9 forced to attend a pungwe, and renounce their allegiance to the MDC. A bonfire was lit and all available MDC campaign material was burned.23 This policy of forced support recurred many times during the campaign. In January 2001, many people in the Dungu rural area were forced to attend a Zanu (PF) rally. When the attendance fell short of expectations, herdsman were threatened and told that they would lose their positions if they did not rally residents behind the ruling party. During this period one man’s car was torched and a petrol bomb was thrown into his business after he was forced to attend a Zanu (PF) rally. The petrol bomb did not explode. Other residents had their palms beaten with hammers, were told that cameras would monitor their vote and were forced to buy Zanu (PF) cards. All reported being threatened if they did not vote for Zanu (PF). 24 The result was not surprising: Zanu (PF) candidate, Claudius Makova, defeated the MDC’s Bonnie Pakai by a margin of 63 per cent to 34 per cent. These results are radically to the results of the parliamentary election only seven months prior. In June 2000, MDC candidate, Amos Mutongi, won his relatively peaceful constituency by a margin of 49 per cent to 48 per cent or 7,726 votes to 7 445. Zanu (PF) nearly doubled its vote count, while the MDC declined in total votes. The MDC dropped from 7,726 in June to 7,001, presumably due to the high amount of violence and intimidation in the area. However, Zanu (PF) jumped from 7, 445 votes in June to an astronomical 12, 993 in January. Without any new voters it is unlikely that almost 6000 people in the constituency, who had not previously voted in the parliamentary election, decided to vote for Zanu (PF). Numerous problems with voting procedure and the monitoring effort led to a perception by the MDC that the election was won dishonestly, either by violence and intimidation, or by allowing non-residents to vote. They also alleged rigging during the voting process. In its final evaluation, ZESN concurred, and declared that the process was not free and fair due to the numerous incidents of violence during the electoral process.25 From the perspective of those monitoring human rights violations in Zimbabwe, the result was not surprising. During the 2000 Election, very little violence was reported in the constituency, and there were a number of problems for Zanu(PF), who had severe divisions in the supporters. There was a dispute over the Zanu(PF) candidature for the constituency, with the losing candidate deciding to run as an independent. There was some evidence of clashes between Zanu(PF) factions, and this space probably allowed the MDC campaign to proceed in a more successful manner than in other rural constituencies. During the bye-election, however, these were problems no longer for Zanu(PF), and the campaign resembled the pattern seen so widely in the General Election. As was so clearly seen in the General Election, high rates of violence in areas of likely Zanu(PF) support brought Zanu(PF) victory. Few were surprised by the result, but there was one interesting finding, and this related to the number of voter disqualified. There was no data released by the RegistrarGeneral’s office in respect of disqualifications during the General Election, but, in the Bikita West bye-election, the office indicated that nearly 25% of the voters had been disqualified. This is a very high number, and occurs against the background of a voter’s roll unchanged from the General Election. There must be speculation about the grounds for disqualification, which were not given in detail, and further speculation about which party these persons may have been supporting. 23 24 25 The Standard, 21/1/01 See ZESN (2001), Bikita West 2001 Parliamentary By-election Report, HARARE: ZESN. See ZESN (2001), Bikita West 2001 Parliamentary By-election Report, HARARE: ZESN. AMANI TRUST: Organised Violence and Torture in the Bye-Elections held in Zimbabwe during 2000 and 2001.