I name the three countries in the title because these are three countries which, within the last five years, have played host to political crises in which the largest opposition party’s supporters are willing to take their post-election grievances – often right after an election – and air them out onto the street in a manner that would force the incumbent government to reckon with the demands of the opposition.

Or at least, that’s what happened in Togo (2005, when the son of Gnassingbe Eyadema bypassed the President of the Senate in presidential succession following his father’s death, leading to anti-government violence and African Union sanctions, resulting in a general election) and Kenya (2007-2008, when the entire country exploded in random ethnopolitical violence after the incumbent was announced the winner of the election a few days before New Year’s Eve, leading to negotiations mediated and/or supported by the UN and AU and resulting in a currently-negotiating formation of a prime minister’s office for the first time in over 40 years).

So now in Zimbabwe, you have an obstinate incumbent who thinks he’s won, a persistent challenger who’s declared victory, an electoral commission that won’t release the results, a bunch of “war veterans” who’re raiding farms and knocking heads, several protesters who’re fed up with the incumbent, and everyone of these groups have drawn in their choice piece of air until they can hear anything from the High Court. Oh, and that diaspora that’s spread to quite a wide geographic range.

Either way that the High Court will lean, it is likely that there will be violence and bloodshed in reaction.

The main question to ask now is this: are South Africa and Botswana ready to welcome a flood of refugees from a familiar face?

And if this is to be the result, is it a sign that sub-Saharan Africa has entered into a new era in its political history, where the military has less of a role to play than it once did in similar crises during the 20th century?