Why we all must be suspicious when African presidents embrace elections
What you need to know:
- Across the continent, the nature of that transition to democracy was varied and the substance of the outcome differed greatly. In Benin, a national conference inaugurated the process while in Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire, it was resisted and aborted mid-way.
- In Zambia, the anchoring of the pro-democracy movement around a trade union helped prevent internal divisions within that movement and propelled Frederick Chiluba to power. In Kenya, the movement was carefully managed in favour of authoritarianism.
- Perhaps, the key reason why elections have been embraced by presidents but increasingly suspected by voters is that they have been susceptible to manipulation and corruption. Many ruling parties depend on a divisive factional logic to remain in power.
Before his popular ouster the other day, Blaise Compaoré wanted to amend the Constitution to extend his term.
This was unthinkable a few years ago when African presidents hated elections and did everything to stall the democratic transition that led to multiparty politics. In many cases, they killed, maimed, exiled or simply denied citizenship to proponents of multi-party politics.
But by the turn of the century, the attitude towards multiparty politics had shifted. No longer was it that African presidents fought against multiparty democracy, they began to embrace it; some with alacrity, others grudgingly.
Across the continent, the nature of that transition to democracy was varied and the substance of the outcome differed greatly. In Benin, a national conference inaugurated the process while in Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire, it was resisted and aborted mid-way.
In Zambia, the anchoring of the pro-democracy movement around a trade union helped prevent internal divisions within that movement and propelled Frederick Chiluba to power. In Kenya, the movement was carefully managed in favour of authoritarianism.
Perhaps, the key reason why elections have been embraced by presidents but increasingly suspected by voters is that they have been susceptible to manipulation and corruption. Many ruling parties depend on a divisive factional logic to remain in power. The logic could include a religious (Egypt and Nigeria), ethnic (Kenya and Cameroun), or a regional/nationalist argument (Zanzibar or Northern Nigeria).
The manipulation and corruption has come in many ways but the effect has been to stall democratic consolidation. For instance, the threshold of acceptable error in election management has been stretched to unimaginable levels. Where simple mathematical errors occur, these have been manipulated to ensure incumbent regimes remain in power.
BASIC MATHEMATICS ABUSED
It happened in Nigeria (2003), Kenya (2007) and Zimbabwe (2008). In some of these cases, actual voting was generally smooth but basic mathematics was abused during transmission and tallying to retain the incumbent. In worse situations like in Nigeria in 2003, as in Kenya in 1988, names of winners were exchanged with those of losers.
Thus, as my colleagues, Khabele Matlosa and Cyril Obi, argue in various studies, we now have a ‘menu of manipulations’ that disempower people who vote so that elections do not translate into expressing popular will.
Elections are haunted by the spectre of refusal to relinquish power when defeated (Zimbabwe), of godfatherism (Nigeria) and term elongation by removing constitutional term limits (Uganda). Where these strategies have failed, as in Cote d’Ivoire and in Burkina Faso, the results have been devastating.
This explains why violence around elections have become a core part of the electoral process and governments and donors feel compelled to include in electoral support package a peace-building component.
What has not been addressed frontally is the fact that violence is more often than not engineered by deliberate fraud within the electoral process. Peace-building works where tension is organic within society but not in situations where violence is instrumentalised to win an election under all circumstances. In many cases, election violence is deliberately instigated based on a militaristic, religious or ethnic logic.
PROVOKING VIOLENCE
No amount of support for peace-building will ensure peace if the actors in an electoral process are committed to provoking violence or using its fear to win elections as in Kenya (2013). This is why control over the security apparatus has become the key price and elite resistance to security sector transformation the norm.
The security sector has become a core participant in the abuse of elections. In most instances where elections are abused in Africa, the security/political elite have played a role in frustrating the transparent conduct of elections. Generally, elections in Africa are a façade not an avenue for change.
Godwin Murunga is Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi. [email protected]
