Does Election in Africa triggers or ressolves Conflicts?

Introduction

Election-related disputes raise special challenges, particularly around issues such as: how to revive political will and recreate neutral space for citizen participation and confidence in various aspects of the country’s governance process; and how potential mediators from within national boundaries or the international community can walk the fine line of respecting the sovereignty of nation-states while at the same time giving high regard to universal principles such as the responsibility to protect in cases where disputes spill over into full blown conflict. Regional and international actors also face the dilemma of intervening if called upon to do so by one of the parties, and the difficulties of undertaking mediation efforts without the approval and collaboration of the host country government (Sandbrook, 1999). In Zimbabwe, for example, many observers believe that by limiting mediation efforts within the realm of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)  (a regional entity in which incumbent President Mugabe held swear over some of the other leaders) to the exclusion of other international actors, the country missed an opportunity to mitigate the negative impact of further polarization and civil strife in the aftermath of the very controversial parliamentary and presidential elections of March 2008. Since African democracy has been marred by various forms of upheavals which are sometimes triggered by electoral issues, this paper seeks to respond to the question whether elections in the continent becomes a remedy to the various forms of political unrest in the continent, or whether election is able to resolve a protracted conflict. Although there is no yes or a no response to this question, the paper seeks to respond to the issue focusing on both instances where elections has either triggered or resolved conflicts.

Do elections play any role in the peace building process?

While there is a general understanding that elections alone do not a democracy make, there is also recognition that multiparty elections are a necessary pillar in democratic governance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for citizens to have the rights to elect their representatives through regular elections (Rudebeck, 2004). As members of the United Nations, all African countries adhere to the Universal Declaration, and many of them cross reference its provisions in the preambles of their respective constitutions. Elections therefore serve a primordial function in every democratic society. In some cases, peace agreements for countries emerging from armed conflict provide a timeframe for elections in a bid to obtain legitimacy for those that win power, and also in the hopes of providing an opening for former belligerents to transform themselves into more positive political actors that resort to ballots rather than bullets to make their voices heard.

If properly organized, elections, even when conducted as part of a post-conflict agreement or strategy can in fact lend legitimacy to the government that emerges; as was the case with the post-conflict election in 2005 in Liberia won by (the immediate past  President ) Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Conversely, failed elections can exacerbate further conflict. For example, an attempt to hold competitive multiparty elections in Angola in 1992, the first such effort since the country achieved independence in 1974, reignited armed conflict supposedly because the parties were not prepared or the elections were premature.

Overall, by their very competitive nature, elections in fragile states generate extensive political activism and participation, and generally add stress to existing political systems and their nascent institutions. Activities surrounding elections tend to bring to the fore issues such as the right of free association as citizens and candidates engage in campaign activities across the country; the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which may be called upon to rule on election-related grievances, and needs to assure citizens that they can obtain fair and equitable recourse through non-violent means; the professionalism and neutrality of the military, the police and other security services; and the faith of citizens in civil discourse and tolerance of diverse viewpoints. When poorly conducted, elections exacerbate tensions and can spark conflict in transitional societies with fragile institutions. Elections, even when successful, cannot be considered an end in themselves. Rather, elections need to be viewed as a means to achieving the greater aspirations of good governance by citizens in a democratic society or in a democratizing environment. Elections should be viewed as an important step in the continuum of ongoing political and social interactions among citizens and leaders in a given nation-state, involved in negotiations and frequent renewal of the social compact and not be treated solely as a technical exercise that takes place on election day.

A holistic or comprehensive approach to elections allows political actors and various stakeholders to identify flash points or early warning signs for potential conflicts, so as to be better prepared to seize opportunities for eventual monitoring and mediation by national and international actors. Such a comprehensive approach views elections through the broader prism of political (as opposed to technical) undertakings, and the full array of conflict mediation tools ought to be activated or deployed to prevent or quickly resolve election-related conflict. How elections are managed, and responses to election related tensions by various stakeholders  prior to, during and after elections underscore the linkages between mediation activities and election monitoring by both domestic and international groups (Sorensen, 2010). Experience has shown that there is a nexus of overlapping interventions possible when seeking to conduct peaceful elections in conflict prone societies, predicting flashpoints for potential conflicts around elections, and contemplating concrete steps that could be taken to mitigate and mediate conflicts that emerge there from. Also, there are many different forms that mediation can take, at each phase of the electoral process. Traditionally, while much effort is focused on preventive mediation, addressing disputes prior to the eruption of violent conflict, in some cases, “crisis response” mediation will be required, as was in both Kenya and Zimbabwe. Each form of mediation takes a specific approach and requires different actors and strategies. Reviewing the full electoral process through the lens of mediation is therefore important. With over 20 national elections expected to take place in Africa in 2009 and 2010, there is a growing interest in obtaining a better understanding of mechanisms that could enhance the efficacy of mediation efforts around elections so as to mitigate humanitarian crises and make a long lasting positive impact on the governance process, especially for countries engaged in post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation.

Polling day activities

Given heightened sensitivities around elections, good election laws usually provide confidence-enhancing measures that contribute to civil conduct on polling day. For example, election laws in most countries provide for the secrecy of the ballot and for voters to cast their ballots free of any encumbrances. Such laws also provide for vote counting to be conducted in public view, generally at the polling site where the ballots were cast, with preliminary results announced at the same site. They would also make provisions for the announcement of official results in a timely manner. However, in some transitional societies, actions by some polling officials and party representatives violate the law and are susceptible to generating conflict. For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), during the historic transition elections of July, 30, 2006, election day was relatively peaceful, but as word spread around the country that the collation of election results may have been chaotic in some polling stations, tensions began to rise. To its credit, the Independent Election Commission of the DRC moved to announce partial results sooner than the initial date of August 20, thereby helping defuse some of the tension that had begun to build. In an environment in which citizens’ lack thrust in the election administration body, delays in the announcement of results would generate suspicions that the electoral outcome could be tampered with. This is usually compounded by the absence of independent media or other sources of credible information in most transition societies. The probability that misconduct on polling day can generate conflict has been enhanced by modern day technology where fast communication tools such as portable phones (with applications such as facebook, twitter, tango, and so on) and independent radio can relay to a nation-wide audience any unacceptable developments that may have occurred in only a few polling stations or constituencies. However, public information management is key to meeting citizens’ expectations that tend to rise around results (Liberal Democracy in Africa, 2005).

Sometimes, the population may have greater access to information but often still a limited understanding of the mechanics of an electoral process this can lead to tensions as the public expect one result and may be unwilling to accept another. In many African countries where voting patterns differ among constituencies in rural and urban centres or where voting habits tend to follow ethnic and regional affiliation, the announcement of partial results, if poorly managed, can raise suspicions of tampering with the tabulation of votes. In such circumstances, it becomes extremely important to ensure that the electoral management body is proactive in its handling of public information, and is viewed as an impartial actor. With respect to preventive mediation mechanisms, having inter party committees, or agreed codes of conduct that are respected by political parties and their supporters, and consistent and responsible public information messages on polling day can help mitigate tensions (Rudebeck, 2004).

Unwelcome regional and international actors

 Most incumbent governments are reluctant to admit the existence of tensions or the prospects of failed elections in their home country, which makes it difficult for external actors to intervene in election-related disputes either in the pre-election or immediate post-election period. Despite new norms and standards of democratic governance adopted by regional bodies such as the African Union (with its charter, and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and the peer review mechanism), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Southern Africa development Community (SADC), autocratic regimes in countries such as Zimbabwe and Mauritania are unwilling to accept mediation efforts by regional or international actors. Similarly, attempts at preventive diplomacy in Cote d’Ivoire prior to the 2000 elections, and in Guinea prior to the December 2008 coup d’état, were inhibited by an unwillingness of incumbent regimes to acknowledge the existence of tensions or flashpoints for conflict in those countries. Identifying means by which non-state actors can play a more discreet role in advancing mediation options in such environments should be explored. However, if many of the key actors involved in the country in the lead up to elections will be closely involved in the monitoring of the elections, extraordinary steps would need to be taken to avoid the potential conflict of interest between serving as an observer with the obligation to share one’s findings with the public, and being a mediator which may require less public declarations in order to maintain the confidence of the protagonists in the mediation efforts.

Conclusion

Elections are key elements of democratic processes. They provide for transparent and peaceful change of government and distribution of power. For this reason, a strong emphasis on democratisation as a means to durable peace emerged among international policy circles in the early 1990s. The notion of supporting peacebuilding in tandem with democratisation developed as a consequence of the recognition that political repression and discrimination often is the very reason groups took to arms in the first place. Hence, democratisation does not only open up for manifestations of political rights, but is also seen as a response to addressing the root causes of conflict. Support to strengthen institutional capacity to promote democratic norms and to ensure democratic rule of law is now seen as crucial for peacebuilding. Elections and democracy promotion have thus become central strategies to build peace in countries shattered by violent conflict.

Yet experiences and recent research suggest that democratisation in transitional or war-torn countries, and elections in particular, can become a hindrance rather than a solution to peacebuilding (Snyder 2000, Jarstad and Sisk 2008). In fact, elections can generate conflicts, rather than solving them (Paris 2004, Reilly 2002, Lyons 2005, Collier 2009). For several reasons, violence can be an attractive option to influence the electoral process and outcome. In transitional and war-torn countries, incumbents are often manipulating or believed to be tampering with the electoral processes. The opposition parties also have incentives to further their strength through the use of violence. Spoiler groups intent on disrupting the election may use violence to prevent the election from taking place or to make sure that the election outcome is declared invalid. Such violence is potentially damaging for democratic processes and can undermine progress towards democratisation. Electoral violence, beyond direct effects such as hindering people from casting their vote and preventing candidates from participating in the election, can have long-term effects of causing disillusionment and frustration with politics. The absence or presence of political violence during an electoral process is also central to determining the legitimacy of an election. From a conflict prevention perspective, low intensity or localised violence can serve as a ‘training ground’ for more large-scale violence campaigns, including civil war. Managing election-related violence, thus, is important in the long-term effort to build a strong, democratic and peaceful society, based on the rule of law, accountability and transparency. In a nutshell, in so far as elections can be a pedagogical tool in resolving violence, it can also breed civil strife which may in turn into a protracted civil war.

Reference

Rudebeck L. and O. Tornquist, (2004),

“Introduction” in Lars Rudebeck and Olle Tornquist eds.

Democratization in the Third World. Uppsala; The Seminar for Development Studies.

Sandbrook, R. (1999),

The Politics of Africa’s Economic Recovery. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

( 2005), Liberal Democracy in Africa:

A Socialist Revisionist Perspective, Canadian  Journal of

African Studies, 22(2).

(2009), The Politics of Africa’s Economic Stagnation.

 Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Seligman, A. B. ( 2001),

 The Idea of the Civil Society. New Jersey, Princeton; Princeton

University Press.

Sorensen, G. (2010),

Democracy and Democratization. Colorado: Boulder , Westview Press.

Stoker G, (1998),

Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal. No. 155. March.

Szeftel M,( 1998).

Misunderstanding African Politics: Corruption and the Governance Agenda. Review of African Political Economy. No.76.