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!
I like the analysis of Luanshya.Kambwili has an uphill battle and certainly come 2011 heads will roll.
free and fair election can only come by the moment electorates started voting for the ECZ commissioner and not for the president to appoint
Zambia has no opposition to provide alternative to the ruling MMD. What we see masquarading as alternatives are nothing but discombulated legion of factionalist sissies without a heart for the country, the people and national character. To think that these tribal militia leaders and their unholy alliances would be alternative by virtue of appendage of some religious counterfeit cult leader calling on Zambians to Die is sublevel delusional utopia.
And what are these creams by this sissie called Kakoma claiming MMD wanted to kill him as if he is ever immortal that one should plan to take him off needlessly. Isn’t it easy to knock off such flies without much ado if there is need? Would serious assassins handle him careless when he is as vulnerable as a cockroach 24/7?
The power of the tongue says you get what you ask.These sore losers by making these antiquated claims think they are gunning sympathy withour realising they are inviting vicious no nonsense canes of worms on their already vulnerable lives. Some lunatics may just gun down some these lumpens in the name of their own false screams. Careful with what you wish for yourselves because you risk being real losers.
The big question is, WHY HAS MMD FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE DECENTRALISATION POLICY?
Those in MMD know their fear is that Councils will perform better, especially the City& Municipal Councils which are under the opposition, and that would be a threat to the survival of MMD. This is the perception of those in MMD, its sad to have such shallow minded leaders that can hold back the development of the nation for their own benefit at the expense of the masses.
Finally, are MMD controlled Councils doing better than those under opposition?
Can MMD tell us why Councils they control e.g. Kaoma in W. Province, Milenge in Luapula &Isoka have had misappropriation cases (not misapplication) What of AG reports on Central Govt?
Minister of MLGH, who’s MMD, approves all budgets for Councils.
Veteran. We are talking about the electoral process. And this article is probably the worst article I have read. People trying to look intelligent.
Where is Kyambalesa with his bulky for nothing articles? been long since I saw one of his populist articles.
The person who wrote this trash says he is a doctor? Anyway, he is a doctor by Lusaka timews Standards. There is really nothing this cow is saying about from putting words together. My God. how can a person be so shallow. LT, why do you allow witch dosctors to write articles. But then, that is your caliber
Just vote for MMd you fools.
Without an honest base for service, coupled by luck of education for the masses…democracy is almost impossible…
Our leaders are not men and women enough to guarantee a free and fair election.
Hey guys join the group PF/UPND pact 2011 on facebook.
To get your elections right, you need to start with creating a comprehensive set of rules for the participants. Zambia suffers because there are very weak rules that govern elections and almost everything else is left to chance. Take for instance the tone of language used by politicians in Zambia. This language lacks any sign of civilization and is very primitive. Then there is the rules of engagement that do not exist. In Solwezi, for instance, opposition cadres went around threatening MMD supporters assuring they don’t turn up to vote on polling day. Then you’ve got food distribution which works against the opposition as the ruling party gives out hampers to woo support.
With this you can see how clear cut rules are desperately required so that any party flouting them will be disqualified from contesting the seat. It is these rules that make the UK & US look much more civilized than Zambia when it comes to elections.
Bring in a good set of comprehensive rules and you’ll have elections only comparable to the west!
#7, IT_MANIA, I agree entirely; this article lacks merit in analysis and principle! Surely there are enduring principles upon which a national electral system should be based! Principles such as fair play, the national interest and the common good, for instance?
#15 Mungoma and #7, IT_MANIA
Why is it that since 2006, every election has been disputed and marred by stories of violence, intimidation and electoral malpractice? We do not hear of such things in Botswana, Namibia or Angola. and even the arguably most violent country on earth, South Africa! The author, has only asked that the stakeholders must agree on how to conduct elections and once they do, there should be strong sanctions against those that break the rules. I would add to say that the parties and individuals should be banned or suspended from participating in future elections. Sort of like what the referee does on a football pitch. Yellow or Red card to culprits! FIFA can suspend a nation for the misbehaviour of its supporters. We could suspend a party as well!
the problem is that my fellow citizen if we are always ruled by riggers of votes this shall be always a stumbling rock fo r the progress of our country zambia. Looking at how MMD the second party to rule our country Zambia did in 1991 19 92 when they came in power, yes many things changed i can agree to that because this was due to bad governace and inflations rate by UNIP. When UNIP was out power we thought everything we be okey but whic is not the case because i realise that the elections that followed in 1996 might be free and fair election but 2001, 2006 with interest of Chiluba they rigged even reaching to the extent that has worsen the situation after the death of President Mwanawasa the followed was clearly rigged because even the face of Justice Mambilima could tell.
it could not befre and fair because the always seek their interest after rigging lets develop Zambia not ot destroy it Please twapapata ba Banda so if you observe carefully look and see how how Banda seek to be a president, he has choosen Judge Chifumu Banda for the same reason so that it will be easy to rigge that is tribalismo. He always intimedate the catholic priests beacuase he has already own favuor ya ma judges, the priest are prophets who should speack on behalf of the people so that justice may prevail in the country a prophet is to destroy the boundaries of injustice. If we need free and fair election you have to install cameras in all polling station and assign so that a non governmento organization can work on that freely. may that can help one Zambia one Nation!!!!!!
Here is a subject that invites positive contributions from bloggers, but where are they? They have gone to discuss HH! This is perhaps one reason why Zambia is backward. People will not discuss or offer solutions. They will throw one line insults and move on to discuss personalities! What a shame? Mr Ngoma states ‘we must have an electoral process that perfectly or almost perfectly represents the wishes of the majority of the people’ and that is what we should be discussing!
useless, you cannot even write your essays to pass grade 12