
By Dr Charles Ngoma
At the time that one takes his or her ballot paper and enters the booth to choose their candidate, they are alone with their choice. There is no gun to their head to coerce them and they are not under any obligation whatsoever to mark an ‘X’ against the name of the person they did not want by their own volition. I did this many years ago, when I voted ‘No.’ I felt good, that I had done so. Before I had gone to vote, someone told me that the government of that day ‘would know who had voted ‘NO.’ I did it anyway, because I wanted to prove it. From that day on, I kept ‘watching my back’ and I supposed that one reason why I was sidelined for promotion was because of that ‘No’ vote. Well, I still lived to tell the tale. The threat, whether real or imagined, could have influenced my vote.
Other methods of rigging involve changing constituency boundaries, so that certain people are grouped together to enhance a particular vote. Constituency boundaries are very important. Take for example, in the 2006 elections; there were 81,000 registered voters in Lusaka’s Munali constituency and 48,000 in Lusaka Central. Dr Guy Scott (PF) won election to parliament, while elected by 18,000 people while Capt Austin Chewe (MMD) voted for by 22,000 people lost. In Luangwa, the MMD candidate is in Parliament on a mere 3,000 out of 8,000 votes! Since the electoral constituencies do not have equal numbers of constituents, there is great potential for rigging. What could prevent the powers that be from ‘transferring’ voters from one constituency to another over the 5 year period to make up for the deficit at the next election? This can easily be done by changing population dynamics though housing and land allocation as well as job availability. Luanshya constituency will be interesting in 2011. The incumbent MP had a majority of less than 100 in 2006. Bringing back jobs into Luanshya with predominantly MMD supporters would easily overturn that majority. The minority MP in Luanshya will have a mountain to climb! Some opposition political parties want to reduce the number of members of Parliament. This could be a very good way of rigging by merging smaller constituencies where a party is unpopular, with a larger one where it is popular.
Another way of vote rigging could come out of NRC issuance. How many Zambians have proof of age? It is therefore possible to push more under 16s to register for NRCs at the time close to elections and thus skew the statistics in any way. A subset of this registration process as means of rigging is the voter registration process itself, in that it requires the voter to cast his vote within the constituency in which they were registered! Now, this is an obviously very serious issue. Suppose a PF supporter lives in a constituency where there is strong MMD support. It is obvious that his vote here will not affect the outcome. He could go and register in another constituency, where a PF candidate has a good chance of wrestling the post from an incumbent with a slender majority.
The use of special ‘ink’ should prevent people from voting more than once, but how does one prove that the ‘ink’ at a particular table is the official ink and it is indelible? What if a certain chemical that only the vote riggers are aware of can clear the ink?
In this age of computerisation, another factor has been thrown into the equation; bugs! Yes, software bugs can be used to change an electoral result in a most profound way.
Pre-election violence should be condemned because it prevents candidates from meeting voters. In Mufumbwe, for example, there were 20,000 voters in 2006. This would be approximately 2 to 4000 households. In the 90 days of campaigning, a candidate with 100 electoral agents could visit every household without any need for the mass rallies. Mass rallies are breeding grounds for violence, because of mob psychology
The so called ‘advantage of incumbency’ constitutes malpractice. There is no limit to how far one can go here to skew the electoral process in their favour. There is no doubt that the government must continue in office until the next winner is declared and there should be no power vacuum. However, the law is silent here as to what exactly constitutes unfair advantage from those who are in power. Government resources are still at their disposal. Besides this, it is the government that appoints the officials that conduct the elections! There is an old adage: ‘He that pays the piper calls the tune.’
There are however, some pre-election practices that make news as electoral malpractice which I personally find laughable. If a candidate gives me a gift or promises that if voted into power he will do this and that for me, how is that malpractice? I could still get his ‘gift’ and go and vote against him! If a political party distribute sugar or meat to the electorate, why is that a problem? Call it vote buying or whatever, when distilled to the lowest common denominator, every manifesto is vote buying. Every voter votes in order to gain something from their candidate. A candidate would be unwise to ignore the desires and needs of the constituents and he must solicit for their vote by promising to meet those needs or demands.
So, then, what can be done to make our electoral process free and fair? In the first place we must understand that there is no electoral process anywhere in the world that is perfect. But we must have an electoral process that perfectly or almost perfectly represents the wishes of the majority of the people.. In order to do this, there must be agreement about the rules! This is crucial. All stakeholders must agree as to what constitutes free and fair elections. At this table of negotiations, those representing the ruling party should come as equals to the rest. Once agreed, as to how elections will be conducted, there must be strong sanctions against those that break the rules. The underlying factor here must be consensus. If nations can come agree on how to conduct wars (rules of engagement) how can a nation’s citizens fail to come up with an accepted conduct of the electoral process? Please, politicians come together and agree once and for all and put an end to this never ending cycle of violence and mistrust. Yes, you can!