On 29 March 2008 Zimbabwe took to the polls in harmonised presidential and legislative elections. More than a fortnight later - and a week later than legislation stipulates - no results have been released. Amidst the uncertainty, tensions are rising.

In terms of the legislative elections, indications are that, for the first time in 28 years, the ruling Zanu-PF has lost its Parliamentary majority. The former liberation movement has also lost its stronghold in the rural areas where it has always held dominance. Zanu-PF has now asked for a recount of 23 of the 210 constituencies, most of which were won by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). A reversal in only 9 of the constituencies would be sufficient to undo the slim majority won by the MDC.

Despite reports in the private media that the Zimbabwean High Court ordered the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission (ZEC) not to recount the results it appears that the recount is going ahead. Indications are that it might even be a full recount of all election results. While the ruling party claims it has reasons to believe that there were irregularities in the first count, the opposition accuses Zanu-PF of buying time to rig the results.

In the presidential vote the MDC pre-emptively claimed victory for their candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai (2). According to Zanu-PF neither Mugabe nor Tsvangirai won a clear majority. They are preparing for a run-off election. After almost two weeks of defending their original claim and refusing to take part in a run-off, the MDC recently shifted tact and announced that it would take part in a run-off election, but only if such an election was monitored by international observers. This came after the High Court ruled against the MDC’s request for the immediate release of the results by the electoral commission. Following this ruling, the MDC also called for a nation-wide strike to push for the release of the results. This strike was subsequently declared unlawful, with the ruling party claiming that it would crack down on any illegal acts that aim to disturb the peace.

While the polling day itself was peaceful, there is now concern about the escalation of politically motivated incidents of violence and intimidation in the post-election period. Some argue that it forms part of a campaign of violence aimed at bolstering Mugabe’s chances of winning a run-off. Incidents include invasions, by so-called war veterans, of the few farms still in white hands and alleged attacks against member of the opposition and even against the electoral commission. Political rallies have been banned and there are claims that the military leaders are running the country, in what some have called a “silent coup”.

Meanwhile the international community seems to be talking semantics, with disagreements about whether or not Zimbabwe is in a state of crisis. South African President and Southern African Development Community (SADC) appointed mediator, Thabo Mbeki has argued that there is no crisis, while his party, the African National Congress (ANC), disagrees. On Saturday 12 April, SADC called an emergency meeting to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe. Mugabe did not attend. The 13 hour long meeting held in Zambia culminated in a call to release the results “expeditiously”. This call has been reiterated by both the UN Secretary General and the United States. In the interim, tensions are rising amidst the uncertainty.

Abounding “rumours and counter-rumours” (in the words of Aziz Pahad, South Africa’s Deputy Foreign Minister) make it difficult to produce confident projections at this stage. While there are legitimate concerns regarding the results of the elections in Zimbabwe, this should also been seen in the greater context of the situation in that country. If the election results of the two major parties are in fact as close as they appear, it will be a complex situation to manage no matter who wins as a significant proportion of the population would not be supportive of the new ruling party. In addition, the two main contenders have a history of animosity and while there have been some talks (and counter-talks) of a “government of national unity” it remains difficult to imagine a truly cooperative future for the two parties. If not a majority, then a significant proportion of the Zimbabwean population is still in support of Zanu-PF and consequently also of the West vs. Africa polarisation that has so skilfully been utilised by the ruling party. This is reflected in Mugabe’s use of the land-issue in campaigning for votes.

In addition, with calls from both sides that the elections were not free and fair, and allegations of rigging flying around, it is by no means certain that once the results have been announced, they will be accepted by all parties. They might not even be accepted by the international community, many of whom have been declaring months ahead of the elections already that there was never a chance of “free and fair” elections in Zimbabwe. Whether or not this cynicism was justified, it makes the release of the results a real catch-22 situation. Some have whispered fears of a coup following the declaration of the results. This is not impossible, concerning the strong role played by the military in Mugabe’s regime. Lastly, the fact remains that there are a group of officials who benefited from Mugabe’s patronage. It is almost certain that these individuals would lose their positions of privilege should there be a regime change. There is an established system in Zimbabwe, that although appearing to be somewhat weakened, has a vested interest in the patterns established over the past 28 years.

The situation as it stands currently does not bode very well for either party accepting defeat. Whatever happens next, it will only be the start of a process that needs to be very carefully managed by both the country and the region, and the broader international community.