If Victory Was At Hand, Why Did The Govt Resort To Violence? - The Economist

International business publication, The Economist has questioned why President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration found it necessary to resort to violence when it was set for a huge electoral win. This follows the deaths of at least 6 people who died after being gunned down when the government deployed soldiers to quell rioting opposition supporters. The publication also said that the election and the violence afterwards will make it difficult for the United States and Europe to support IMF loans to Zimbabwe. Says the Economist,

…These results raise a question. If victory seemed in sight, why did the government resort to violence? For some it is a sign that Mr Chamisa may be the rightful winner. For others it reflects growing divisions between the army and ruling party. The simplest answer might be that this is the natural reaction of a regime steeped in blood.

Whatever the reason, the consequences may be far-reaching…dead protesters make it hard for all but the blindest observer to say that this election shows that Zanu-PF has changed.

And it puts Mr Mnangagwa, should he triumph by foul means or fair, in something of a bind. An orderly election was supposed to be the first hurdle cleared on the path to getting loans from the IMF (which, in turn, would be a signal to other creditors). But even if his government now embarks upon IMF-friendly economic reforms, the chaos of the election makes it more difficult for America and the EU to support IMF loans.

More: The Economist