Maravi

Electoral system that inspires confidence

Electoral system that inspires confidence
By Editor
Mon 25 Jan. 2010, 04:00 CAT

To have peaceful, free and fair elections, certain conditions have to prevail in our country and in our hearts. There ought to be a conducive atmosphere. The major players have to agree on the conditions under which elections would be held.

The contestants have to conduct themselves in a manner that does not put others at an unfair disadvantage. There ought to be transparency in the organisation of elections.

Constructive dialogue should be encouraged at all times on key electoral issues, such as the Constitution, the electoral Act and voter registration. All political parties and candidates should have equal access to state-owned media, and the media have a duty to report political campaigns fairly and accurately.

In the light of these necessary conditions, we make a special appeal to those in government and to the ruling party to realise that they have a serious responsibility. As facilitators of elections, they should ensure that the concerns of all key players are addressed. We also make an appeal to the opposition political parties about the need for them to be open and constructive in participating in the electoral process and in addressing these issues.

Next year’s electoral process will provide our people and their leaders with a unique opportunity to show their political maturity and their sincere aspiration for peace and harmony anchored in justice.

The observations made by Abdon Yezi about our country’s electoral process deserve the considerations of all. We agree with Yezi that there is need for the Electoral Commission of Zambia to be strengthened so that in turn it can strengthen our weak electoral regime which in some respects is not responsive to the dictates of democratic principles and practice. Yezi says “the very fact that you have an electoral system that does not inspire confidence erodes legitimacy of the political office holders that arise from the elections”. And that “currently, resolution of electoral conflicts takes long and most cases run the full length of parliament itself. This is a blatant denial of justice, and the courts of law have been accused as being a party to dragging such cases. All this is a result of a weak electoral regime which is not responsive to the dictates of democratic principles and practice”.

Truly, there is need to build confidence in the outcome of our electoral process. As Yezi correctly observes, apart from the 1991 elections conducted by Dr Kenneth Kaunda and UNIP, all subsequent elections have remained controversial and contested. There is need to change this so that citizens can be confident that the results of elections are accurate and that the government that arises from these elections does, indeed, rest upon their consent. We need election results that are accepted not only by the winners but also by the losers.

We say this because, in truth, it is not only the winners that run government in a multiparty democracy – it is a combination of the winners and the losers that run government. If election results are accepted by the losers then it is possible that they will cooperate with the winners to solve the problems of the nation. And this brings us to one of the most difficult concepts for some to accept – that of the “loyal opposition”. This idea is a vital one, however. Political competitors, as we have stated before, don’t necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play.

We should conduct our elections in such a manner that when the election is over, the losers will not find it difficult to accept the results, the judgment of the voters. No matter who wins, both sides must agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of society. The losers should continue to participate in public life as opposition, with the full knowledge that their role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state, and to the democratic process itself.

Democratic elections should be competitive. Opposition political parties and candidates must enjoy freedom of speech, assembly and movement necessary to voice their criticisms of the government openly, and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballots is not enough. Elections in which the opposition has its rallies arbitrarily cancelled or is harassed and where those in power monopolise the state-owned media to the exclusion of others are not democratic. The party in power may enjoy the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the elections contest must be fair.

But we should always bear in mind that elections are a complex set of activities with different valuables that act and feed on one another. We can correctly say that elections are a formal act of collective decision that occurs in a stream of connected antecedents and subsequent behaviour.

It involves the participation of the people in the act of electing their leaders and their own participation in governance. Elections are not necessarily about election day activities although it forms an important component. It encompasses activities before, during and after elections. It includes the legal and constitutional framework of elections, the registration of voters, party campaigns, the activities of the electronic and print media in terms of access; it includes campaign financing, the activities of law enforcement agencies and the government in power. It includes the authenticity and genuineness of the voters register; includes the independence or lack of it of electoral agencies and organs. It includes the political process in the country and the independence of adjudicating bodies of elections.

The malfunctioning of one aspect of this interconnected and interdependent variable can trip the chain and produce results that may not be accepted to the generality of our people. On election day, the people may go to the polls, cast their votes and their votes will be properly recorded and the results announced. Yet, it is possible that election day activities may just be a parody and a farcical expression of the will of the people. It is possible that the chain of activities leading to the final act of voting on election day have been marred by a series of acts and activities that undermined the freeness and fairness of the process.

The due observance and adherence to constitutional and electoral stipulations and timeliness is fundamental to the credibility of elections. This is because the processes and procedures enumerated in the Constitution and electoral Act are processes, steps and stages that must be complied with before the process of voting, collation and announcement of results will take place. If the constitutional and electoral framework of an electoral process is faulty, skewed and/or manipulated, it may be difficult for such a process to produce results that will be acceptable to the Zambian people in all their diversities and complexities.

It is difficult to conduct elections in climes where the incumbent regime has appropriated and privatised power – where they single-handedly select members of the Electoral Commission and are in control of other state or government officers dealing with the conduct of elections. Here, it is important to note the fact that in our country elections are not solely conducted by the Electoral Commission of Zambia. If anything, the Electoral Commission although it plays a very important role, its officers are very few and only directly oversee a very limited part of the whole process. A very big role is played by officers from the Ministry of Local Government who are not directly answerable to nor can they be directly disciplined by the Electoral Commission of Zambia. It is in the Ministry of Local Government where all sorts of characters may be strategically placed to ‘help’ in the conduct of elections. Such a huge part of our electoral process should not be entrusted to the Ministry of Local Government.

We also need an independent Electoral Commission comprising representatives from all key registered political parties, the main non-political bodies and impartial observers. We need to move away from the current arrangement where all commissioners of the Electoral Commission are appointed by the President who also happens to be a candidate in the elections they are supervising. In such situations, the law and the Constitution are not allowed to work. And the Electoral Commission is denied real or practical autonomy and independence. The power of incumbency is used and misused. The law enforcement and security agencies are deployed and used against opposition forces and all sorts of subterfuge are employed to keep the incumbent regime in power. As a result of all these, election monitoring and observation becomes a critical imperative for those in the opposition if they have to harbour any hope of winning an election.

Clearly the integrity of our electoral process is a combination of so many variables that intersperse all aspects of our electoral process. The failure of one aspect may adversely affect other valuables and distort the characterisation of the process as free and fair or as aggregating the genuine wish of our people. It is our collective duty to ensure that the system and the process are not manipulated or skewed in such a manner as to produce results that offend the sensibilities of the Zambian people.

Labels: ABDON YEZI, ELECTIONS

posted by MrK @ 9:18 AM