The elections held in Rhodesia from 10 to 21 April have been presented by much of the British and overseas press as a triumph for the internal settlement leadership and as a resounding blow to the Patriotic Front's claim to represent the wishes and aspirations of the majority of the Zimbabwe people. Most of the foreign observers and journalists who covered the elections, however, chose to ignore the terms on which they were held, and the prevailing climate of political and military repression in which voters were required to attend the polls, in deciding whether the proceedings were "free and fair".
The elections are most unlikely to lead to fundamental changes in the distribution of political and economic power in Rhodesia - changes which, after nearly a century of colonial and minority rule, are urgently needed. All the main parties taking part - the Rhodesian Front led by Mr. Ian Smith, the United African National Council (UANC) led by Bishop Muzorewa, the African National Council (Sithole) led by Rev. Sithole (now described as "ZANU" by its members and by the regime), the Zimbabwe United People's Organization (ZUPO) led by Chief Chirau, and the United National Federal Party (UNFP), a breakaway from ZUPO led by Chief Ndiweni - have committed themselves to a constitution which entrenches white supremacy for at least the next decade. They have, further, agreed to form a government of "national unity" in which the Rhodesian Front is guaranteed 28% of the cabinet posts. This provision, which amounts to a carte blanche for the continuation of the divide and rule tactics in which the Smith regime has always excelled, is to stand for five years or the life of one parliament.
The main purpose of the April elections remains that of winning credibility and hence a measure of international approval and recognition, even if only tacit, for the internal settlement agreement of 3 March 1978. It was imperative for the regime that the black electorate should have been brought to the polling booths, by whatever means. Once there, they had no choice but to cast their vote for a party which had endorsed the internal settlement. Whereas white voters, through the referendum held in January 1979, had been given the opportunity in advance of the April elections to approve or reject the independence constitution put forward by the parties to the internal settlement, the African majority were simply asked to choose between leaders, all of whom represented broadly the same policies.
Voters, furthermore, were told through a massively financed official propaganda campaign, that their vote was a vote for peace. A typical advertisement placed in the Rhodesian press by the transitional government in the weeks preceding the elections, claims that: "Your vote can stop the war. Your vote will show that you are united behind your leaders and your determination to stop the fighting".
A circular distributed to about 50 employers in Bulawayo in March by the Ministry of Information suggested that should any reluctant voter point out that the party or person for whom they wished to vote was not in fact standing (a reference to the Patriotic Front), the answer should be to the effect that "if you do not wish to vote for any of the parties in the election, you must still use your vote if you wish for peace. When you receive your paper and you do not see the name of the party which you like on it, you should either make no mark on the paper or you should write the name of the party of your choice. It is important that you use your vote, even if the party of your choice is not represented, because every vote is a vote for peace. If you wish to vote for an external leader, you should indicate this on your paper".
(The circular was subsequently withdrawn by the regime because of the incongruous implications of this particular paragraph. It nevertheless illustrates the doubt which must be cast on the meaning of a vote for this or that party, as claimed by the regime. Election officers were further instructed to be "lenient on the matters of the spoilt paper - any mark which can be reasonably taken to indicate the voter's intentions will be accepted as a valid ballot".
More than 2,000 polling stations were set up according to the regime, many of them, in the rural areas particularly, mobile polling booths under military escort. While other polling stations were ostensibly manned by civil servants, the elections as a whole were closely supervised and controlled by the security forces. Returning officers were in fact drawn from the ranks of District Commissioners and continued on p. 11
