The current events in Kenya make the sort of sorry reading that has made Africa the butt of bad jokes amongst the world’s community. And there is as yet no end in sight to the crisis and anarchy that have engulfed the one time model of democracy, development and tranquility on the continent. Yet the story of what is happening in Kenya has been told again and again before in several other African states – most notably in Zimbabwe in the past seven years and more recently in Nigeria. Why is it that in spite of all the evidence and lessons from the past, no improvement has occurred and, if anything, matters appear to be worsening on the elections front?
Let me start by saying that I believe in the principle and concept of elections as a platform for choosing national leaders. Throughout history national leadership has been established on a number of bases. In many traditional societies, leadership structures were based on heredity and succession. You were born into leadership and there was little debate on who led the people, other than in few circumstances were succession rules were not clearly defined or where the rulers or the ruled tried to subvert the succession rules. Leadership was also gained through conquest. If you felt your territory or empire was small or if you felt you had strong enough muscle, you simply invaded your neighbours, took over their territories and imposed your rule over their citizens. The third way was through democratic election of leaders by the citizens. Democratic elections, in my view, present the most complex and difficult approach to leadership selection. This is because of three main issues.
The first is unpredictability. Even in the best of circumstances, elections always throw up surprises. Until the votes are cast and counted, there can never be any certainty as to the outcome. Just look at the US (arguably, the world’s leading democracy) elections in the past eight years. In 1990, the leading contenders, George Bush and Al Gore were tied up to the last hour of counting (and recounting) and it took the Supreme to break the impasse. In 2004, there were gasps of surprise when, against the odds and the polls, Bush triumphed over John Kerry. In the current primaries, there has been a see-saw as voters have swung from one candidate to another. It is this element of surprise which motivates leaders to “rig” the election process in order to make the results more predicable – in their favour obviously.
The second issue about elections is that they involve competition against or amongst a number of other candidates. Other than for a few questionable elections in one party state systems were leaders compete against themselves, elections involve making a choice between a number of candidates. In an ideal situation, how those candidates sell themselves to the electorate and the resources which they have to sell themselves and their message will often determine who wins and who losses. This outcome of producing winners and losers compounds the problem in the sense that the winner often goes on to accumulate all the benefits of office while the loser, in many instances, becomes irrelevant or is discarded into the dustbin of history. Again look around and see how many leaders who have lost elections have come back and regained the leadership at another point in future. There are not many and they are even fewer in the more established democracies. It is this fear of being irrelevant which makes it very difficult for serving leaders to accept electoral defeat.
Thirdly, elections are based on personalities. Elections are all about electing a person to lead and that person must exhibit certain qualities that will make him or her more attractive to the electorate than the other candidates. It may be political inclinations (such as left or right leanings, conservative or liberal attitude, etc.) or something even more abstract like charm and charisma or something more tangible like a good policy programme that attracts voters to one leader instead of the other. However, the effect of personalities is influenced by the prevailing circumstances. A strong and uncompromising personality may be seen as relevant in a crisis situation where decisive action is required. However such a personality may be undesirable in stable circumstances where greater flexibility and compromise may be required. Therefore some leaders persist with their old ways believing, quite wrongly, that it still endears them to the electorate as was the case when they were initially elected.
The forth reason why election in Africa have generally been such a sham is what I would call the very low cost of non-conformity. There has been repeated and amplified evidence that nothing serious ever happens to leaders who rig elections. The doctrine of national sovereignty has seen to it that there is very little pressure that can be exerted by outsiders and so a leader who feels that he has relatively strong control (usually through dictatorship and repression) over internal elements will brazenly rig election in the comfort and knowledge that no-one will do anything about it. In any situation in which crime is seen to pay, more and more brazen criminality follows. One rigged election follows another and another and other leaders who witness this impunity are attracted to act in similar ways. The international community, which is generally expected to bring pressure to bear on arrant leaders, has three standard responses which have all been proved to be either ineffective or inappropriate or both.
Firstly, they give conditional approval of faulty elections. They will admit that there were some anomalies in the electoral process but such anomalies were insufficient to subvert the will of the people. This is absolutely wrong. In my view, if there is any evidence of anomalies in the election process, the results must be invalidated unconditionally. Once you start making exceptions, you are opening up the process to abuse and manipulation. In reality, an abuse may appear to be minor but its effect can be quite major and, alternatively, a large number of minor abuses can amount to a serious abuse. The election is the stock exchange at which the business of democracy is transacted. Just imagine running a stock exchange in which a little insider trading is permitted! Electoral anomalies should be vigorously investigated and offenders must be prosecuted without fail. That is the only way to stop these debilitating malpractices.
Second, they will condemn the election but state that the aggrieved parties should follow the legal channels for redress. This assumes that the legal system actually works efficiently and impartially. The reality is that in countries where electoral rape takes place, the legal system is usually hopelessly compromised and inefficient. To make matters worse, the legal systems are so slow that by the time the matter has gone through the hearing process and been decided upon, the term of office being contested will have ended. In Zimbabwe, electoral court cases arising from the 2000 elections had not been concluded when the 2005 elections were held. So what is the point of going to court if redress will not be achieved in a reasonable space of time? In my view, contested results should not be allowed to stand until the courts have resolved the matter. In other words, winners of questionable contests should not be sworn into office until the legal challenges have been exhausted.
The third reaction is to admit that the electoral process was flawed but the “winners” and “losers” should form a government of national unity. This is a seriously faulty and offensive solution to the problem. It is tantamount to suggesting that a victim of rape should marry her violator or that a robber should share the loot that he has robbed with his victim. This is illogical, acceptable and intolerable in a democratic sense. If a leader steals an election he should be condemned, prosecuted and forced out of office and not rewarded with leading a government of national unity. There should be no reward for transgressing.
Given all these problems with elections, I submit that hotly contested election results, such as those in Kenya, should be subject to adjudication by an international court. The United Nations should establish such a judicial institution to review election results when required. Anyone who rigs or steals elections should be considered as having committed crimes against his people and should be dealt with in the same way as those accused of committing genocide. For what is a worse genocide that denying your own people their universal right to choose leaders of their own liking and preference?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment