’ to violations affecting people’s
movement and expression, largely driven under the powers given to the State by the Public Order
and Security Act (POSA). There are a number of reports that support the view that POSA has
been widely used to suppress political dissent and intimidate all forms of opposition.17 So the shift
towards intimidation rather than gross human rights violations is important, and has a bearing too
on the conduct of elections. For example, an analysis of human rights observance was conducted
in the aftermath of the 2005 Parliamentary elections, using the data generated by the pre-election
monitoring of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA).18 Statistical analysis of the NCA data
indicated that a highly sophisticated system of intimidating voters had been in operation, and,
furthermore, that this system had been specifically designed to win seats in areas that ZANUPF)
had lost in the 2000 Parliamentary elections.19
17
See Solidarity Peace Trust, ‘Disturbing the Peace’: An Overview of Civilian Arrests in Zimbabwe: February 2003 – January
2004 (PLACE?: Solidarity Peace Trust, 2004); Zimbabwe Institute, Playing with Fire (Cape Town: Zimbabwe Institute,
2004).
18
See National Constitutional Assembly, Consolidated Election Climate No. 1 (Harare: NCA, February 2005); National
Constitutional Assembly, Consolidated Election Climate No. 2 (Harare: NCA, March 2005); National Constitutional Assembly,
The 2005 Parliamentary Election: Flawed, Unfree and Unfair! (Harare: NCA, April 2005).
19
Here, see A. P. Reeler, and K. C. Chitsike, Trick or Treat? The Effects of the Pre-election Climate on the Poll in the 2005
Zimbabwe Parliamentary Elections, June 2005 (Pretoria: Idasa, 2005).
6