I've linked to a video from the Carter Center entitled "Africa: Elections Aren't Enough" featuring Paul Collier (author of "The Bottom Billion") and other Carter Center staff. The foundational idea is that elections in and of themselves do not a democracy make. It's a poignant talk at a time when so many African countries are approaching elections. I'll highlight a few in the region where I pay the most attention:
Sudan, April 2010--the first free elections in 24 years. The civil war between the north and south, which continued for over two decades, made holding any semblance of a democratic election impossible. The current president, Omar al Bashir, came into power through a coup d'état in 1989 (and, I should note, is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity in Darfur). In the south, this election in many ways is considered a precursor to the vote that is planned for January 2011 in which Southern Sudan will decide if it should become an independent state. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, with a population of 40 million, the majority of which are illiterate and live in rural areas. In addition, conflict is still prominent in the eastern Darfur state. As such, logistical issues are a huge concern. Furthermore, the International Crises Group has just published a report outlining the ways the ruling National Congress Party has rigged the election.
Burundi, May-July 2010--the first elections since a peace accord was signed in April 2009 between the ruling government, the National Council for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD), and the opposition National Liberation Forces (FNL). Burundi had been in Civil War since 1993. The current President Pierre Nkurunziza was elected in 2005 with the first elections since the start of the civil war. Human Rights Watch has produced reports documenting politically motivated killings, assaults, arrests, and other violence intended to intimidate and suppress opposing parties. Recent reports from IRIN identify party youth leagues, made up largely of demobilised combatants, as tools of the ruling party to intimidate voters.
In post-conflict states, elections are pivotal. After a peace agreement was signed in Burundi, people were relieved, but still hesitant about the how long-standing that peace would be. Most people say they will "wait and see" how the elections go: if it is pulled off peacefully and justly then they can feel confident that their country has really made a change for the better, but most worry that there will be new violence and manipulation. To explore the host of issues a country at such a turning point faces, see the recent Peacebuilding Commission report for Burundi.
Rwanda, August 2010--the second election since the Rwandese Patriotic Front took power after ending the genocide in 1994. The first election was in 2003, when then President Paul Kagame was elected with 95% of the vote (it should be noted that political organising was outlawed until shortly before the election was held). The constitution allows for the President to serve two, seven year terms, and most anticipate that Kagame, who has held the office of president since removing Pasteur Bizimungu in 2000, will be re-elected. However, the evidence that the election is being manipulated in order to maintain power is piling up. The opposition is being prevented from registering and meeting; accusations of revisionism and/or denial of the the 1994 genocide and divisionism serve as piercing attacks against the opposition which by law make them vulnerable to arrest; and members of opposition parties are publicly beaten.
Although Kagame has done much to rebuild Rwanda and maintain peace, his human rights record leaves much to be desired. He could stand among the great leaders in Africa if he were to follow in the footsteps of Mandela and step down when his time is up, but I fear he may choose the path of Mugabe, Museveni and so many others who entrench themselves in power and refuse to acknowledge that any other person may be capable of performing as president.
Uganda, 2011--Yoweri Museveni took power in 1985 through a coup d'état. He was later elected president in 1996, again in 2001, and again in 2006 (in the first multiparty election, and after changing the constitution to allow him to run for a third term). The elections have been contested with accusations of rigging, voter intimidation, and suppression of party activities. HRW documents elected officials who were charged with election abuses but never brought to justice and are still serving, while opposition candidates are arrested on trumped up charges. Conflicts over the upcoming elections are already being reported, and the coalition of opposition parties have hinted they would boycott the elections if changes are not made.
The three months I spent in Uganda were littered with stories of past elections, none of them were positive. Foreigners said that violence was inevitable (speaking from their own experience of riots and bombings) and that it was best to leave the country if you could. A young man in the eastern mountains described being kidnapped, beaten, and imprisoned until he agreed to never work for an opposition party again. Everyone expressed that the only reason President Museveni continued to win elections was through threat and manipulation, and because the international community continued to recognise him as a legitimate leader (although the Obama administration may be looking to change that).
You may recall that the last elections in this region were in Kenya in 2007, the population contested the results, in which the incumbent President Kibaki was declared winner, which led to widespread violence and killings that became ethnically charged in some areas (particularly the Rift Valley Province). A negotiated power-sharing agreement established the office of Prime Minister for the leading opposition, Odinga. The next elections in 2012 are anticipated with trepidation.
Elections are powerful, emotionally charged, and complex regardless of the country they take place in. They can be used as a tool for suppression and domination just as easily as they can be used for the stimulation of human rights and the freedom to voice your needs and desires. I believe it is important for the international community (which means not just governments but you and me) to hold each state accountable and to support good practices. It is also important to remain informed about the processes and voices in other countries in order to better understand your own and better identify good practices, not to mention defining your own needs and desires.
I would love to hear your thoughts or questions on these issues, if you have a response please post a comment on my blog!
