Zimbabwe's Vote The election results in Zini- babwe convey two distinct messages. The first is that in most of the country support for Robert Mugabe's government stands at a higher level than in 1980. The second is that among thc country's minority groups there remains a strong determi- nation to resist his plans for a one-party state. However much Mr Mugabe may find it frustrat- i ng, the results give him neither a mandate for a one-party state nor any justification for tamper- ing with the constitution. To lorce the issue now, as Mr Mugabe has threatened to do, would inflict on Zimbabwe irreparable harm. The vote against Mr Mugabe both in Matabeleland an'd from the while constituencies rep- resents an unmistakable rebuff to his one-party ambitions. The Matabeleland vote is all the more remarkable in that it Iollows a brutal campaign . by government troops there 'de- signed to break the back of Joshua Nkomo's 'following. Whatever opportunity' Mr Mugabe onec had to win over Matabeleland'to his side, he lost by using miliiary force instead'of reconciliation . The white vote however, is of. a ditferent order. Mr M.ugabe had made conisiderable and laudable eff'orts since indepen- dence to deal fairly with the while community. resisting demands from some of his more headstrong colleagues for a more radical approach. and he there- fore had good reason to expect some reward at election time. Yet the whites preferred Ian Smith. a man whose contri- bution in the past five years has been worthless and who can be expected to achieve nothing greater in public life now than to stand on the sidelines carping at everything the government does. But however ill-considered the wliites' choice may have been, their right to choose their own candidate is not in dispute. Indeed:, Mr Mugabe himself was party to that decision when he signed- the ' Lancaster House agreement in 1979. By reacting so'intemperately to the way the whites voted 'Mr Mugabe 'has created difficulties for himself. He has given eneouragement. to party radicals who want action taken against white interests and created;alarm and despondency amiong'the white community. It will be some time before the sioirm abates; in the- light :Qf the election rcsults- Mr Mugabe's reasons for wanting to introduce a one-party state appear all the more curious. His argument, commonly used before by government leaders elsewhere in Afi-ica, is that only a single nation-wide party can overcome tribal divisions and mobilize the population for economic development. But, as experience elsewhere in Africa hias shown, the one-parfy system is favoured not because of any beneficial effect it may have, but because it offers ruling elites the opportunity to wield absolute power and to wield it in perpetuity. In Zimbabwe the elite have no different purpose. The minority groups there know this well enough. And it is their fear of the one-party state and the kind of dictatorship to which it leads that has produced such a divisive election result. It is therefore a pity that Mr Mugabe has not been content simply to take credit for holding an election widely regarded as being free and fair and for winning it by a handsome majority. That in itself is a considerable achievement. In- stead, he has started- off his second administration in an ill- tempered manner, losing sight of how niuch the policies of r econciliation can achieve on their own ZIMBABWE'S VOTE