In the midst of the spectacular local election results declared in Britain on Thursday night and Friday, that an outcome was finally announced - after five weeks - for the presidential contest in Zimbabwe might easily have been forgotten. Robert Mugabe certainly prays that the eyes of the world have moved elsewhere. The final numbers for the ballot, 47 per cent for Morgan Tsvangirai compared with Mr Mugabe's 43 per cent, were exactly the same as the figures that emerged in South African newspapers, courtesy of Zanu (PF) sources, a mere 72 hours after the polling stations closed. This deepens the mystery of why it took so long for them to be released and reinforces the suspicion that Mr Tsvangirai failed to reach the 50 per cent level required for him to become president immediately because electoral fraud kept his rival in contention.

No date for the run-off ballot has yet been set. The dilemma for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is whether or not to participate in it. The party has been contemplating taking part even if this awards the first count far more legitimacy than it deserves. The hope of forcing Mr Mugabe from office at the second attempt comes with risking the lives of MDC supporters. The alternative is boycotting the poll on the basis that the MDC has already won and assuming that it will be impossible for Mr Mugabe to remain in power, recognised by neighbours, in this situation. That there has been such a discussion is entirely understandable, The personal safety of Mr Tsvangirai himself is threatened and the fear that another round of voting would be the pretext for atrocities on a more brutal scale than anything seen so far is, sadly, very well founded.

Another ballot will only be credible if the outside world, particularly South Africa, insists that it is run in a manner that is fundamentally different from Mr Mugabe's notion of democracy. The MDC has to be confident that the numbers of election observers - especially again those who are independent in affiliation and from within the region (not Cuba, Iran or Libya) - are of a scale so that not only is corruption on the day identified but also intimidation in advance of the vote witnessed and highlighted. South Africa has to state unambiguously at the outset that if violence associated with Zanu (PF) emerges then it will disown the second round of voting there and then and agree that, on the basis of the initial poll, Mr Tsvangirai is the proper President of Zimbabwe. The media also have a moral obligation not to move on to other stories but to focus on this one.

It is only if the conditions for a second round are right that the MDC will be able to compete in it without the spectre of rigging or bone-breaking and so the will of the people might be expressed. The man best placed to restrain Mr Mugabe or, better still, persuade him that it is he and not Mr Tsvangirai who should be withdrawing at this stage is President Mbeki of South Africa. If he is not prepared to be the saviour of Zimbabwe, then it must fall to Jacob Zuma, who today controls the ANC and who will probably succeed Mr Mbeki in just under a year, to take the stage.

Zimbabwe has been taken to the edge of ruin. It could still be retrieved if an orderly transfer of power can be implemented. It will take incredible courage but the MDC must not allow itself to be cowed. If ever there were a country where it is “time for a change”, it is surely this one.