“ELECTIONS have consequences” declared a senior American diplomat in relation to the Kenya’s general elections of 2013.
His statement was intended to be a warning to the voters of Kenya in that particular general election, that Kenya would face adverse consequences if the voters ‘made the mistake’ of electing Presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyata, and his running mate William Ruto, who had been arraigned before the ICC for their alleged role in the post-election violence which rocked many parts of Kenya, following the disputed results of the previous (2007) general elections.
In a similar vein, the Civic United Front (CUF) has made a solemn declaration that they will boycott the re-run of the Zanzibar general elections slated for March 20th, 2016; for the reasons which they fully explained. Elections may indeed have consequences. But, in my opinion, boycotting elections also has consequences, which I will endeavour to examine in this article.
The word “boycott” has several meanings attached to it, but in the particular context of the CUF declaration of boycotting the re-run of the Zanzibar general elections on 20th March 2016, it means “the refusal to take part in something, as a way of protesting about it”’.
And, ‘protesting about or against something’ means expressing strong disagreement, or disapproval, about it. Such occurrences are perfectly normal in all human communities, and would normally create no cognitive offense. What then, are the mundane consequences of boycotting elections by a political party?
I will return to that question a little later. Let me first present a little background by making a brief reference to the history of previous election boycotts by CUF ; and previous ZEC’s nullification of Zanzibar election results.
A British politician by the name of Lain Macleod, who was Secretary of State for the Colonies in the British Cabinet at the material time, is on record as having said the following in July 1961 : “History is too serious to be left to historians alone”.
Many of our readers are certainly not historians, but they will presumably benefit from this brief information regarding the history of CUF election-related boycotts; and ZEC’s previous nullification of Zanzibar election results. Benefiting from such information would, I believe, help to justify the claim that ‘history is too serious to be left to historians alone’.
The relevant history: In the first multi-party general elections, which were held in 1995, there arose a crisis in connection with the printing of ballot papers. The Government of Zanzibar had done the printing process in South Africa. When the papers arrived in Zanzibar ready for that election, the Civic United Front threatened to boycott the voting exercise, alleging that the said ballot papers had been ‘doctored’ in favour of Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM).
Fortunately, that boycott was avoided through the intervention of UNDP, who reportedly persuaded CUF not to carry out their planned boycott. But thereafter, a more serious problem occurred at the stage of announcing the Presidential results of that election.
While the results of the House of Representatives and the Local Authorities Council members were announced immediately after the process of vote counting was completed, the announcement of the Presidential results was delayed for four days after the completion of the counting process.
And when it was made, it gave CCM a victory of 0.4%. CUF strongly protested, refused to recognize these results, and ordered its members of the House of Representatives who had won the election, to boycott all meetings of that House.
In the 2000 general elections, the voting process was characterized by a shortage of ballot papers, thus necessitating the postponement of the voting exercise in all 16 constituencies in the Urban West (Mjini Magharibi) Region, prompting ZEC to nullify the results of all the 16 constituents, and announcing a re-run of the election on a later date. And now, in the 2015 general election, ZEC has once again nullified the results, this time of the entire election, and announced a re-run of that election at a later date. Indeed.
“ History repeats itself”. Boycotting elections also has consequences. Let me now go back to my contention that boycotting elections also has consequences. We have shown above that CUF, supported by some of the other opposition parties, imposed a similar boycott on the re-run of the 2000 elections in the 16 constituencies of the Urban West Region.
One outstanding consequence of that boycott was that it caused many of the registered voters to stay away from the polling stations, thus deliberately failing to participate in the re-run of those elections. But that is only one aspect of the likely consequences.
There certainly can be others, including the following:- (i) It is an abandonment of a legal obligation. In the context of our political system, political parties have an implied obligation to participate in elections.
This obligation is implied in the definition of political parties in the Political Parties Act (no 5 of 1992) which provides as follows: “Political party” means any organized group formed for the purpose of forming a government or a Local Authority within the United Republic through elections; or for putting up or supporting candidates for such elections”.
In the light of that definition, it would appear that the primary purpose, or indeed the raison d’etre of a political party in Tanzania, is to participate in elections with a view to acquiring power, either at the national or the Local level, or both. Hence, any group which does not have such objectives does not qualify for recognition as a ‘political party’.
Its status changes to a ‘pressure group’ or ‘Interest Group’. It is, however readily admitted, that boycotting only one election as a sign of protest, does not amount to abandoning the entire obligation of participating in elections, which is implied in the definition quoted above; but it is an ominous reminder of the possibility of that happening eventually. (ii) It has a negative impact on democracy. Modern political thought generally accepts the notion that political parties are absolutely essential to democracy.
This notion is itself based on the fundamental principle that democracy gives the majority the right to rule, and that there is no other way of creating an ascertainable majority without establishing political parties which can freely compete for the right to form a government, by presenting their different policies and programmes to the electorate, and each party endeavouring to persuade the relevant electorate to vote for their particular policy or programme option.
It can, of course, be cogently argued that this concept of “government by political party” is not entirely satisfactory, or is even that it is undesirable, for the following reasons: (a) that a political party, having been elected to power, may act viciously towards its political opponents.
(b) That all those who voted for the losing party (and they could be very many), will be governed for long periods on the basis of policies and progammes with which they disagree, and (c) that able men and women who are outside the party system, or who belong to minority parties, can play no effective part in the governance system.
Such difficulties can be resolved by setting up a government of national unity, which cuts across party lines, thus effectively incorporating the best brains in the country, irrespective of political party affiliations.
But in a large number of cases, this method has proved to be impracticable; mainly because, although political parties may have similar or identical policy objectives, such as achieving a high standard of living for its people, and giving as much freedom to individuals to live their daily lives as is compatible with the freedom of others; yet political parties may still differ on the means to be adopted in order to achieve those same objectives.
In other words, the ends might be the same, but they will differ on the means for achieving those ends. And it is these differences which provide to the voters a basis for them to make an informed choice between them, in selecting the party which will form the government.
(iii) It probably justifies a review of our electoral system. Such negative impact on democracy arises from the fact that the electoral process is the key to ensuring that the largest possible number of people are enabled to participate in choosing the leaders who will govern them over the next following five-year period.
Hence, in the absence of an acceptable electoral system, the enthusiasm for peoples’ participation in this democratic process will necessarily be watered down. A generally acceptable electoral system must not only be fair in its design, but it must also be seen to be fair, (just like the proverbial ‘justice’ which must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done).
In order to achieve this, there are various essential elements to any electoral system which must be seen to be present. Firstly, the system should provide for the maximum possible participation by the citizens. Secondly, all the votes should be as close as possible to having equivalent weight. Thirdly, the system should be free from manipulation and/or abuse.
And lastly, the way in which the system works should be readily understandable to all those who participate in it. Our current electoral system: In Tanzania, we have always used what is known as “the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. Basically, what it means is that the candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast is declared the winner.
The major advantage of this particular system is its absolute simplicity. It is easily understood by everyone, and is relatively easy to administer. Every voter is given a ballot paper with all the names of the competing candidates listed thereon.
All the voter has to do is to choose one of them. When all the votes have been counted, the candidate who secured the greatest number of votes is declared the winner, regardless of the total number of votes cast. This means that, where there are more than two candidates competing, the winner might have secured only a small percentage of the total votes cast, yet,, as long as he has more votes than anyone else, he still wins.
There are, of course, several variants to this system, which have been introduced in order to mitigate this anomaly, such as the requirement for a candidate to obtain an absolute majority of all the valid votes counted; as well as other variants, such as what is known as the ‘preferential , or alternative voting system ‘, in which the elector choose one candidate, but is also required to indicate, in descending order, his or her preferences for all the other candidates.
However, since none of these variants is applicable in our case, they have no practical value, or even relevance, to this discussion. The specific case of Zanzibar: The specific electoral disputes in the Zanzibar elections, have always been in relation to the Presidential election results.
But even if it is agreed that this problem is caused by the electoral system which is currently being used; there still will be two fundamental questions to be addressed in the search for a more acceptable electoral system.
First question: is it possible to find a different (presumably more acceptable) system for electing the President of Zanzibar? Second question: Is it desirable, or, in other words, is it in the public interest of Zanzibar, and of the United Republic as a whole, to even attempt do so?
The answer to the first question is relatively easy to find. The answer is YES, it is of course possible to find a different electoral system, because of the large variety of electoral systems available to choose from.
But the second question is a lot more difficult to answer. I guess many people would argue strongly against an electoral system for electing the Zanzibar President which is different from that of electing the Union President.
So, such an idea is, perhaps, a non-starter. Remembering MUAFAKA III. When Chama cha Mapinduzi and the Civic United Front signed the Agreement known as MUAFAKA III (which introduced the concept of Serikali ya Umoja wa Kitaifa (SUK), and whose implementation started immediately following the 2010 general elections, it was generally believed that a lasting solution had at last been found, to the endless post-election disputes which had previously afflicted Zanzibar throughout its entire electoral history, since 1957.
Some of us who participated directly in the CCM decision-making process which eventually produced that historic Agreement, had sincerely hoped that because the root cause of these endless post-election disputes was the struggle for power, or the desire to form the Government of Zanzibar after winning the relevant general election, such struggle would become far less intense, if the contending parties were assured of becoming members of the in-coming Government.
But alas, that was not to be, for the problem of post-election disputes continues! “Politics is not an exact science” declared that German Statesman whose name was Bismark , in his speech to the Prussian Chamber on December 18, 1863. In view of what is currently happening in Zanzibar, one is tempted to agree with Bismark, that Politics is indeed not an exact science!
/Daily News.
No comments :
Post a Comment