Election Management Bodies in Southern Africa: Comparative study of the electoral commissions’ contribution to electoral processes

Osisa

Description

Over the past two decades, Southern African countries have entrenched the use of elections as the only means and medium for electing governments and representative institutions in governance. Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) are central to the delivery and quality of elections. These institutions are mandated to manage most or all aspects of the electoral process. Informed by diverse factors – the design, mandate, extent of powers and even the number of institutions responsible for electoral matters vary in each country. This study is a collaborative effort between the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), the Open Society Foundation’s Africa Regional Office (AfRO) and the Electoral Commissions Forum of the Southern African Development Community (ECF-SADC). For each of the 12 countries, the research covered:Comparative analysis of the legal frameworks the EMBs operate under and of the historical and political contexts they function within;Comparative study of the institutional nature of the EMBs;Assessment of the powers vested in the EMBs in the conduct and management of electoral processes and their role in the drafting of electoral laws, managing electoral operations, certifying and proclaiming electoral results, ensuring that electoral results are credible, and in resolving electoral conflicts; andComparative assessment of the independence of the EMBs with particular reference to funding and their relationships with the executive, political parties, parliament and the judiciary (electoral justice mechanisms).Findings and recommendations from this pan-African initiative are expected to increase information and knowledge on the strengths, weaknesses and workings of EMBs in sub-Saharan Africa to facilitate peer learning among African election managers, as well as informing policy-makers, legislators, governments and civil society on a progressive reform agenda to strengthen inclusive electoral processes and democratic practice.

Sujets

• Politique

Informations

• Publié par: African Minds
• Date de parution: 04 décembre 2017
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781928332176
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Election Management Bodies in Southern Africa Comparative study of the electoral commissions’ contribution to electoral processes

A review by Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa and ECF-SADC

2 0 1 6

Election Management Bodies in Southern Africa Comparative study of the electoral commissions’ contribution to electoral processes

A review by Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa and ECF-SADC

2 0 1 6

Published by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) and African Minds

OSISA President Place 1 Hood Avenue Rosebank Johannesburg, 2196 South Africa www.osisa.org African Minds 4 Eccleston Place, Somerset West, 7130, Cape Town, South Africa [e-mail] www.africanminds.org.za  2016 All contents of this document, unless speciîed otherwise, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International Licence

ISBNs Print: 978-1-928332-17-6 EBook: 978-1-928332-18-3 e-Pub: 978-1-928332-19-0 Copies of this book are available for free download at www.africanminds.org.za and www.osisa.org ORDERS To order printed copies within Africa, please contact: African Minds Email: [e-mail]

To order printed copies from outside Africa, please contact: African Books Collective PO Box 721, Oxford OX1 9EN, UK Email: [e-mail]

CON T EN T S

Preface_____________________________________________________ iv Acknowledgements____________________________________________ vii Overview __________________________________________________ viii 1. Angola Dr Nuno de Fragoso Vidal ____________________________________________ 1 2. Botswana Prof. Emmanuel Botlhale, with Dr Onalenna Selolwane __________________ 45 3. Democratic Republic of Congo Dr Joseph Cihunda Hengelela ________________________________________ 75 4. Lesotho Prof. Mafa M. Sejanamane__________________________________________ 109 5. Malawi Ms Ann Maganga__________________________________________________ 133 6. Mauritius Dr Roukaya Kasenally ______________________________________________ 163 7. Mozambique Dr Domingos M do Rosário _________________________________________ 189 8. Namibia Mr Moses Ndjarakana______________________________________________ 219 9. Seychelles Dr Nandini Patel___________________________________________________ 235 10. South Africa Dr Coee Scuz-Herzenberg ______________________________________ 259 11. Zambia Dr Njunga-Mïcae Muïkïa_________________________________________ 289 12. Zimbabwe Dr Charity Manyeruke______________________________________________ 317

iii

PREFACE

To the extent that elections determine how political power is allocated and dispersed, and the related management of public resources, they are high-stakes events and high points in the political history of any country. In many countries around the world, disputed or failed elections have been the cause of much human insecurity, deaths and destruction of lives and property. Against this background, over the past two decades or so, Southern African countries have entrenched the use of elections as the only means and medium for electing governments and representative institutions in governance. As a region, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has been spared the ignominy and spectre of military rule. The question is no longer whether or not elections regularly and periodically take place to enable citizens the exercise of their constitutional authority as envisaged in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rather, it is the quality of the elections that is at issue. The primary question today is whether elections are inclusive and fair, and produce truly legitimate outcomes. Experiences from the region and elsewhere have shown that when an electoral process fails to produce credible outcomes, the legitimacy of institutions of governance is brought into question, with declining citizen conîdence in electoral processes. Central to elections are electoral management bodies (EMBs). These institutions, which are creatures of national constitutions or statute, are mandated to manage most, if not all, aspects of the electoral process, including but not limited to: the registration of voters; preparing and updating of voters’ registers; the registration of political parties – in general or for elections; civic and voter education; the nomination of candidates for elections; the enforcement of electoral codes of conduct; regulating media coverage of elections; the accreditation of party agents and observers; polling and announcement of results; and recommending electoral reforms. Informed by the political history, constitutional traditions of the country and lessons from regional and international best practice, the design, mandate, extent of powers and even the number of institutions responsible for electoral matters in each country, vary. For example, while some countries have one EMB for all electoral matters, in some countries these functions, especially those relating to the registration of voters, the registration and regulation of political parties, and the regulation of media coverage of elections may be dispersed among more than one institution. Whatever the design and context, credible elections are dependent on an electoral management process that is faithful to the principles 1 of ‘independence, impartiality, transparency, professionalism, and sustainability’.

1 See ps://aceprojec.org/ero-en/mïsc/egyp-prïncïpes-for-ïndependen-and-susaïnabe [accessed 6 August 2016].

i

v

PREFACE

As organisers and referees of highly contested, sometimes zero-sum contests on the transfer of citizens’ trust to elected representatives and institutions, EMBs are every loser’s worst enemy. They are generally misunderstood institutions, sometimes suering serious stakeholder trust deîcits, and often criticised for that which they are not mandated or even permitted to do. If they are not îghting o possible manipulation by vested interests – such as incumbent governments, and powerful political and business interests – EMBs may have to deal with an unfavourable political and legislative environment or deliberate or unavoidable înancial asphyxiation, all of which limit their capacity to deliver credible elections. This study, which is a collaborative eort between the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), the Open Society Foundation’s Africa Regional Oïce (Af RO) and the Electoral Commissions Forum of Southern African Development Community Countries (SADC-ECF), builds on similar work undertaken by Af RO together with the Open Society Initiative for East Africa (OSIEA) in 2015 and the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) in 2011. Findings and recommendations from this pan- African initiative are expected to increase information and knowledge on the strengths, weaknesses and workings of EMBs in sub-Saharan Africa with a view to facilitating peer learning among African election managers, as well as informing policy-makers, legislators, governments and civil society on a progressive reform agenda to strengthen inclusive electoral processes and democratic practice. In Southern Africa, EMBs whose states are members of the SADC are organised under the SADC-ECF. Established in 1998, the SADC ECF seeks to strengthen EMBs in the SADC region as well as promote conditions conducive to free, fair, credible and transparent elections. This it does primarily through peer learning and capacity building of its membership. Pursuant to this mandate, in 2003, the SADC-ECF partnered with the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa or the Electoral Institute for Southern Africa (EISA), as it was known then, to develop and adopt Principles for Election Management, Monitoring and Observation in the SADC Region (PEMMO). Since then, the PEMMO have been the guiding principle of the SADC-ECF’s work on the management, monitoring and observation of elections in SADC member states. In 2007, the SADC-ECF added to its toolbox, the Principles on the Independence of EMBs in the SADC Region. By establishing and nurturing this partnership with the SADC- ECF (and its 15 EMB membership), both OSISA and Af RO seek to not only promote co-ownership of the research process by EMBs, but also, very importantly, ensure that îndings and recommendations from the study are fed directly into the formal decision- making processes of the organisation and through it the respective EMBs’ national-level processes, as necessary. Through its membership, the SADC-ECF is well placed to bring regional best practices to bear at the national level. This study, the largest of the three studies covering East, West and Southern Africa covers Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

v

ELEC TION MANAGEMENT BODIES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

While Tanzania is a member of the SADC-ECF, the country was not included in this study as it was covered in the East African study. For each of the 12 countries, researchers focused on: • A comparative analysis of the legal frameworks the EMBs operate under and of the historical and political contexts they function within; • A comparative study of the institutional nature of the EMBs; • An assessment of the powers vested in the EMBs in the conduct and management of electoral processes with particular reference to the preparation, management and updating of electoral registers; the identiîcation and updating of electoral constituencies; roles in the drafting of electoral laws; the conduct and management of electoral operations; roles in certifying and proclaiming electoral results; roles in ensuring that electoral results are credible; and roles in electoral conict resolution; • A comparative assessment of the independence of the EMBs with particular reference to funding and relationships with the executive, political parties, parliament and the judiciary (electoral justice mechanisms).

Siphosami Malunga Executive Director, OSISA

v

i

ACKNOWL ED GEMEN T S

This book beneîted from the partnership of the Electoral Commissions Forum of the Southern African Development Community (ECF-SADC), the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) and the Africa Regional Oïce (Af RO), who worked collaboratively with all the election management bodies in Southern Africa to bring this publication to fruition. We thank the following persons for their contributions to this publication: Hilda Modisane, ECF-SADC Programme Manager; Siphosami Malunga, OSISA Executive Director; Ozias Tungwarara, Programme Support Division Director Af RO; Takawira Musavengana, OSISA Democracy and Governance Cluster Team Leader, Lusako Munyenyembe, OSISA Democracy and Governance Programme Oïcer, and Glen Mpani, OSISA Democracy and Governance Programme Manager. Special mention goes to Benedict Komeke, OSISA Democracy and Governance Programme Associate, who assisted in organising the review and related meetings. We also extend our gratitude to all the chapter authors: Dr Nuno de Fragoso Vidal (Angola); Prof. Emmanuel Botlhale with Dr Onalenna Selolwane (Botswana); Dr Joseph Cihunda Hengelela (the DRC); Prof. Mafa M Sejanamane (Lesotho); Ms Ann Maganga (Malawi); Dr Roukaya Kasenally (Mauritius); Dr Domingos M do Rosário (Mozambique); Mr Moses Ndjarakana (Namibia); Dr Nandini Patel (Seychelles); Dr Collette Schulz- Herzenberg (South Africa); Dr Njunga-Michael Mulikita (Zambia); and Dr Charity Manyeruke (Zimbabwe); and the editor, Prof. Mcebisi Ndletyana. This project would not have been possible without the leadership of the respective chairpersons and senior management of EMBs as well as that of the ECF-SADC under its President, Hon. Justice Rita Makarau and the Chairperson of the ECF-SADC Executive Committee, Hon. Justice Mahapela Lehohla.

vii

OV ERV IE W

The 21st century has seen electoral democracy ourishing in Africa. Countries located in the southernmost region of the continent have been no exception. The Freedom House, the global body that rates the democratic status of the various countries, aïrms this. Reporting on the year 2015, the organisation’s report, ‘Freedom in the World 2016’, cites member countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) largely in approving terms. Only two countries in the region, for instance, are rated ‘not free’, whilst 1 the rest range between ‘partly free’ and ‘free’. Today’s picture is drastically dierent to what prevailed in the immediate 30 odd years following decolonisation. Independence was soon followed either by one-party states, sheer authoritarianism or a descent into civil war. Post-colonial leaders had become a reincarnation of their colonial oppressors. Just as the former colonial subjects thought they had înally realised the dream of democracy, it was once again deferred and seemed never to return. Whilst lasting almost two generations, the nightmare of post-colonial oppression did pass. It ended just as the 20th century was coming to a close. By the early 1990s, undemocratic independent Africa was also swept up in what the American scholar, Samuel 2 Huntington, dubbed, ‘the second wave of democracy’. The catalyst came outside the continent, set in motion by the end of the Cold War and the consequent rise of the unipolar 3 world-order dominated by the United States of America and her West European allies. America adopted democratisation as its mission to spread throughout the un-free world. Joining America in her quest were global lending institutions, namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In addition to the structural adjustment of the economy, these lending institutions insisted on democratisation. That pre-condition found resonance in the pro-democracy movements that were emerging throughout the continent, largely spurred by the relatively low standards of life. To save their economies, and partly hoping to thwart the loss of their political power, Africa’s undemocratic elite acceded to democratisation. Thus the last decade of the 20th century ushered in competitive politics. Once again elections quickly became a regular feature of Africa’s post-colonial politics. In some instances, old regimes made way for new governments. Whilst laudable, the excitement

1 Avaïabe a ps://freedomouse.org/repor/freedom-word/freedom-word-2016 [accessed 26 july 2016]. 2 Hunnon SP (1991)The Thïrd Wave: Democrazaon ïn he Lae Tweneh Cenury.Norman, Okaoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 3 Dïamond L & Paner MF (eds)(1993)The Goba Resurgence of Democracy. Bamore: Jon Hopkïns University Press.

viii

with elections betrayed a awed fascination with mere compliance with procedures. Little attention was given to electoral governance. This is quite dierent to mere electoral processes. It focuses more on the institutional structures that administer the elections to ensure that they are conîgured in a manner that imbues them with integrity and thus enable them to deliver credible elections. In turn, credible elections go a long way in 4 enhancing the political institutions and the system. From the early 2000s, therefore, the institutional structures that administered the elections became just as important as the occurrence and process of elections. Particular attention was focused on both the legislative and institutional framework, especially to achieve uniformity in the region. To this end, and among other instruments, SADC’s Electoral Commissions Forum (here-after referred as the ‘Forum’), adopted the document: ‘Principles for Election Management, Monitoring and Observation in the SADC Region’, 5 on 6 November 2003. The foregoing document underscored a number of principles on electoral governance. On the election management bodies (EMBs), for instance, the document stipulated that they should be: • Funded adequately to undertake their legislated or prescribed functions; • Representative of society, especially women and that care be taken to appoint independent individuals, some of whom should be competent in legal issues; • Accountable only to parliament, and not a ministry, enhancing their prospects of being independent; and • Funded directly by parliament through a budget vote.

That said, the Forum didn’t prescribe the form of the EMB. This was an acceptance that they do and can take various shapes. As a principle, EMBs are generally made up of a Commission, which is an executive body, and the administrative section that attends to the day-to-day logistical issues related to the elections. This combination has given rise to three forms of EMBs: stand-alone, statist and mixed. A stand-alone EMB not only has an independent institutional location, but also has its own sta serving as the administrative arm. Conversely, a statist EMB is part of the state machinery, located within a particular ministry, and uses civil servants to undertake the actual work. A mixed EMB entails a commission that plays a supervisory/executive role, whilst civil servants constitute the administration. In other words, each country adopts the form that best suits it. Whilst allowing for variety, however, the Forum has repeatedly emphasised the importance of internalising the above-mentioned principles, and others, in the conîguration of EMBs and running

4 Lïndsberg S (2009) Democrasaon by eecons: A mïxed record.Journa of Democracy20(3): 86–92. 5 Avaïabe a p://www.ïdea.ïn/afrïca/souern/upoad/Te-SADC-ECF-EISA-Prïncïpes-documen.pdf [accessed 26 Juy 2016].

i

x

ELEC TION MANAGEMENT BODIES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

of their elections. In undertaking this study, with the explicit support and cooperation of the Forum, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) underscores the importance of EMBs in delivering credible elections. Their functions straddle the multiple phases that characterise the electoral process, from the campaign, to the election-day and counting of ballot papers, and to the announcement of results. For example, some of the EMBs key functions include compiling and updating the voters’ roll, registering political parties and candidates, drawing-up and enforcing a code of conduct, setting up voting stations and delivering the election material, counting the ballot papers, arbitrating over disputes and announcing the election results. All these functions are critical to the fairness of the electoral process and general acceptance of the outcome and, ultimately, the stability of the country. The study was done in 12 countries, all within the SADC region. They are: • Angola • Botswana • Democratic Republic of Congo • Lesotho • Malawi • Mauritius • Mozambique • Namibia • Seychelles • South Africa • Zambia • Zimbabwe

As noted earlier, members of SADC Forum collaborated with OSISA and the team of researchers from the conceptualisation of the research guide, to alerting the various member countries of impeding visits from researchers and urging them to cooperate. Their representatives were present, for instance, at the inception workshop held in Harare in August 2015 to conceptualise the research guide. The inception workshop was also attended by the representatives of the various electoral commissions. The idea was to ensure transparency of the process, and to enhance the rigour of the research questions and methodology. In this way, the EMBs and commissioners, who are the subject and respondents of the research, could develop conîdence in both the integrity and utility of the research papers for their own work. The research team was made of researchers drawn from each country. Care was taken to appoint individuals who are not only resident in their countries of study, but were also intimately knowledgeable about the EMBs, the electoral process and the general history of the country. Researchers had either published and/or been involved in electoral work of their country of study. Overall, the team was multiracial and gender-representative, and with mostly one researcher from each country.

x