By Terence Chitapi
 |
| Voters queue to vote: Pic: Oxfamblogs |
Over the years elections have
increasingly become an important indicator for commitment towards a democratic
national order for many nations. Suffice to say that for most countries that
have made significant strides towards the adoption of a democratic political
order especially in the global south, such order has relied heavily on free,
fair and credible elections to legitimize the exercise of authority within the
nation state. However, increasingly, the same elections which have been used as
a defining symbol of democracy have also found use by authoritarian regimes
which also use them (elections) to legitimise their rule. This has resulted
in an increasing number of people progressively losing faith in the electoral
process as part and parcel of the package to building and consolidating
democratic rule on the continent.
In Africa, a number of countries
have successfully held credible elections that have facilitated the peaceful
transfers of power. Senegal (2012), Nigeria (2015), Tanzania (2015) and Ghana
(2016) are some recent examples, with Burkina Faso (2015) also warranting
special mention having recovered from a military coup to hold successful
elections. However, as the Freedom House 2016 report on Freedom in the World notes, such gains have been blighted by the resurgence
of a trend of stolen elections characterised by the recurrence of violence,
manipulation of election management bodies and processes and the attempts and
manipulation of term limits by incumbent leaders on the continent.
The threat of ‘competitive authoritarianism’
 |
| A clear guide for elections in Africa. |
Of concern, however, is the
increasing trend of holding of elections by incumbents which do not meet the
basic set standards of free, fair and credible elections, especially as looked
at from the guidelines of the African
Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. What is more worrying is
how as well, fellow incumbent leaders have turned a blind eye to this trend
were perpetrated by member states, rather moving swiftly to endorse
controversial electoral victories by incumbents, a phenomenon that has given
into the coining of the term ‘competitive authoritarian regimes’.
The role that elections play in
the making and maintenance of a democratic political order and culture are
generally widely agreed. The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and
Governance succinctly spells out how this Charter is premised on the
‘principles of good governance, popular participation (by the people in the
governance of their territories), (respect for) the rule of law and human
rights’ as contained in the African Union’s Constitutive Act. What it seeks to
achieve in essence is the entrenchment of a political culture that is based on
the holding of free, fair and transparent elections conducted by competent,
independent and impartial national electoral bodies. The centrality of
elections to political legitimacy has meant that both democratic and
authoritarian leaders all realize the importance of holding regular elections.
Where the former group of leaders have allowed somewhat free and fair electoral
processes, the latter group seem to emphasize more on the fact of elections
being held rather than the freeness or fairness of the actual electoral
process.
 |
| Electoral fraud is common in Africa. Pic: Hungarianspectrum |
As numerous examples have shown,
as in Zimbabwe (2008 and 2013) and Uganda (2016), where incumbent leaders do
subject themselves to periodic multiparty elections, these are however,
characterised by all sorts of chicanery, overt and covert, that render the
whole electoral process a biased charade, heavily tilted in favour of the
incumbent. Most of such elections are held well within constitutionally
prescribed time-frames but do not necessarily allow for a fair electoral
contest as prescribed in the constitutions of these countries. Incumbents bend
and break rules all to gain an unfair advantage over their political opponents.
According to the AU’s Declaration on the Principles Governing
Democratic Elections, while state parties should commit to the holding of
regular, transparent, free and fair elections, such commitment must be
actualised by State Parties’ ability to, among other basic electoral tenets:
- · Establish and strengthen independent and impartial national election bodies;
- Ensure there are mechanisms to resolve election disputes timeously;
- · Ensure that political parties can equitably access state-controlled media during election periods; and
- Ensure that there is a legally enforceable code of conduct for all those involved in elections.
 |
| African Brotherhood: endorsing electoral malpractice by brothers. Pic: au.int |
It is usually in keeping with the
letter and spirit of the above four key points that many elections on the continent
fail the test of legitimacy according to the AU’s own Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. Yet sitting Heads
of States are quick to endorse the outcome of such sham processes and continue
to turn a blind eye to clear violations of their own statutes. What is more
surprising is the actual existence of sanctions or punitive measures to be
taken against members states that are in violation of these standing provisions
involving an unconstitutional change of government or other such actions that
‘infringe on the democratic change of government' through elections.
The cost of disputed elections on
the continent has mainly come through increased instability in affected
countries. Such electorally linked instability has also been synonymous with an
increase in rights violations especially of citizens who have sought to
demonstrate their disgruntlement to the theft of elections by incumbent
leaders. Coups, migration and even terrorism all trace some of their roots in
disaffection of citizens in the uneven distribution of power, itself achieved
through unfree and unfair electoral practices. Increasingly, we have noted growing
disinterest and distrust of the electoral process by citizens as the foremost
means through which political legitimacy is conferred or transferred from one
incumbent to the next.
 |
Zimbabwe: 2008 unity government
undermined citizens'
confidence in elections.
|
The experiences of Zimbabwe (2008
and 2013), Uganda (2015) and Burundi (2015) point to a certain and worrying
level of reluctance by the African Heads of State to flex their muscle in
rejecting the notion of a façade of elections just to retain legitimacy and the
right to govern. That Zimbabwe eventually had to endure a government of
national unity after disputed elections in 2008 was a clear example of a
failure to safeguard an electoral outcome from theft by the incumbent who still
holds key instruments of power. The 2013 election in Zimbabwe, though
uncharacteristically low on incidences of overt violence, was a testimony to
the emerging trend of competitive authoritarianism as a ‘smart' way of getting
the approval of legitimacy from fellow African Heads of States.
The 2015 experience of Uganda was
not very different as the incumbent president presided over an unequal
electoral contest, where the opposition found it very difficult to campaign or
access state media to sell themselves to voters. The main opposition contender
had to endure the majority of time under house arrest, clearly meant to deny
them an opportunity to campaign. And on Election Day, an emerging trick on the
‘authoritarian menu' was thrust against citizens where the internet was
virtually shut down, a step by the incumbent to militate against citizens'
ability to protect their vote. Well, the majority of African leaders saw no
problem with such blatant acts of electoral cheating and today the Ugandan president
sits with fellow leaders at various fora as the legitimate president of Uganda.
One thing to note about
competitive authoritarianism is how easily incumbent leaders are able to paint
a smoke-screen of freeness and fairness for the outside world just to get the
nod of legitimate elections. This is despite the open existence of legal and
other instruments that clearly impede and run contrary to the basic notions of
a ‘free, fair and transparent poll’ – a biased state media that acts as a
mouthpiece of the incumbent governing party, numerous (and often times
unconstitutional) laws that restrict critical rights and freedoms including but
not limited to assembly, association, freedom of the media and right to access
public information, a bench and election management body that are often
intimidated and manipulated to favour the incumbent, a security apparatus that
work in collusion with the governing party, use of state resources to buy and
influence voters, to mention but a few.
Bucking the Trend
| Long-serving autocrat of The Gambia defeated
through elections in 2016.
|
The December 2016 election in The
Gambia presents yet the latest positive signal against a tide of a growing
trend of countries fitting within the classification as competitive
authoritarian regimes who use the façade of elections to legitimize their rule.
One key point of note from The Gambia scenario is the necessity of ‘external
scaffolding’ especially from neighbouring countries and as represented in
regional blocs in helping to safeguard the electoral processes and their
outcomes, especially where these face the obvious threat of subversion from
incumbent regimes.
Many argue that the impetus for a
free and fair electoral playing field must be driven from the internal pressure
of the citizens in their countries, and this is probably true. Yes, the
citizens of any country must be the first in line not only to vote during
elections when they are held but also and more importantly, should be the first
to defend their vote through constitutional means. Competitive authoritarian
administrations are always likely to seek to manipulate the electoral process
and outcome in their favour. In Zimbabwe 2008, results of the first round of
elections took a record five weeks to be released, which was unheard of for an
election that did not involve more than five million voters. And yet when it
was apparent that the election was being stolen, the citizens did nothing about
it and allowed it to be stolen.
What it clearly shows is how
citizens sometimes get their tactics wrong when faced with an incumbent
government that acts and behaves in a competitive authoritarian manner. Such
strategies as parallel voter tabulation are vital when it comes to safeguarding
the citizens’ vote, just as it is critical to ensure wholesale participation of
the majority of citizens in the electoral process in the first place. It
remains true that despite the numerous advances in access to information of
recent times, many authoritarian systems have also mastered the art of
strategic denial of information, coupled with misinformation to manipulate
voters. As it stands in Zimbabwe, for example, many myths abound on the
electoral process, particularly the act of voting itself, which continue to
impinge on citizens' confidence and right to freely express themselves at the
ballot.
 |
Vote-buying has become
normalised in countries such
as Zimbabwe.
|
While it is fact that competitive
authoritarian regimes have also devised other means outside the electoral
process to manipulate voters – such as how access to land and land tenure has
become the new ground for manipulation of voters in Zimbabwe or how access to
food aid in times of drought is used as an electoral weapon – it remains true
that such rogue regimes can still be outdone through the electoral process.
What is required is a strategy, unity of purpose and forthrightness and
astuteness of leadership in leading such struggles.
The survival tactics of
governments classified as competitively authoritarian have increasingly become
an open and known affair. For example, it will be known that state media will
remain biased in favour of the incumbent, the police and other security apparatus
may be used to curtail the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, or to
demonstrate, of perceived and real political opponents, state resources will be
used to buy votes and manipulate voters or the bench may even be threatened
openly to give judgements favourable to the incumbent government, as we have
often times seen in Zimbabwe and Uganda. What is required therefore is the tact
and strategic thinking on the part of organized citizens to nullify such
underhand tactics and defending their right to free, fair and transparent
elections.
