Publications

ELECTORAL PROCESS ISSUES: ZAMBIA 2001 TRIPARTITE ELECTIONS

The Challenge

On 31 October multi-party elections were held in Zambia for President of the newly constituted Third Republic and for Members of Parliament.  In results that were heralded throughout Africa, a new President was elected with a commanding majority of his party in Parliament.  The outgoing President, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, who had ruled in a one-party regime for 27 years, retired immediately and gracefully, and the new President, Mr. F.J.T. Chiluba was sworn in on 2 November 1991.I was privileged to sit in the front row of observers for the inauguration that occurred that November morning on the grounds of the Supreme Court.  Having served on the ZEMCC team of monitors (the church and civil society group that later became FODEP), I was immensely impressed by the peaceful transition to a new regime with a new set of leaders, elected in a generally free and fair fashion. (I say “generally” because there were a few hitches in the overall process.)  And I was greatly encouraged by the enthusiastic reception of the 100,000-plus citizens of Zambia who had gathered in the space of less than an hour after the announcement of election results.Zambia had, in a remarkable fashion, “set a standard for Africa,” holding high the banner of free and fair elections and peaceful transition from one leader and his party to another.

Other African countries could look on with envy, as a constitutional process – again, not with its flaws – had been adhered to in the choice of political leadership.  Now, ten years later, we are on the eve of another election here in Zambia, tripartite elections for President, Members of Parliament and local councillors.  The question we in Zambia are asking – as are many others outside of this country – is: will Zambia again set a standard for Africa by holding high the banner of free and fair elections?  

This is a particularly critical question at the moment, as other states in Africa line up for elections in the coming year, and as we ourselves are surrounded by states with the serious problems of civil war – Congo and Zimbabwe – and social-political conflict – Zimbabwe.The conference assembled here today, just three weeks prior to the general elections, is to look specifically at this all-important question, under the theme of a “Public Discussion on the Electoral Process.”  We all know that the electoral process is key to the organisation and operation of democracy, here in Zambia and elsewhere.  When we say that democracy is “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” we are aware that the government must be chosen in a way that is inclusive of all (by the people), participated in by all (by the people) and beneficial for all (for the people.   But unless there is authentic  inclusion and genuine participation, there can be no realistic benefits.  And inclusion and participation relate directly to what is referred to as the electoral process.

Now before I bore you with further lectures on the meaning of democracy (and perhaps give you the wrong impression that I am aiming for a lectureship at the new “Institute of Democracy and Industrial Relations”!), let me make the obvious point about why we are holding such a conference as this only a short time before the elections.  That point is, simply stated, we are worried that today there are serious flaws in the electoral process that can endanger a democratic outcome of the elections.  In other words, unless these flaws are addressed, Zambia will not hold high the banner of free and fair elections and peaceful transition that it did ten years ago.  I personally believe that at least many of the major flaws can indeed be addressed, if we – the group represented here this morning – act with the wisdom, strength and courage that was manifested several months ago when the Oasis Forum effectively protected the rule of constitutional law in this country by blocking the third term aspirations and manipulations of the incumbent president.

Recall for a moment the significance of that action.  The churches – representing the moral and ethical community of the country, the Law Association – representing the legal and constitutional guardians of the country, and the non-governmental organisations, representing the civil and local-based groups of the country, came together with keen analysis and smart strategy to uphold the constitutionally-guaranteed two-term limit to the presidency.  The issue was principle, not personality, the outcome was law, not lawlessness, the lesson was responsibility, not ruthlessness.

But I do not believe and feel constrained to state now that we cannot underestimate the serious damage done to the democratic reality in Zambia by that dangerous, indeed reckless, attempt to change the constitution in the middle of elections for the benefit of one named candidate.  What was frequently defended on the curious and anomalous grounds of “promoting democracy” led in fact to a series of anti-democratic results, namely:

·         a prolonged delay in the start of registration of voters, with a consequent extremely low number of citizens actually registering·         a vicious splitting of the ruling party, with a consequent weakening of their governance capacities and a proliferation of opposition parties led by for key government officials·         a deepening apathy among the voting population, with a consequent cynicism about whether voting would really make any difference·         a disastrous distraction of policy makers from key issues, with a consequent neglect of such crucial issues as poverty and the decline of social services·         a cynical postponement in announcing the day of elections, with a consequent disenfranchisement of thousands of Zambians because 27 December is surely among the worst of dates in the year to hold general elections

But let me turn directly to the key issues of the electoral process that we are discussing today.  My task in offering a “keynote address” is not to go into fine details – that will come in the subsequent discussions – but to briefly over an overview, a framework, for seeing the challenges facing Zambia as we move toward 27 December.  Let me highlight three major concerns about the electoral process and the issues that are encompassed   within these concerns: (1) constitutional, (2) attitudinal and (3) structural. The first concern, constitutional,  is long-term, and must be dealt with after the elections; the second concern, attitudinal, is immediate short-term and can be dealt with more quickly; the third concern, structural, is on-going short-term and must be dealt with every day between now and the elections.

1.       Constitutional

We are currently stuck with some serious constitutional flaws that cannot be remedied now, before the elections, but surely must be corrected in an overall constitutional review that should be called for shortly after the new government is inaugurated.  If it is true that we are not now within the Third Republic but the Three-point-five Republic (thanks to several mischievous 1996 constitutional amendments to the 1991 Constitution), then we surely know from the experience of the past several months that we must attend to three constitutional corrections if the electoral process is to be more democratic the next time we have general elections, in 2006.  Recognising that not everyone here may agree with my suggestions, I put them out for your consideration.First, the qualifications for candidature for president must be revisited, to eliminate the discriminatory clause regarding citizenship of parents.  Look how much time and energy has been wasted recently in fruitless exchanges about whose father was born where! 

What significant difference does it make, I ask, especially when we consider that “born in Zambia” had no political meaning until after 1964.  Second, the actual date of elections should be constitutionally set, e.g., the first Tuesday of May, or whatever.  Given the Zambian system of government, the President could still dissolve Parliament and call for new elections prior to that date.  But under normal circumstances, the public at large could expect to know the date of elections since it is written in the public document of the Constitution and not in the private heart of the person who is not only Head of State and Head of Government but also Head of Party! 

The petty bickering about when, if ever, the date would be announced, and the destabilising speculations that it might even be announced for as far ahead as April 2002, finally gave way to a date two days after Christmas and in the midst of the heavy rain season – hardly a contribution to a good electoral process!Third, some constitutional arrangement should be made for a run-off between the top two candidates if no candidate secured a 51% majority of the votes.  Thus we could avoid the possibility of facing the democratically distressing situation of the choice of the Republican  President by a very small minority of voters. Just do some simple mathematics for an undesirable scenario.  Let a probable voting turnout on 27 December of 1.75 million (a generous figure) be distributed roughly among eleven candidates.  It is possible that the next president could be elected with less than 200,000 votes, or less than 15% of the eligible voters, which means probably less than 10% of the actual population.

This is not a step toward sustainable democratic government!I call these three constitutional issues “long-term concerns” since we cannot deal with them until after the elections.   It is then that a genuinely non-partisan constitutional review should be instituted, to deal with these electoral process issues as well as other key constitutional issues such as moderating the powers of the president, enlarging the field of choices for cabinet, increasing the powers of Parliament, strengthening the protection of human rights (with special attention to women), abolishing the death penalty and removing the “Declaration of the Christian Nation.”

2.       Attitudinal

I would include under the attitudinal concern two key issues: (a) fear and (b) confusion on the part of the citizens of Zambia.   Both of these can and should be dealt with immediately, if some strong statesmanship would be exercised both by the incumbent president and by the aspiring candidates for president.Fear is an issue damaging the electoral process.  The rising tide of violence in so many different parts of the nation is truly frightening.  We are not, thank God, Angola, Congo or Zimbabwe.  But we are Zambia, where, if I am not mistaken, electoral violence has not been part of our history.  But mindless attacks on candidates and their supporters by people confusedly called “party cadres,” is destabilising our fragile democracy.

Let me share a personal experience: on Tuesday evening of this week, I was in the midst of five hundred or more Zambians (possibly many of you were there) attending the highly successful Public Forum for Parliamentary Candidates in the Munali and Lusaka Central constituencies.  Sponsored by the Parliamentary Liaison Programme of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Forum was held Nakatindi Hall.  About thirty minutes into the evening, a growing commotion was heard outside the hall, with shouts and hooting horns. 

I felt the electricity of fear sweep across the audience – was this an invasion of cadres, possibly targeting unpopular candidates like Dipak Patel or Edith Nawakwi or Patrick Kangwa?  Or going after the outspoken sponsors from CCJP?  Or simply breaking up peaceful meetings of persons suspected not to be favourable to the cadres’ chosen candidates?  For at least three or four minutes, the hall was visibly moved – fearful.  Thank God, the noisy commotion turned out to be only the late arrival of a candidate with an unruly entourage.  But the experience made me realise how fearful the country can become in the next few weeks if violence is immediately halted.

Beatings of opponents, disruption of meetings, hurling of insults and threats, shootings – this does not make for the peaceful environment necessary for an electoral process leading to democratic results.  Let me suggest two recommendations that should come from this forum today.  First, call upon the President to forthwith and unequivocally condemn all violence and order expulsion from his party of anyone fomenting violence, not matter how highly placed.   If the President can spend time bringing peace to the Central African Republic and other areas in Africa, surely he can spend more time, energy and commitment halting the violence within his own country!  My second suggestion is to have this forum call for every Presidential candidate to sign – one more time if they have already signed – a clear commitment to peace, non-retaliation in the face of attacks, and expulsion from their parties of those who promote any violence. 

The attitude of accepting violence as inevitable in our electoral process is simply unacceptable!The second immediate short term short term concern is the attitude of confusion.   By this I mean the debilitating sense of perplexity or even bewilderment caused by the presence of eleven candidates for the Presidency.  Now some may say that this is a sign of democratic vitality and political maturity.  But I seriously wonder if that is the case.  So many candidates, and so many recent “converts” from employment in a regime they now roundly condemn as corrupt, heartless and ineffective.   (By way of aside, as a religious pastor as well as political analyst, I do believe in the possibility of personal conversion, a turning from evil ways, but I would ordinarily call for a period of five years of repentance before resuming active participation in one’s former profession!)  Is it not possible to see the wisdom, not to say the political efficacy, of narrowing the field of candidates?  This is not offered as a partisan position, a strategy just to gang up the opposition forces against the incumbent party.  No! Rather it is a suggestion of promoting a more effective democratic electoral process, with less confusion being offered to the voting public.

Focus manifestos, choose credible candidates to be supported by several parties, campaign with necessary unity, not necessarily uniformity.  This can certainly be done at the local and Parliamentary level.   And I believe it still could be done at the Presidential level.  Indeed, I am willing to predict that come 27 December, we won’t see eleven candidates but possibly only four or five at the most.  (Come back to me after elections to tell me whether my powers of prediction are good or bad!)The attitude of confusion can and must be dealt with if the electoral process is to be strengthened going in to these final days of campaigning.

3.       Structural

Now let me turn to several electoral process issues that we will be taking up to consider in more detail in the rest of the morning and in the afternoon. I call this third concern, a structural concern, an on-going short-term concern because it must be dealt with every day between now and the elections.   These include structural issues that need not wait for constitutional action but can and should be addressed right away, from today onward. In recent weeks I have listened to people talking about seven or eight issues and have heard some analysis from a few long-term observers who have been accredited by the Electoral Commission to monitor the elections.  These are indeed serious issues that must be seriously addressed if the electoral process is to assure a democratic outcome from a free and fair election.  And it is not enough to simply lament these problems – they must be solved!Let me only briefly mention them, because they will receive much deeper analysis in the papers to be presented later today.

First, the role of the Electoral Commission of Zambia simply has to be up-lifted more prominently in the days ahead.  Without requiring constitutional amendment or even statutory rearrangements, let the ECZ be seen as a truly non-partisan watchdog of a democratic electoral process.  Give them money if that is what they need.  Give them expert advice if that is what they need.  Give them vehicles if that is what they need.  Give them courage if that is what they need!  But the constant refrain, “This is not in our mandate or within our capability,” is an unacceptable excuse for inaction that is deteriorating the electoral process.  There is a clear – more or less – Code of Electoral Conduct that stipulates right and wrong actions. Buying of votes, threatening of citizens, mismanaging of logistics – these undemocratic actions cannot be tolerated.  Let’s hear that the ECZ is teaching a strict enforcement of that Code, investigating charges of violation, and pursuing its implementation and necessary prosecution “without fear or favour”!

Second, there must be more honest use of the Police Force and more just implementation of the Public Order Act.  Whether they like to hear it or not, police officials must recognise that their reputation as independent and non-partisan servants of the law has been seriously compromised.There is an unfortunate perception of political use of the police by the incumbent government.  Ignoring of illegal actions by ruling party cadres and even the reprimanding of officers who do exercise their duties in a professional manner undermines public trust that the police will be impartial in all situations.  Moreover, dangerous ambiguity still remains around the implementation of the Public Order Act.  We all know that “permits” are not required for public gatherings, only “notices” issued in a timely fashion.  Yet a catalogue of instances of arbitrary denial of the right to assemble, to march, to gather indoors (even to land airplanes!), can be gathered in recent months.  Unfortunately, there are also reported instances of interference in some places by District Administrators who influence the implementation of the Public Order Act.

Third, the encouragement of effective monitoring of the elections must be high on the agenda of concern for good electoral process.  But the unreasonable imposition of fees for independent monitors and other regulatory procedures are having the effect of discouraging placement of monitors.  Let one simple question be asked: what steps are necessary to guarantee effective and widespread monitoring by both citizens and outside observers?  If monitoring has a valuable role to play in assuring an open and honest electoral process, then take steps to promote that monitoring, not to limit it arbitrarily.

Fourth, the use of state resources for the support of candidates of the ruling party is not only undemocratic but also illegal.  Government vehicles, office space, telephones, printing machines, etc., etc., may not be utilised for the promotion of candidates of the ruling party.  If one thing was abundantly clear in the 1991 elections, it was the strong rejection of the “PIG”, the “party and its government.”  PIG mentality or activity is simply unacceptable.  One specific instance that perhaps calls for legal action to halt immediately is the use of government funds to protect, transport and enhance the presidential candidate of the ruling party.  Moreover, distribution of presidential discretionary funds should be forthwith halted.

Fifth, the fair use of public media must be constantly pushed.  Here it is appropriate to commend the government radio and television stations for recent efforts to carry debates among the candidates.  But news coverage is still very one-sided.  A comparison of the stories and interviews carried on government electronic media and private media such a Radio Phoenix raises questions about whether the same country is being reported on.   Moreover the government print media is still shockingly biased.  Anyone with minimal analytical skills could do a simple study of headlines, photographs, news stories, editorials, etc., and reasonably conclude that the publicly owned newspapers have been instructed to support the candidate of the ruling party.

Sixth, the question of voter cards should be examined and clarified.  It is now too late to change the colour of the cards, but steps could be taken to assure that confusion about their use on election day is avoided.   And the whereabouts of millions of cards recently reported to have arrived at the airport surely can be verified and thus a potential source of suspicion about “rigging” can put readily to rest.

Seventh, the role of political parties needs some challenge if the electoral process is to be kept on the straight and narrow path of democracy.  Formal registration of candidates is certainly an exciting time – but it is certainly not the most important time.  Let there now be as much attention and enthusiasm given by the various and sundry parties to electoral basics like prevention of corruption, rejection of violence, publication of manifestos, acceptance of public debates among candidates, etc.  Isn’t this now the appropriate moment for all parties to come together to declare themselves for a clean and peaceful electoral process?

Eighth, attending effectively and efficiently to the logistics of voting day should be high on the immediate agenda.  We have only three weeks before that important day.  Will boxes and papers be delivered on time, will electoral officials be trained and in place, will citizens be informed of all necessary requisites, etc., etc.?  These are logistical matters that previous experience of elections indicates are often poorly managed with bad results to the democratic electoral process.  Give the ECZ credit where credit is due – but make sure that more that needs to be done for a smooth electoral process is in fact done and not lamented over afterwards for failure to do so!

The Future My keynote effort here this morning has been to offer a framework of concerns – constitutional, attitudinal and structural – to focus this public discussion on the electoral process.  It seems to me that two outcomes of this day will enhance addressing these concerns:

First, there should be some prioritising in the strategies to be followed in the next few weeks to assure a good electoral process.   Not everything can be done, given limited time and resources.  What are the most important things that will have the most important consequences?  I urge that the record of this day’s proceedings will clearly show this prioritising.

Second, there must be a renewed commitment on the part of everyone here – and those who would like to be here – for civil society action for good electoral process.   What was accomplished by the Oasis Forum several months ago can still be accomplished today: the mobilisation of religious, legal and civic forces for the achievement of what is necessary guarantee free and fair elections and peaceful transition to a new government.  The objective we must strive for is that the standard set in 1991 -- the banner held high for all of Africa to see and to emulate -- is again raised this year of 2001.  At this late date, with all the problems of logistics and rain, corruption and apathy, selfishness and insensitivity, poverty and tensions, that objective may appear to many Zambians around the country – or even in this hall this morning – as merely a dream.] But let me close by reminding you of the words of a great church leader in Latin America in the 1970s, Dom Helder Camara of Brazil.  He said:  “When I dream alone, by dream remains only a dream.  But when I dream with others, by dream can become a reality.” Today, let us dream with each other and achieve our desired reality.  That is my invitation.  That is your challenge.

Thank you!
Dr. Peter J. Henriot