LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT the Uncertainty of 2018

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT The Uncertainty Of 2018

Local Government Elections Survey Report The Uncertainty Of 2018

Survey conducted by the ‘We Pay You Deliver’ Consortium Suggested citation: We Pay You Deliver Consortium. (2017). Local Government Elections Survey Report: The Uncertainty of 2018. Harare: Danish Church Aid. Design & Layout: Baynham Goredema (Xealos Design Consultants) Photography Sources: Jekesai Njikizana, KB Mphofu, Tafadzwa Tarumbwa

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 33 Contents

Key Findings and Messages 6

1. Introduction 12

2. Local Government Elections and

Service Delivery 12

3. Methodology 13

4. Findings and Discussion 16

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 21

6. References 23

7. Annex 24

Acknowledgements 28

We Pay You Deliver Consortium Contacts 29

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 List of Abbreviations

BPRA Bulawayo Progressive Residents Association CHITREST Chitungwiza Residents Trust CHRA Combined Harare Residents Association DCA Danish Church Aid GRF Gweru Residents Forum HRT Harare Residents Trust MDC Movement for Democratic Change MURRA Masvingo United Residents and Ratepayers Alliance SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UMRRT United Mutare Residents and Ratepayers Trust WPYD We Pay You Deliver ZANU-PF Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front ZEC Zimbabwe Electoral Commission

www.servicedelivery.co.zw

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 55 Key Findings and Messages

Methodological Note This survey was conducted by the We Pay You Deliver Consortium. The Consortium has eight organisations namely Danish Church Aid, Combined Harare Residents Association, Harare Residents Trust, Bulawayo Progressive Residents Association, Habakkuk Trust, Women’s Institute for Leadership Development, Zim- babwe Women Resource Centre Network and Diakonia. The survey covered six cities namely Bulawayo, Chitungwiza, Gweru, Masvingo, Harare and Mutare. In particular, the survey focused on three issues concerning local government elections namely the context, awareness and expectations and process dynamics. A total of 91 enumerators conducted the fieldwork between August and October 2017. A total of 3,640 eligible voters participated in the survey. By eligible voters, we refer to Zimbabwean citizens aged 18 and above. Councillor Performance Ratings and Voter Preferences The performance of sitting councillors was rated as poor by 44.7% of the respondents (Fig. 1). Political parties must therefore critically assess sitting councillors seeking re-election. Further, political parties are urged to evaluate the credentials of council candidates during primary elections. Such evaluation includes having party criteria for candidate selection which is competence and integrity based.

Figure 1: Excellent Average Poor political parties are Councillor Mayor urged to evaluate the and mayor performance 9% 43.3% 47.7% performance rating credentials of council rating candidates during primary elections. Such Councillor performance 8.4% 46.9% 44.7% evaluation includes rating having party criteria 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% for candidate selection which is competence and integrity based.

Based on the last 2 or 3 elections, more than 70% indicated that they did not change the party they voted for, for councillors. Such a voting behaviour points to an electorate with consistent voting preferences. Politi- cal parties enjoying such loyalty need to reciprocate by fielding competent council candidates committed to changing service delivery in cities. For the 2018 elections, envisaged voting preferences on councillors is split between the main political parties namely the MDC (23.3%) and ZANU-PF (15.1%). However, about 50% were afraid to answer the question (Fig. 2). From the above, both MDC and ZANU-PF will have councillors in cities. Thus, these parties are urged to prioritise council elections by fielding candidates with a traceable record of public service commitment or excellence in other sectors.

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 parties are urged Figure 2: Voting preferences 12.1% to prioritise council on Councillors 23.3% Afraid to answer elections by fielding in the 2018 MDC elections 15.1% candidates with a Other Parties traceable record ZANU PF of public service commitment or 49.2% excellence in other sectors.

Prioritisation of Local Government Elections and Role of Civil Society The State of Service Delivery Survey Report indicates that service delivery is in crisis. In sharp contrast, this survey shows that voters and political parties place low priority on council elections. In fact, about 14.4% prioritise council ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections (Fig. 3). More than 55% of the respondents think that political parties do not prioritise council elections (Fig. 3). Thus, as long as the electorate and political parties do not prioritise local government elections, our local authorities will remain in a deplorable state. Significant steps must therefore be undertaken to raise the profile of council elections.

Figure 3: No Yes as long as the Prioritisation Political parties place high electorate and political of Council 57.1% 42.9% elections priority on parties do not prioritise council elections local government Harmonization of elections, our local elections affected the 46.9% 53.1% authorities will remain importance and in a deplorable state. prioritisation of council elections 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Significant steps must therefore be undertaken to raise the profile of council elections.

While it is clear from the survey that neither the electorate nor political parties place high priority on council elections, civil society organisations (CSOs) are critical actors in raising the profile of such elections. The role of CSOs includes raising awareness on the importance of council elections to the electorate. In particular, civil society awareness campaigns should link council elections to service delivery. Such an approach increases citizen literacy on the functioning of the local government system. Other civil society roles en- tail publishing and disseminating credentials of council candidates and organising community assessment meetings to evaluate councillors seeking re-election.

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 77 Mayoral Functions and the Future About 47.7% rated the performance of city mayors as poor (Fig. 1). Political parties are therefore advised to critically invest in searching for talented and experienced candidates during primary elections to be elected mayors in the event of winning majority seats in cities. Further, it is urged that political parties have candidates with a proven track record to be appointed as Council Committee Chairpersons. This stems from the fact that Council Committees are a vital platform in council decision-making processes. More than 60% indicated that existing mayors do not have power to manage cities. In this regard, respondents prefer mayors with executive powers. According to the survey findings, the key features of While it may be too late executive mayors preferred by respondents are: directly elected by for the 2018 elections; citizens, and powers to recruit senior council officials. While it may be political parties, CSOs too late for the 2018 elections; political parties, CSOs and the Govern- and the Government of ment of Zimbabwe should begin a process of putting a new frame- Zimbabwe should begin work to allow the election of executive mayors in 2023. a process of putting a Credibility of the Electoral Process new framework to allow the election of executive More than 65% of the respondents think that the 2018 elections will mayors in 2023. not be free and fair (Fig. 4). Respondents pointed three main indicators of a free and fair election as the independence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), absence of violence and the ability to campaign freely. Based on these, political parties and state institutions are urged to respect the law and guarantee the right of opposition parties to campaign freely respectively. The integrity and credibility of an electoral management body in the eyes of the electorate is fundamental in any functioning democracy. Despite this, about 65.7% do not trust ZEC as an election management body (Fig. 4). Therefore, significant public confidence building measures should be undertaken by ZEC.

significant public Figure 4: No Yes Trust in Trust ZEC as an confidence building election ZEC and 65.1% 34.9% measures should be opinion on management the freeness body undertaken by ZEC. of the 2018 elections Opinion on the freeness and fairness of the 65.4% 34.6% 2018 elections

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Into the 2018 Elections According to eligible voters, the main campaign agenda for council elections should be centred on service delivery (67.7%) (Fig. 5). This emanates from the poor delivery of services being experienced by citizens in cities. Therefore, political parties and council candidates are encouraged to outline their plans in terms of resuscitating service delivery in cities as part of their campaign agenda.

8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 political parties and Figure 5: Main campaign 4% council candidates are agenda for council elections 17% Corruption in encouraged to outline councils their plans in terms of 68% Devolution of powers resuscitating service 11% and functions to delivery in cities as councils part of their campaign Service Delivery agenda. Other

The three most important qualities voters look for when electing councillors are community involvement (39.7%), record of achievement (23.3%) and political affiliation (19.1%) (Fig. 6). Political parties who field candidates with qualities such as community involvement and a record of achievement are likely to endear with the electorate. Parties are therefore advised to field candidates with the aforementioned qualities.

Figure 6: Most Campaign promises Community involvement Political parties who Political affiliation Qualifications important Record of achievement field candidates with qualities qualities such as when electing 7.5% councillors Most important community involvement quality you look 39.7% and a record of for when electing 19.1% a councillor 10.4% achievement are likely 23.3% to endear with the electorate. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 99 10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 Evidence presented in this survey report indicates to the low prioritisation of local government elections by both voters and political parties.

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 1111 1. Introduction

This report presents the findings of the local government elections survey conducted by the We Pay You Deliver (WPYD) Consortium. The survey focused on three issues concerning local government elections namely the context, awareness and expectations and process dynamics. Thus, the survey intended to find out the perceptions of eligible voters on the forthcoming 2018 elections, though focusing on council elections. Why the focus on local government elections? First, critical services such as water, sanitation, health, trans- port and education among others are functions of local authorities. Second, the WPYD project is centred on harnessing citizen demand for improved service delivery and transparent use of public resources. Thus, it becomes of strategic importance to understand the views of citizens on the process of electing city leaders and how cities should be managed. Third, the harmonisation of elections in Zimbabwe led to council elections being overshadowed by presidential elections. Such a change undermines a vital process that defines the success of a nation and the delivery of vital human development services – the local government elections. Local government is the third tier of government that is most close to citizens and it is fundamental in promoting socio-economic and political development. In this regard, prioritising local government elections becomes indispensable. The survey was conducted in six (6) cities namely Bulawayo, Harare, Chitungwiza, Gweru, Mutare and Mas- vingo between August and October 2017.11 A total of ten organisations collaborated in the survey. These are Danish Church Aid (DCA), Combined Harare Residents Association (CHRA), Harare Residents Trust (HRT), Bulawayo Progressive Residents Association (BPRA), Habakkuk Trust, Women’s Institute for Leadership Development, Gweru Residents Forum (GRF), Chitungwiza Residents’ Trust (CHITREST), Zimbabwe Wom- en Resources Centre Network and Diakonia. A total of 3,640 respondents (aged 18 and above) participated in the survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the WPYD project. In this regard, the survey focus and methodology were influenced by data needs of the WPYD project. 2. Local Government Elections and Service Delivery

A local government election is an opportunity to change the course of service delivery through electing ca- pable and responsible councillors. Councillors take critical decisions that have an impact on the delivery of services such as water, sanitation, housing, education, health among others. As such, the elections for councillors becomes a platform that is crucial in determining one’s access to services in the ensuing 5 years. Councillors take decisions (resolutions) through full council meetings. Such resolutions are primarily based on recommendations from council committees and heads of departments. In light of this, the decision-making process at council level is highly formal and requires a committed, competent and responsive councillor. In this context, elections become a strategic platform to elect such a councillor. Despite the above, research indicates to a poor calibre of councillors managing city affairs (RTI & IDAZIM, 2010; Muchadenyika & Williams, 2016). In addition, there is compelling evidence suggesting that councillors are engaged in corrupt activities (MLPWNH, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017; Muchadenyika, 2017). As such, the

1 While we appreciate that Chitungwiza in not a city in terms of the country’s classification of urban settlements, for purposes of this report, we classify it as a city.

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 integrity of councillors is questionable, with residents suffering from the ensuing consequences. Overall, the performance of councillors is considered poor by residents (WPYD, 2017). Against this background, it is of essence to articulate the need by residents, political parties and civil society organisations to prioritise local government elections.

2.1 Local Government Elections: Institutional and Legal Framework In post-independence Zimbabwe, the first local government elections were conducted in 1993 for rural district councils and 1995 for urban councils (Matumbike & Muchadenyika, 2012; Muchadenyika & Williams, 2016). This is despite that parliamentary and presidential elections have been held regularly since 1980. This anomaly is however, not only unique to Zimbabwe. In Malawi, the first local government elections were held in 2000 (Tambulasi, 2011) while in Mozambique, they were held for the first time in 1998 (Jenkins, 2000). Experiences in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe indicate to highly centralised governance structures. Such centralisation of powers and functions has, however, led to the weakening of local governments. Zimbabwe has 92 local authorities which are further divided into 1,958 wards. These wards elect councillors after every five years. Council elections are conducted in accordance to section 277 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. In particular, elections of councillors of local authorities must be held: • Concurrently with a general election of Members of Parliament and President, • Elections of mayors and chairpersons of local authorities, other than mayors or chairpersons on whom executive powers have been conferred under section 274(5), must be held at the first sitting of the councils concerned following a general election. • Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) or an Act of Parliament, mayors, chairpersons and councillors of local authorities assume office on the ninth day after the announcement of the results of the general election in which the councillors were elected (GoZ, 2013). 3. Methodology This survey is the second by the WPYD Consortium. The first one was conducted in the four (4) cities of Bu- lawayo, Harare, Masvingo and Mutare and reached 7,051 households. Some of the key learning points from the first survey also influenced how this survey was conducted.

3.1 Sampling, Choice of Cities & Survey Coverage The cities covered in this survey are target areas of the WPYD project. In addition, the project focuses on high density areas because that is where the intensity of service delivery challenges is concentrated. As such, this survey covered wards in high-density areas only. A total of five (5) wards were selected per city resulting in 30 wards covered by the survey (Table 1).

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 1313 Table 1: Survey Coverage

City Wards covered Suburbs Number Number of Respondents enumerators Bulawayo 8, 12, 21, 25, Mzilikazi, Njube, Sizinda, Nketa, Cow- 520 13 28 dray Park Chitung- 3, 11, 13, 17, 23 St Marys’, Zengeza West, Zengeza 520 13 wiza East, Seke North, Seke South Gweru 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 Mkoba, Village 10, Village 6, Village 14 520 13 Harare 21, 33, 24, 32, Budiriro, Mabvuku, Kuwadzana High- 1040 26 37 field, Glenview Masvingo 1, 3, 5, 6 ,7 Mucheke Rank, Runyararo West, Ma- 520 13 jange, Target Kopje, Rujeko Mutare 1, 7, 14, 16, 17 Sakubva, Dangamvura, Yeovil and 520 13 Chikanga, Chikanga, Hob House, Des- tiny, Natview Total 30 3,640 91 Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017. Unlike the first survey where the issue of a representative sample was considered, this survey opted to ran- domly sample 520 respondents in 5 cities and 1,040 in Harare. Such a decision was premised on the lack of sufficient time to conduct a survey with a representative sample. In Harare, the WPYD project has two part- ners working on different wards hence the need to collect data from both target areas. Eligible voters were the sampling unit and therefore respondents were 18 years and above. The demographic characteristics of respondents are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Demographic characteristics of survey respondents

Issue Frequency Per cent (%) n =

Gender Female 2231 61.4 3632 Male 1401 38.6 Age 18-35 1469 40.4 3633 36-50 1302 35.8 51-64 607 16.7 65 and above 255 7 Level of Education Primary 371 10.2 3634 Secondary 2121 58.4 Tertiary 961 26.4 None 181 5

Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017.

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 About 40.4% of the respondents were aged between 18 and 35 while 35.8% were aged between 36 and 50 (Fig. 7).

Figure 7: Age of survey respondents 17% 18-35

7% 36-50 36% 51-64 65 and above

40%

3.2 Survey focus The survey focused on three things pertaining to council elections namely context, awareness and expectations and process dynamics. The context concentrated on the election of councillors during the 2013 elections, the performance of mayors and councillors and citizen views on the preferred process of electing mayors and mayoral roles. On awareness and expectations, attention was placed on participation in elections, prioritisation of council elections and voter preferences. Lastly, the survey looked at the opinion of eligible voters on the process leading to the 2018 elections. This included the campaign agenda, credibility of elections and role of CSOs among others. 3.3 Survey Process The survey process had five stages namely tool preparation, Training of Trainers workshop, training of enumerators and field work and data analysis and presentation. 3.3.1 Tool Preparation Based on lessons learned from the first survey (State of Service Delivery Survey), and WPYD project data needs, a draft survey questionnaire was prepared. 3.3.2 Training of Trainers Workshop The workshop was attended by Consortium representatives responsible for research and policy. The workshop focused on four main issues viz. lessons learned from the previous survey, operational modalities of the survey, reviewing the survey tool and executing the survey. As such, the survey tool was refined based on submissions from consortium representatives. The operational modalities of the survey concentrated on survey coverage, wards to be covered and the survey methodology. On executing the survey, the workshop prioritised the selection of enumerators (criteria) and training of enumerators. 3.3.3 Training of Enumerators Based on the agreed criteria (experience in surveys and use of magpi), 13 enumerators were selected per each city (except Harare with 26). The majority of these participated in the first survey. Enumerators were trained on understanding and interpreting questions, research ethics, survey sampling procedure and the use of magpi.

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 1515 3.3.4 Field Work and Data Entry Field work was conducted between August and October 2017. Five wards were covered by 13 enumerators per city except Harare which had 26 enumerators. The survey tool was uploaded on magpi online survey app which facilitates offline use. Each enumerator completed 40 questionnaires using the magpi app. Enumer- ators uploaded completed questionnaires when connected to the internet. The lead researcher performed quality control functions such as checking timeframes and whether all questions were being completed. 3.3.5 Data Analysis and Presentation Data were uploaded into magpi on a daily basis by enumerators. Magpi consolidates the data into one dataset. This dataset was generated as an excel file. Thereafter STATA was used to analyse the data. Data is presented according to three major themes namely context, awareness and expectations and process dynamics. The findings of the survey are presented in two sections. First, on section 4 (Findings and Discussion), the report presents the average statistics from the six cities. Second, city specific findings are presented in the Annex (Section 7). 4. Findings and Discussion 4.1 Election Context About 40.7% of the respondents indicated that they do not know the name of the councillor they voted for in the 2013 elections. Such a percentage shows that there is a considerable percentage of the electorate that is more concerned about the party rather than the candidate they vote for. For the past 2 or 3 elections about 72.9% indicated that they have not changed the party they voted for, for councillors. This indicates to con- sistency in terms of voting behaviours and preferences. The prevalent mechanism used to hold councillors accountable to election promises are ward councillor meetings (50%). However, about 41.7% have done nothing to hold councillors accountable. The use of social media as a platform to hold councillors to account is still low (6%). More than 70% indicated that the current process of electing city mayors is undemocratic. Thus, the legal re- quirement of councillors electing mayors requires a revisit. In fact, more than 85% reported that they prefer a mayor directly elected by citizens. Such a preference is anchored on the assumption that voting a mayor directly empowers citizens to hold the mayor accountable (72.3%). In this regard, the characteristics of mayors the electorate prefer include: • Directly elected by citizens (85.4%), • Powers to recruit senior city officials (52.4%), • Working full-time at the council (74.4%), • No powers to override full council decisions (65.3%). Such a preference of executive mayors is anchored on the fact that more than 64.1% indicated that current mayors do not have the power to manage cities.

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 Table 3: Election Context Findings

Issue Responses Frequency % n =

Knows the sitting Ward councillor No 1289 35.4 3,639 Yes 2350 64.6 Knows the roles and responsibilities of a councillor No 871 24 3623 Yes 2752 76 Most important councillor roles Policy Formulation 910 25 3640 Representation of Residents’ 1638 45 Issues at Council level Oversight over Council 546 15 Officials Financing projects and 182 5 attending funerals Providing Feedback to 364 10 communities Participated in electing the Councillor in 2013 No 1462 40 3636 Yes 2174 60 Knows the name of the councillor s/he voted for in the 2013 No 1452 40.7 3567 elections Yes 2115 59.3 Times voted during elections for councillors More than 3 times 687 18.9 3636 None 1136 31.2 Once 758 20.8 Thrice 352 9.7 Twice 703 19.3 Changed the party of the councillor you voted for in the last 2 No 2651 72.9 3636 or 3 elections Yes 985 27.1 Mechanism used to hold councillors accountable to their Nothing 1508 41.5 3636 election promises One on one meetings 206 5.7 Petitions 216 5.9 Social Media 217 6 Ward meetings 1489 50 Councillor performance rating Average 1705 46.9 3636 Excellent 307 8.4 Poor 1624 44.7 Current process of electing Mayors is democratic No 2564 70.5 3636 Yes 1072 29.5

Preferred election process for mayor Directly elected by citi- 3105 85.4 3636 zens Elected by Councillors 531 14.6

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 1717 Issue Responses Frequency % n =

Mayor performance rating Average 1573 43.3 3636 Excellent 327 9 Poor 1736 47.7 Voting a Mayor directly empowers you to hold No 1008 27.7 3636 Mayors accountable Yes 2628 72.3 Want a Mayor who has the power to recruit senior No 1729 47.6 3636 council officials Yes 1907 52.4 Want a Mayor who works full-time at the Council No 930 25.6 3636 Yes 2706 74.4 Want a Mayor who has power to override Full No 2374 65.3 3635 Council decisions Yes 1261 34.7 Current Mayors have the power to manage cities No 2329 64.1 3636 Yes 1307 35.9 Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017.

4.2 Election Awareness and Expectations Violence and intimidation was pointed out as the main factor (56.2%) that can prevent people from participating in the 2018 elections. More than 50% indicated that the harmonisation of elections affected the prioritisation of council elections. Further, 57.1% think that political parties do not place high priority on council elections. Such a lack of prioritisation leads to the election of a poor calibre of councillors. Such councillors have also been engaged in among other things selfish enrichment and failure to take decisions that trans- form service delivery in cities. At the same time, 14.4% place high priority to council elections in comparison to presidential (74.8%) and parliamentary (10.8%) elections. Such a priority ranking is problematic largely because local governments provide essential services for human consumption, yet, their elections are not highly prioritised. However, it is mainly when evidence of poor city management surfaces that people begin to scrutinise councillors. The ideal time for such scrutiny is also during elections. In terms of voter preferences in the 2018 elections, 23.3% indicated that they will vote for MDC councillors in comparison to 15.1% for ZANU-PF. The main reason cited for such voting preferences is community involvement of councillors (35.1%), followed by a record of achievement (22%). However, close to 50% were afraid to answer such a question. This can be interpreted to mean that freedom to freely state one’s political preferences is still considered risky in the society. About 65% are willing to vote for qualified and competent independent councillors. Table 4 shows all the findings pertaining to election awareness and expectations.

18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 Table 4: Election Awareness and Expectations Findings

Issue Responses Frequency % n =

Impediment to participating in the 2018 electoral Irrelevant Campaign 392 10.8 3636 processes messages Lack of Awareness 493 13.6 Lack of Interest 708 19.5 Violence and 2043 56.2 Intimidation Harmonization of elections affected the importance and No 1704 46.9 3636 prioritisation of council elections Yes 1932 53.1 Political parties place high priority on council elections No 2077 57.1 3636 Yes 1559 42.9 Where do you place high priority during elections Council 525 14.4 3636 Parliamentary 391 10.8 Presidential 2720 74.8 Most important quality you look for when electing a Campaign Promises 273 7.5 3634 councillor Community involvement 1443 39.7 Political affiliation 696 19.1 Qualifications 377 10.4 Record of Achievement 845 23.3 Party you are going to vote for in the next elections for Afraid to Answer. 1789 49.2 3634 councillor MDC 846 23.3 Other Parties 440 12.1 ZANU-PF 549 15.1 Reason for voting that party’s candidate for councillor Campaign Promises 485 13.7 3534 Candidate from my Party 659 18.5 Community involvement 1242 35.1 Qualifications of 372 10.5 Candidate Record of Achievement 776 22 Willing to vote for a qualified and competent Independent No 1254 34.5 3632 candidate for Councillor Yes 2378 65.5

Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017.

4.3 Election Process Dynamics The survey found out that service delivery (67.7%) should be the main campaign agenda for the next elections. This is because the state of service delivery in cities is poor (WPYD, 2017). Other campaign messages such as corruption in councils and devolution of powers and functions to local authorities accounted for 17% and 11.1% respectively. More than 60% indicated that the 2018 elections will not be free and fair. The reasons given for that are rigging (38.9%), violence and intimidation (25.8%), flawed voter registration process (16.4%) and that opposition parties will not campaign freely (18.9%).

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 1919 The three main indicators pointed by respondents to evaluate a free and fair election are: absence of violence (33.3%), independence of ZEC (25%) and ability to campaign freely (25.8%). About 65% do not trust ZEC as an independent electoral management body. More than 65% indicated that they will vote for one party for president, MP and councillor. Table 5 summarises the findings pertaining to the election process dynamics.

Table 5: Election Process Dynamics Findings

Issue Responses Frequency % n =

Main campaign agenda for council elections Corruption in Councils, 617 17 3632 Devolution of powers and functions to 402 11.1 Councils Service delivery 2458 67.7 Other 155 4.3 Main roles of residents associations and other Civic awareness 910 25 3640 CSOs during elections Election monitoring 728 20 Voter education 1820 50 Councillor induction trainings 182 5 Opinion on the freeness and fairness of the No 2377 65.4 3632 2018 elections Yes 1255 34.6 Reasons for not free and fair Flawed Voter Registration Process 430 16.4 2619 Opposition parties will not campaign 495 18.9 freely Rigged 1017 38.9 Violence and Intimidation 677 25.8 Evaluation of the freeness and fairness of an Ability to campaign freely 938 25.8 3632 election Absence of violence 1208 33.3 Access to media 206 5.7 Independence of ZEC 908 25 Release of election results on time 372 10.2 Trust ZEC as an election management body No 2386 65.7 3632 Yes 1268 34.9 Political parties able to campaign freely and No 2364 65.1 3632 disseminate their material to you Yes 1268 34.9 Responsible for inciting political violence Both parties 1416 39 3631 during elections? MDC 384 10.6 Other parties 398 11 ZANU-PF 1433 39.5 Voting (in the 2018 elections) for a councillor No 2390 66.4 3597 from a different party than the President and Yes 1207 33.6 MP you will vote for

Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017.

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 5. Conclusions and there exist a disconnect Recommendations between the prioritisation of council elections and the Evidence presented in this survey report indicates to the low prior- mandates of local authorities. itisation of local government elections by both voters and political Partly, the low prioritisation parties. Yet, the majority of services consumed by residents on a dai- of council elections explains ly basis are reliant on decisions taken at council level. In essence, the poor service delivery as there exist a disconnect between the prioritisation of council elections and the mandates of local authorities. Partly, the low prioritisa- a poor calibre of councillors tion of council elections explains the poor service delivery as a poor often gets elected. calibre of councillors often gets elected. Perhaps, one way of raising the profile of local elections is to hold them separate from presidential and parliamentary elections. The survey indicates that a critical campaign message for the 2018 elections should be centred on service delivery issues. Hence, it becomes imperative for all political parties to outline their plans on reviving service delivery as part of election manifestos. Such an articulation is likely to endear with the urban electorate. The office of the Mayor is critical in the management of city affairs. Despite this, about 64% indicated that current mayors lack power to manage city affairs. In this regard, the survey found out that the electorate prefer executive mayors. The critical attributes of such executive mayors are: • Directly elected by citizens, • Mandated with power to recruit senior council officials, • Working full time at the city council.

Many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as infrastructure, water and sanitation, health, and education fall under the mandate of local governments. This means that local governments are fundamental actors in Zimbabwe achieving SDGs. In 2030, when the world will be evaluating progress on SDGs, more than half of Zimbabwe’s population will be living in urban areas (UN-Habitat, 2012). In the context of SDGs and the prospects of urbanisation, Zimbabwe should reorganise the configuration of local government. There is no doubt that cities are the present and our future. However, our cities are at crossroads though op- portunities exist. Options to chat a new trajectory are available. Action is required from citizens, civil society, government and local authorities. A reorganisation of local government is a necessity. Such reforms should happen now and should be a hallmark of a progressive government. The reorganisation of local government should be premised on two things namely council elections and executive mayors. An election is a competition of ideas and strategies First, the timing of local government elections should not coincide with based on records of presidential and parliamentary elections. In fact, these should be held achievement and future in isolation. This is primarily for two reasons: to raise the profile of lo- plans – such should define cal government elections, and second, to increase political competi- local government elections. tion during council elections. An election is a competition of ideas and The second aspect of strategies based on records of achievement and future plans – such the reorganisation of should define local government elections. The second aspect of the local government entails reorganisation of local government entails reverting to executive may- reverting to executive ors with powers highlighted in this report. For this to happen, the le- mayors with powers gal framework governing local authorities require a complete reform. highlighted in this report. Thus, legislation should be promulgated focusing on:

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 2121 • Procedures and processes of local government elections, • Procedures and functions of local authorities.

The results of the State of Service Delivery Survey Report indicates that service delivery is in crisis. This is despite that this survey shows that people and political parties place low priority on who is elected to manage the delivery of services. As long as the electorate and political parties do not prioritise local government elections, our local authorities will remain in a deplorable state. Significant steps must therefore be taken to serve our local authorities from today’s calamity. In a context where local government elections are not prioritised, what is the role of civil society? Civil society becomes critical in providing the electorate with credentials of candidates for council elections. This helps in the electorate taking informed decisions on who to elect. Furthermore, civil society can also organise debate sessions where council candidates openly sell their candidature to the electorate. Other options for civil society include providing the electorate with simplified checklists of issues to look for in parties and candidates election campaign and manifesto. After the 2018 elections, councillor-induction training programmes are essential in orienting new councillors.

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 6. References

1. GoZ. (2013). Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20). Harare: Government Printer. 2. Jenkins, P. (2000). City profile: Maputo. Cities, 17, (3): 207–218. 3. Matumbike, C. W. E., & Muchadenyika, D. (2012). Historical background of local government in Zimbabwe 1890–2010 perspectives and reflections. Harare: Institute for a Democratic Alternative for Zimbabwe. 4. MLGPWNH. (2013). Audit Report on Issues of Land Management and Allocation: Chitungwiza Town and Seke District, 4–22 November 2013. Harare, Republic of Zimbabwe. 5. MLGPWNH. (2015). Mutare City Council Audit report. Harare: Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing. 6. MLGPWNH. (2016). Bulawayo City Council Investigation. Harare: Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing. 7. MLGPWNH. (2017). Harare City Council Special Audit Report: Compliance with Directives on Salaries Rationalisation. Harare: Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing. 8. Muchadenyika, D. (2017). Social movements and planning institutions in urban transformation: housing in metropolitan Harare, Zimbabwe (2000-2015). Unpublished PhD Thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. 9. Muchadenyika, D., & Williams, J. J. (2016). Social change: Urban governance and urbanization in Zimbabwe. Urban Forum, 27, 253–274. 10. RTI and IDAZIM. (2010). Local Governance in Transition: Zimbabwe’s Local Authorities during the Inclusive Government. Washington, D.C: RTI International and Institute for a Democratic Alternative for Zimbabwe. 11. Tambulasi, R. I. C. (2011). Local Government without Governance: A New Institutional Perspective of Local Governance PolicyParalysis in Malawi. Public Policy and Administration, 26 (3), 333–352. 12. UN-Habitat. (2012). State of the world’s cities 2012/2013: prosperity of cities. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. 13. We Pay You Deliver Consortium. (2017). State of Service Delivery Report: Cities at the Crossroads. Volume 1. Harare: Danish Church Aid.

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 2323 24 7. Annex THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT Annex I: Comparison of the Election Context Findings in 6 Cities

City Bulawayo Chitungwiza Gweru Harare Masvingo Mutare

Issue Responses Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Knows the sitting Ward councillor No 126 24.2 214 41.2 184 35.4 402 38.7 165 31.7 198 38.1 Yes 394 75.8 305 58.8 336 64.6 638 61.3 355 68.3 322 61.9 Knows the roles and responsibili- No 71 13.7 181 35.2 144 27.7 258 25 123 23.7 94 18.1 ties of a councillor Yes 447 86.3 333 64.8 375 72.3 776 75 396 76.3 425 81.9 Participated in electing the No 138 26.5 238 45.9 215 41.4 439 42.2 212 40.8 220 42.3 Councillor in 2013 Yes 382 73.5 280 54.1 304 58.6 601 57.8 307 59.2 300 57.7 Knows the name of the councillors/ No 166 32 245 48.5 200 40 438 43 175 34 228 44.4 he voted for in the 2013 elections Yes 352 68 260 51.5 297 60 581 57 340 66 285 55.6 Times voted during elections for More than 3 99 19.0 125 24.1 84 16.2 210 20.2 88 17 81 15.6 councillors times None 93 17.9 176 34 167 31.2 337 32.4 175 33.7 188 36.2 Once 104 20.0 77 14.9 110 21.2 236 22.7 119 22.9 112 21.5 Thrice 82 15.8 63 12.2 40 7.7 67 6.4 54 10.4 46 8.8 Twice 142 27.3 77 14.9 118 22.7 190 18.3 83 16 93 17.9 Changed the party of the council- No 336 64.6 369 71.2 388 74.8 791 76.1 350 67.4 417 80.2 lor s/he voted for in the last 2 or 3 Yes 184 35.4 149 28.8 131 25.2 249 23.9 169 32.6 103 19.8 elections Attended any meeting addressed by No 171 32.9 266 51.4 213 41 493 47.4 209 40.3 234 45.0 Ward councillor Yes 349 67.1 252 48.6 306 59 547 52.6 310 59.7 286 55.0 Mechanism used to hold council- Nothing 177 34.0 229 44.2 226 43.5 483 46.4 169 32.6 224 43.1 lors accountable to their election One on one 32 6.2 43 8.3 32 6.2 45 4.3 27 5.2 27 5.2 promises meetings Petitions 26 5.0 36 6.9 40 7.7 54 5.2 35 6.7 25 4.8 Social Media 31 6.0 44 8.5 18 3.5 50 4.8 56 10.8 18 3.5 Ward meet- 254 48.8 166 32 203 39.1 408 39.2 232 44.7 226 43.5 ings Annex I: Comparison of the Election Context Findings in 6 Cities

City Bulawayo Chitungwiza Gweru Harare Masvingo Mutare

Issue Responses Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Councillor performance rating Average 278 53.5 177 31.2 258 49.7 444 42.7 298 57.4 250 48.1 Excellent 21 4.0 46 8.9 34 6.6 63 6.1 116 22.4 27 5.2 Poor 221 42.5 295 56.9 227 43.7 533 51.3 105 20.2 243 46.7 Current process of electing Mayors No 386 74.2 356 68.7 325 62.6 758 72.9 326 62.8 413 79.4 democratic Yes 134 25.8 162 31.3 194 37.4 282 27.1 193 37.2 107 20.6 Preferred election process of mayor Directly elect- 434 83.5 431 83.2 434 83.6 910 87.5 442 85.2 454 87.3 ed by citizens Elected by 86 16.5 87 16.8 85 16.4 130 12.5 77 14.8 66 12.7 Councillors Mayor performance rating Average 288 55.4 116 22.4 203 39.1 451 43.4 240 46.2 275 52.9 Excellent 28 5.4 31 6 30 5.8 77 7.4 133 25.6 28 5.4 Poor 204 39.2 371 71.6 286 55.1 512 49.2 146 28.1 217 41.7 Voting a Mayor directly empowers No 102 19.6 255 49.2 146 28.1 254 24.4 124 23.9 127 24.4 you to hold Mayors accountable Yes 418 80.4 263 50.8 373 71.9 786 75.6 395 76.1 393 75.6 Want a Mayor who has the power to No 241 46.3 313 60.4 179 34.5 523 50.3 217 41.8 256 49.2 recruit senior council officials Yes 279 53.7 205 39.6 340 65.5 517 49.7 302 58.2 264 50.8 Want a Mayor who works full-time at No 110 21.2 230 44.4 96 18.5 229 22.0 158 30.4 107 20.6 the Council Yes 410 78.8 288 55.6 423 81.5 811 78.0 361 69.6 413 79.4 Want a Mayor who has power to No 332 63.8 362 69.9 329 63.5 666 64.0 247 47.6 438 84.2 override Full Council decisions Yes 188 36.2 156 30.1 189 36.5 374 36.0 272 52.4 82 15.8 Current Mayors have the power to No 399 76.7 352 68 360 69.4 639 61.4 260 50.1 319 61.3 WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! manage cities Yes 121 23.3 166 32 159 30.6 401 38.6 259 49.9 201 38.7

Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017. 25 25 26 Annex II: Comparison of the Election Awareness and Expectations Findings in 6 Cities City Bulawayo Chitungwiza Gweru Harare Masvingo Mutare THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT Issue Responses Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Willingness to vote in the 2018 election No 123 23.7 176 33.8 189 36.3 395 38.0 222 42.7 104 20.0 Yes 397 76.3 344 66.2 331 63.7 645 62.0 298 57.3 416 80.0 Impediment to participating in the 2018 elec- Irrelevant Campaign messages 80 15.4 68 13.1 55 10.6 104 10.0 35 6.7 50 9.6 toral processes Lack of Awareness 73 14.0 71 13.7 80 15.4 137 13.2 88 17 44 8.5 Lack of Interest 101 19.4 96 18.5 96 18.5 218 21.0 90 17.3 107 20.6 Violence and Intimidation 266 51.2 283 54.6 288 55.5 581 55.9 306 60 319 61.3 Harmonization of elections affected the im- No 204 39.2 326 62.9 260 50.1 448 43.1 219 42.2 247 47.5 portance and prioritisation of council elec- Yes 316 60.8 192 37.1 259 49.9 592 56.9 300 57.8 273 52.5 tions

Political parties place high priority on council No 381 73.3 300 57.9 295 56.8 504 48.5 247 47.5 350 64.3 elections Yes 139 26.7 218 42.1 224 43.2 536 51.5 273 52.5 169 35.7 Where do you place high priority during elec- Council 87 16.7 93 18 59 11.4 122 11.7 77 14.8 87 16.8 tions Parliamentary 83 16.0 73 14.1 48 9.2 100 9.6 60 11.5 27 5.2 Presidential 350 67.3 352 68 412 79.4 818 78.7 383 73.7 405 78 Most important quality you look for when Campaign Promises 37 7.1 43 8.3 25 4.8 78 7.5 14 2.7 76 14.6 electing a councillor Community involvement 201 38.7 236 45.6 193 37.3 487 46.8 151 29.1 175 33.7 Political affiliation 134 25.8 94 17.1 63 12.2 152 14.6 131 25.2 122 23.5 Qualifications 64 12.3 56 10.8 30 5.8 117 11.3 57 11 53 10.2 Record of Achievement 84 16.2 89 17.2 207 40 206 19.8 166 32 93 17.9 Party you are going to vote for in the next elec- Afraid to Answer 270 51.9 233 45 338 65.3 468 45.0 212 40.8 268 51.6 tions for councillor MDC 84 16.2 153 29.5 47 9.1 282 27.1 142 27.4 148 28.5 Other Parties 132 25.4 34 6.6 22 4.2 156 15.0 54 10.4 42 8.1 ZANU-PF 34 6.5 98 18.9 111 21.4 134 12.9 111 21.4 61 11.8 Reason for voting for that party’s candidate Campaign Promises 86 16.7 59 11.7 39 7.6 145 14.7 38 7.4 118 23.6 for councillor Candidate from my Party 115 22.3 96 19 48 9.4 230 23.3 62 12.1 108 21.6 Community involvement 207 40.2 238 47.1 186 36.3 337 34.1 151 29.4 123 24.6 Qualifications of Candidate 37 7.2 52 10.3 54 10.5 117 11.8 78 15.2 34 6.8 Record of Achievement 70 13.6 60 11.9 186 36.3 160 16.2 184 35.9 116 23.2 Willing to vote for a qualified and competent No 114 21.9 280 54.1 129 25 352 33.8 141 27.2 238 45.9 Independent candidate for Councillor

Yes 406 78.1 238 45.9 388 75 688 66.2 377 72.8 281 54.1

Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017. Annex III: Comparison of the Election Process Dynamics Findings in 6 Cities

City Bulawayo Chitungwiza Gweru Harare Masvingo Mutare Issue Responses Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Main campaign agenda for council Corruption in Councils 93 17.9 131 25.3 84 16.2 169 16.3 57 11 83 16 elections Devolution of powers and func- 72 13.8 123 23.7 46 8.9 72 6.9 39 7.5 50 9.6 tions to Councils Other 23 4.4 13 2.5 26 5 56 5.4 25 4.8 12 2.3 Service delivery 332 63.8 251 48.5 361 69.8 743 71.4 397 76.6 374 72.1 Opinion on the freeness and fairness No 409 78.7 324 62.5 248 48 735 70.7 343 66.2 318 61.1 of the 2018 elections Yes 111 21.3 194 37.5 269 52 305 29.3 175 33.8 201 38.9 Reason for not free and fair Flawed Voter Registration 97 21.9 46 13 17 6.2 102 12.3 80 21.4 88 25.6 Process Opposition parties will not cam- 64 14.5 111 31.3 26 9.5 146 17.5 67 18 81 23.5 paign freely Rigged 191 43.2 89 25.1 176 64.5 337 40.5 131 35 93 27 Violence and Intimidation 90 20.4 109 30.7 54 19.8 247 29.7 95 25.5 82 23.8 Evaluation of the freeness and fair- Ability to campaign freely 135 26.0 159 30.7 67 13 275 26.4 120 23.2 182 35.1 ness of an election Absence of violence 134 25.8 162 31.3 253 48.9 298 28.7 201 38.8 160 30.8 Access to media 16 3.1 44 8.5 12 2.3 81 7.8 37 7.1 16 3.1 Independence of ZEC 215 41.3 105 20.3 61 11.8 270 26.0 121 23.4 136 26.2 Release of election results on time 20 3.8 48 9.3 124 24 116 11.2 39 7.5 25 4.8 Trust ZEC as an election management No 421 81.0 345 66.6 246 47.6 708 68.1 330 63.7 336 64.7 body Yes 99 19.0 173 33.4 271 52.4 332 31.9 188 36.3 183 35.3 Political parties are able to campaign No 330 63.5 367 70.8 207 40 744 71.5 317 61.2 399 76.9 freely and disseminate their material Yes 190 36.5 151 29.2 310 60 296 28.5 201 38.8 120 23.1 to you

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! Party responsible for inciting political Both parties 174 33.5 161 31.1 289 55.9 416 40.0 213 41.2 163 31.4 violence during elections MDC 30 5.8 71 13.7 88 17 107 10.3 51 9.9 37 7.1 Other parties 90 17.3 69 13.3 51 9.9 70 6.7 48 9.3 70 13.5 ZANU-PF 226 43.5 217 41.9 89 17.2 447 43.0 205 39.7 249 48 Voting (in the 2018 elections) for a No 248 48.4 386 75.7 355 69.2 662 64.1 396 77.3 343 66.3 councillor from a different party than Yes 264 51.6 124 24.3 158 30.8 371 35.9 116 22.7 174 3.7 the President and MP you will vote for 27 27 Source: We Pay You Deliver Survey, 2017 Acknowledgements

The author of the report thanks the following individuals and their organisations for their contributions during the survey: 1. Esther Chimanikire-Nyambiya, MURRA, 2. Marble Nhamo, CHRA, 3. Marvelous Khumalo and Donald Makuvaza, CHITREST, 4. Charles Mazorodze, GRF, 5. Sharon Magodyo, HRT, 6. Emmanuel Ndlovu, BPRA, 7. Edson Dube, UMMRT, 8. Clement Mensah. I express my deep gratitude to the 91 enumerators who collected the data in the six cities of Harare, Bula- wayo, Masvingo, Gweru, Chitungwiza and Mutare. Appreciation is also extended to the DCA team of Fambai Ngirande, Mads Schack Lindegård, Fortune Madhuku, and Tyleen Kunze for the kind assistance during the survey process.

Davison Muchadenyika Researcher Email: [email protected] Cell: +263712525180

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 We Pay You Deliver Consortium Contacts

HABAKKUK TRUST Bulawayo Progressive Residents Association Habakkuk Trust Fidelity Life Centre 52 Heyman road (along 12ave) 4Th F Loor Suite 409 Suburbs, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Cnr Fife Street & 11Th Ave Tel: 0779617926/0771730018 Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Email: [email protected] Tel : 09 61196 www.habakkuktrust.org Cell : 0772 516 729 / 0775 233 581 E-Mail: [email protected]

Combined Harare Residents Association 12 Oxford Avenue, New lands Harare, Zimbabwe +263 772 127 397 Harare Residents’ Trust www.chra.org.zw 5 Tudor Gardens, Corner Josiah Tongogara Avenue and Mazowe Street harare zimbabwe Tel: +263 772 869 294 / +263 772 365 805 Tel: +263 772 278 307 +263 772 380 927 Email: [email protected] | [email protected] DanChurch Aid PO Box 41629 162 Josiah Chinamano Avenue Harare, Zimbabwe Tel: +263 (0) 704751/704764/704750/704716 www.noedhjaelp.dk / www.danchurchaid.org

Diakonia Masvingo United Residents Alliance 221 Fife Avenue, Harare, Zimbabwe 515 Greenfield Street Telephone: +263 4 2937596/ 7/ 8 Masvingo, Zimbabwe www.diakonia.se Tel: 0774 755 739, 0772 318 047, 0774 612 816

WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 2929 United Mutare Residents and Ratepayers Trust Chitungwiza and Manyame Rural Residents 22 Jason Moyo, (Hillside Golf Club premises) Association Mutare, Zimbabwe 13679 Zengeza 4 Shopping Centre, Zengeza, Landline: 08683005380 Chitungwiza, Cell: +263776191402 (after hours 0771354876) www.camera.org.zw E: [email protected], Facebook: Camera , Twitter: @CameraInform

Women’s Institute for Leadership Development Suite 401, 4th Floor, CIPF Centre, Jason Moyo Street, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Tel: +263-09-79959/65 | +263774087284 Gweru Residents Forum Email: [email protected] Office PD 11 First Floor Telone building Seventh www.womenforleadership.org Street Gweru [email protected]

Zimbabwe Women Resource Center and Network 288 Herbert Chitepo Harare, Zimbabwe Tel: +263 4 252 388/390 Email: [email protected] www.zwrcn.org.zw

With support from:

30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS SURVEY REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 2018 WE PAY. YOU DELIVER! 3131