“Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but sadness of heart.” I was very much afraid, but I said to the king, “May the king live forever! Nehemiah 2:2ff

Basics in elections for public office are mainly known from the common sense  approach. It is  common knowledge  that  when  one aspires  for  elections and any  other  positions which plebiscites are  required and which public funds are  required scrutiny in the  form of  criticism becomes inevitable. It  also follows  that the period in which one is or  was in office can  be met  also with  an  equal amount  of  forceful scrutiny. It is our belief that this leads to accountability and those not willing to under go such scrutiny should never aspire such offices  and if  they  are in such offices  should  rather  vacate  forthwith and lead  their  families  and or  households  were  they are  exempt  from public  scrutiny.

Basics to Elections

Elections should pass the litmus test of free  and  fair. The  freeness  and fairness of  an  election entails the  freedoms of the electorate, to  speak freely of  anyone  of  the  contestants, their  strengths and weakness.  The  freedoms of the  electorate remain sacrosanct and  should  never  at  any  point  even  in deep madness  be  taken away  from the  electorate. It is  may  view  as  a historian of psychology  that the letter  written  by AHPCZ  Registrar  and signed by Tellmore Mateka on 8th January 2025 was unfortunate in that  it  sought to  curtail the freedoms of the electorate  in publicly exercising  natural  freedoms which come  with elections. It is my shared view that professionals should be free to speak and share any information of the election,  it  is  a period  to be happy and to  share  results  of elections  as they are  being  published in real time rather  than insinuating that sharing of  election  results  is  tempering with  the  election  process.

We need to be mature in our elections and avoid polarization of elections. Currently we have had a challenge were my erstwhile colleagues in ZPA their group found  it hard to congratulate the winner of the January 2025 AHPCZ psychology council member. This is a result of both intolerance, polarization within the body politic of psychology. Some feel that Since Dr Mutambara is a former president of Zimbabwe Psychology Association (ZPA) it would demean or be inappropriate to do so in a group that she also belongs. Such feelings amongst group members are worsened by the fact that Mr Shanyurai and Dr Mutambara who were also contestants are yet maybe to find the time or wisdom to magnanimously congratulate Prof Zirima publicly who won the elections by 75.5% of the votes and declared winner by AHPCZ. It would be great if my friends leading ZPA to start to allow people to be free from such petrified state where its in an unwritten fashion it has become an anathema to congratulate publicly the psychology representative elect of psychology. What I find funny is that the winner is also a ZPA member and it is difficult to think that ZPA has found it hard to congratulate one of its own publicly who has entered the second time as psychology’s sole national representative.

As I conclude when people vote for someone other than yourself it should not be taken as a personal rejection it is simply that they identify with a certain cause which one is championing. People might still like you and cherish your work and persona even though they might not vote for you. The message might be, ‘Yes we like you but we are not yet ready to be led by you’.

Wishing the family of psychology all the best in 2025 and beyond.

Prosper K Mushauri

Historian of Psychology