Tomorrow's elections in Zimbabwe present a watershed moment in that country and our region. For the first time, there is a chance that the people's appetite for a change of government may override the systemic election flaws (and deliberate fraud) that keep Zanu-PF in power.
There is every indication that the election process tomorrow will again be fundamentally flawed. The fact that there are reportedly 3 million "ghost names" on the electoral roll, allowing for the possibility of ballot box stuffing, is just one concern. Another is the last minute change to the electoral law that allows police officers - very much a visual reminder of state power - into polling stations.
Existing conditions in Zimbabwe rule out an election that can be described as "free and fair" in the accepted meaning of the term. This is a point that has been made not only by long-time critics of Zimbabwe such as the US State Department and the European Union, but by other observers such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
A democratic election is embedded in a democratic culture. It is part of a process, it is not a once-off event. It requires a free and independent media. It requires forces of law and order that protect the people, not the ruling elite. It requires a government that does not use institutions of state as instruments of the ruling party, to dispense patronage or to intimidate voters. It is common cause that this culture is entirely absent in Zimbabwe.
What does an election mean in this context? Is it nothing more than a charade designed to create a veneer of legitimacy for a dictator? Is there any possibility that opposition forces can overcome the odds and win? What methods will the regime apply to secure yet another victory for a man who has devastated his country and destroyed the prospects of at least two generations of Zimbabweans?
These are the questions the world is asking and which must be answered by the election monitors that have been allowed into the country. Part of the problem is that Mugabe wants to pick his own referees. He has banned Western election monitors, inviting only countries deemed to be friendly to his regime such as Iran, China, Russia, Libya and Venezuela.
He will undoubtedly limit their access to the election process, ensuring that they cannot observe every point at which fraud is possible. Those monitors who have been allowed into the country have an enormously difficult task. They have to overcome widespread suspicion that they have been approved by Mugabe because he can rely on them to be compliant.
During the last elections in 2005, this perception was reinforced by the fact that the Southern African Development Community (SADC) observer mission endorsed the election, when it emerged clearly over time that it had been massively rigged.
The head of the delegation, Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ncguka, said at the time that "...it is SADC's overall view that the elections were conducted in an open, transparent and professional manner. The SADC Mission congratulates the people of Zimbabwe for peaceful, transparent, credible, well-mannered elections, which reflect the will of the people."
The Democratic Alliance has sent a small monitoring team as part of the 2008 SADC observer delegation. We will be relying on them to ensure that our questions are answered as honestly as possible and that we get the full facts.
All evidence of vote-rigging uncovered by our delegates will be reported without fear or favour. They will certainly not be silenced by other members of the SADC mission. If the DA's views do not concur with the rest of the mission, we will convey them in a minority report.
Before the first ballot is cast, however, we must face the fact that the ANC has established a pattern of endorsing Mugabe's reign of terror and Zimbabwe 's slide into tyranny. This has revealed a great deal about our own government's tolerance of opposition and commitment to the rule of law in South Africa .
It is simplistic to compare South Africa 's democratic prospects with Zimbabwe 's too closely. We are two very different countries with our own sets of circumstances. However, both countries' prospects of sustaining democracy can be analysed in terms of a three phase framework of democratisation.
In the first phase, a party wins power in a democratic election, marking the democratic transition from an authoritarian regime (apartheid and colonialism are obvious twentieth-century examples). This is a phase that both Zimbabwe and South Africa passed through in 1980 and 1994 respectively.
In the second phase, minority parties accept their role as an opposition and the majority party agrees to respect the Constitution which limits its power. In other words, all parties share broad acceptance of the "rules of the game."
This is the phase in which many democratic transitions fail. Sometimes this failure is a result of a losing party rejecting the new regime, but more often it is because the ruling party begins to steadily erode the laws and institutions that constrain its power. This is what has happened in Zimbabwe and what is underway in South Africa .
When this happens, it is very difficult for a country to pass through the third and final phase of democratisation. This is when the party that came to power in the first democratic election loses an election and allows itself to be replaced by a new party.
Zimbabwe has not made it to this phase because of the way in which Zanu-PF has blurred the line between party and state to keep itself in power. A powerful state-owned media (and a ban on independent media), a judiciary with no semblance of independence and an electoral commission beholden to the ruling party are three key ways in which Zanu-PF has done this.
If there is an opposition win tomorrow it will be in spite of these obstacles, not because there is a hospitable political climate in which the opposition can flourish.
It also remains to be seen whether or not Mugabe would accept defeat at the ballot box. It has been reported that the Chief of the Army has said that he will not permit Mugabe to lose, and will stage a coup if this happens. The Commissioner of Police has promised to fire live ammunition at anyone who protests the conduct or result of Saturday's poll.
While South Africa is nowhere near the stage that Zimbabwe is at, it is worth remembering that we are already facing difficulties in passing the second phase - respect from the ruling party for constitutional safeguards and the rule of law.
For one thing, Jacob Zuma has stated categorically that he regards his party as more important than the Constitution. In addition, the ANC's resolution to make the media accountable to Parliament, its attacks on the integrity of independent judges, the deployment of ANC cadres to all levers of power in the state and a Speaker in the National Assembly holding key strategic positions in the ANC do not bode well for our democratic prospects.
If ZANU-PF are victorious and the election is pronounced free and fair by the ANC and government, we must start to wonder how the ANC will react when its own supporters begin to reject it at the polls. In other words, the ANC's response to the election in Zimbabwe will tell us a great deal about its own tolerance of opposition and commitment to the rule of law at home.
The signs are not encouraging. The head of the South African delegation, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo, had already started praising the electoral process before he set foot on Zimbabwean soil. The ANC members of the SADC observer mission in Zimbabwe are now expressing their dissatisfaction that DA members of the delegation were being too tough on Zimbabwean officials.
If the ANC and the South African government are willing to put aside their fraternal ties with Zanu-PF and be honest about the electoral process in Zimbabwe , we will take a great step forward in our own prospects of sustaining democracy. We can only hope that the political leadership of the ANC will finally see sense and join the international community in condemning Mugabe for his unashamed abuses of power.
This article by Helen Zille is from South Africa Today, a weekly letter by the Democratic Alliance leader, March 28 2008
