By Madeleine Lesser

So far, the elections (or lack there of) in Zimbabwe have stirred up major international attention.  Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Robert Mugabe (the incumbent president), in March 2008, which provided hope to Zimbabweans that a new leader would take office and an increase in human rights and progress would be restored.  However, since Tsvangirai did not officially attain the majority, a runoff election was scheduled for this Friday, June 27, 2008.  Rradical measures instituted by Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party have marked the nature of his determination to remain in power by ruthless meaures including physical abuse, detainment, inflicting destitution, etc.

Clearly, Mugabe is a seriously disturbed and brutal dictator who stated that critics of his violent methods over the past few months are “raising a lot of noise for nothing, absolutely nothing. We will proceed with our elections. The verdict is our verdict. Other people can say what they want, but the elections are ours. We are a sovereign state, and that is it."  How can Mugabe's verdict be "his" verdict if he does not rely on the political process of his own nation and uphold its laws (not to mention upholding basic human rights)?  The answer is that the verdict cannot be, which directly caused Tsvingarai's retreat from competition.  The measures that Mugabe has taken in response to the election are not new - his legacy is plagued with human rights violations.

The international community has taken immediate steps to prevent, and to hold accountable, Mugabe and his party.  The United States and Britain were ready to bring Zimbabwe before the Security Council of the United Nations; although South African President Thabo Mbeki has tried to mediate the conflict, and in turn, has suspended the U.N. effort.  Possibly a threat from the African Union would go a long way to force Mugabe to reconsider his unacceptable methods.  Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that the situation can be reconciled solely within the nation itself, given Mugabe's brutal history, so the need for international intervention is of great need. 

The idea that Mbeki basically told the U.N. to "hold on" is quite bold.  The U.N. is governed by law and cannot merely enter into a nation's politics by any means necessary, so when the body attempts to (and can) make serious steps to directly ameliorate a problem, those measures should be respected to the utmost degree and not be discarded.  The U.N. would most likely be better equipped to create real change compared to any fair or just solution Mbeki could find, based on the nature of the parties to the conflict.  Mugabe's blatantly illegal tactics of murder, abuse, disregard of the political system are warrants for an indictment to the ICC - maybe that's the next step that the U.N. will be forced to take.  Without serious consequences, serious changes cannot and will not be made.