Comparing elections in Sierra Leone and Ghana

Multi-party elections were a prominent feature of Africa’s political landscape in 2012, with twenty-three countries conducting polls – whether presidential, legislative or municipal. News coverage in the mainstream media has, at times, been framed in clichés and stereotypes. On the eve of the Sierra Leonean elections, the BBC published an article which opened: “Sierra Leone may be about to prove it has grown up”. The preoccupation is often with little more than who is likely to win and whether there will be violence. Rapid and diverse political transitions taking place across the continent are seldom reflected upon in any depth.

I have a longstanding interest in the politics of Sierra Leone, and so followed the elections on 17th November 2012 closely – albeit from a distance. I found a number of striking similarities with the polls in Ghana, which took place a few weeks later on 7-8th December, particularly interesting.

Both incumbent presidents secured enough support in the first round of voting to be declared outright winners. President Ernest Bai Koroma in Sierra Leone was returned to power with 58.7% of the vote. Opposition candidate Julius Maada Bio received endorsement from only 37.4% of the population. In Ghana, President John Dramani Mahama claimed 50.7% of the electorate, defeating his rival Nana Akufo-Addo by 325,863 votes.

The main opposition parties challenged the credibility of the electoral process. The Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) denounced the results as fraudulent, citing “systematic and widespread irregularities, malpractices and injustices that occurred on polling day”, and called on its Members of Parliament and local government to boycott all proceedings. The instruction was subsequently revoked after talks with President Koroma and his All People’s Congress (APC). In Ghana, the opposition National Patriotic Party (NPP) refused to accept the outcome and has taken its complaints to the Supreme Court, but pledged to accept its verdict. If the NPP is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at least 150,000 votes were falsely attributed to the President Mahama they will be able to call for a re-run of the election, as the incumbent would not have received the necessary 50% of the popular vote in the first round.

Challenging the result of an election is a regular occurrence in Africa. Grievances are often legitimate, but it is how politicians articulate their concerns that is of paramount importance. In Sierra Leone, neither the APC nor SLPP resorted excessively to old tactics of mobilising party youth wings to intimidate rival supporters. Evidence of electoral fraud and malfeasance presented to the National Electoral Commission (NEC) by the SLPP was passed on to the police. In Ghana, Nana Akufo-Addo called on his followers to “avoid any kind of violent behaviour, and wait patiently for the decision of the court”. The imperative in the coming months is for relevant institutions in both countries to take objections levelled at the electoral process seriously, and make appropriate rulings.

It is crucial that electoral disputes are dealt with in a timely fashion. The Supreme Court in Sierra Leone took four and a half years to rule on a case initiated by the SLPP which accused the NEC of unlawfully annulling votes from 477 polling stations in the 2007 presidential elections. In the event, the court decided not to adjudicate, claiming that any judgement would be impossible to enforce retrospectively. If grievances are not addressed promptly, candidates or political parties might choose to bypass the law and institutions to achieve their political ends the next time round. In the meantime, both the electoral commission and judiciary are undermined.

Turnout was extremely high. In Sierra Leone, 87.3% of the registered population voted, up from 76% in 2007. In Ghana, 80% of voters cast their ballot, compared with about 67% in 2008.  The desire to participate in elections in both countries, despite the fact that it has seemingly delivered few tangible benefits to most citizens, is conspicuous.

At a recent Royal African Society event in London, former British High Commissioner to Sierra Leone, Peter Penfold, recalled the months of civil disobedience that occurred in Freetown shortly after the 1997 Armed Forces Revolutionary Council coup which deposed the elected government of Ahmad Tejan Kabbah. Businesses, banks, schools and colleges closed as ordinary people sacrificed their livelihoods at immense personal cost in protest at having their democratic rights so blatantly violated. High turnout in the 2012 elections is evidence of Sierra Leoneans’ enduring zeal for democracy.

A preliminary look at the final election results, by region, highlights some interesting developments. In Sierra Leone – where politics is divided along regional and ethnic lines – the APC made significant inroads into traditional SLPP strongholds. For example, in the southern state of Kailahun, the APC secured 22.6%, up from 5% in 2007; in Pujehun, 15.5% from 3% in 2007; and in Bo, 16.7% from 10% in 2007. It remains to be seen whether this is a sign that the predominance of regional and ethnic voting is being eroded or simply a result of more tactical sharing of political and economic largesse by the APC. Such voting patterns would have been highly unlikely in the 2007 elections.

A piece on Africa is a Country noted that in Ghana, election results from numerous constituencies appeared inconsistent. It was common for individual voters to support different parties in the parliamentary and presidential ballots. It is also interesting to note that in six of the 10 regions, votes cast for the presidential candidates were within a 10% margin and the result could well have gone either way.

The standing of the electoral management bodies in both countries was further enhanced by the considered use of technology. In Sierra Leone, the National Electoral Commission chose to capture thumb prints, along with photographs, during the registration process. The biometric data was recorded electronically and then collated to filter out any duplicates. Only after this process were voter identification cards issued. Ghana also adopted a biometric system, with two differences. Firstly, all ten fingers were scanned which increased the chances of identifying multiple registrations. Secondly, on polling day, people had their fingers taken again as an additional precaution against multiple voting. Concerted efforts were made by both electoral commissions to ensure the impartial conduct of temporary election workers.

Information technology was also skilfully and imaginatively deployed when covering, and monitoring, the polls. Dedicated election websites were established by civil society groups. In Sierra Leone, Salonevotes.com displayed live results from polling stations plotted on a map as they were released. The website also details a vast amount of other information, including voter demographics, turnout and any procedural disputes that arose. Ghanadecides.com is an initiative by bloggers and civil society to provide information to the public about the electoral process through social media, including educational videos on registration and voting procedures, news and events. A breakdown of results is available through VoteKast Ghana.

Sierra Leone and Ghana are seldom mentioned in the same breath when it comes to elections. The former is typically depicted as a fragile state recovering from a decade-long civil war, while the latter as one of Africa’s most stable democracies conducting its sixth consecutive electoral cycle. But the conduct of elections in both countries have much in common – notably a commitment to accession to power through the ballot box, avoidance of violence, the use of technology to mitigate fraud, and a prominent monitoring role for civil society. Although ethnic and regional allegiances are still important, the ways in which these play out might be shifting.

These are trends that can be identified across the African continent to varying degrees, and which should render comments about how any country has “grown up” rather irrelevant – and not a little patronising.

Jonathan Bhalla
Research Manager

Personality politics in Malawi

I first heard mutterings about the death of Malawian president Bingu wa Mutharika hours after leaving Lilongwe on my way back to London. I had been in Malawi conducting research for a forthcoming ARI publication which will examine the work of the Malawi Law Commission, and wider issues of law reform and constitutionalism. The death of President Mutharika sent shockwaves through Malawi’s fragile political system, and the region. The fallout has been telling, and highlights the predominance of personality over institutions and the rule of law in Malawian politics.

Malawi’s constitution provides for succession by the vice-president if the president dies in office. The erosion of the rule of law, which characterised Mutharika’s presidency, led his allies to believe they may be able to subvert this constitutional provision, and install Mutharika’s brother Peter instead. The official announcement of Mutharika’s death was delayed in an attempt to buy time before claiming that Vice-President Joyce Banda was ineligible for the presidency.

In 2010 Joyce Banda was expelled from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) after she refused to back Peter Mutharika’s candidacy for the 2014 election. Mutharika’s allies alleged that Banda could not become president since she had violated the constitution by joining the People’s Party (PP). The constitution stipulates that if an MP leaves the party under which they have been voted into office and joins another party – known as “crossing the floor” – their seat is to be declared vacant.

The problem with basing the claim against Banda on her “crossing the floor” is that Bingu wa Mutharika also “crossed the floor” during his first term in office. He was elected on a United Democratic Front (UDF) ticket in 2004, before establishing the DPP, a party that relied heavily on attracting opposition and independent MPs to achieve a parliamentary majority. In none of these instances had an MP’s seat been declared vacant.

Diehards and Democracy – a recent publication from Africa Research Institute – examines trends in recent African elections and notes that multi-party polls have fostered more widespread observance of formal rules and procedures. The constitutional succession that saw Joyce Banda sworn in as president on 7th April seems to be part of this trend. Banda promptly began talks with donor countries about reinstating aid which had been suspended after diplomatic ructions over Mutharika’s increasingly authoritarian rule and economic mismanagement. She is likely to devalue the kwacha as has repeatedly been demanded by the IMF. A shortage of foreign exchange triggered a fuel crisis. In March, petrol was a staggering £6 a litre on the parallel market. Petrol stations, displaying a promising Kwacha 340 (£1.32) price, were empty.

The aftermath of Mutharika’s death highlights more fundamental challenges to constitutionalism in Malawi. Previous presidents have often ignored, or attempted to amend, constitutional provisions which are not in line with their political aims. In 1995 Bakili Muluzi repealed the “recall provision”, designed to make MPs more accountable to their constituents. In 2003 Muluzi attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to remove the presidential term limit so he could be re-elected for a third term. Local government elections have not been held since 2000. An amendment to the Local Government Act, pushed through by Mutharika in 2010, empowers the president to hold local elections when he or she chooses. With possibly as few as 100 weeks remaining until the 2014 presidential polls, there is still no Electoral Commission in place.

The change of tack that many people hope Joyce Banda will bring about indicates that personality politics continue to have a firm foothold in Malawi. As long as political and judicial institutions are kept weak, the realisation of democratic reforms will continue to be dependent on the goodwill of the president.

Rather than rushing to celebrate a new wave of democracy in the wake of a chance event, reforms aimed at strengthening political institutions and the entrenchment of constitutionalism, should be prioritised. Most importantly, this must be done in such a way that these cannot easily be undermined – regardless of who is in power.

Hannah Gibson
Policy Researcher, Africa Research Institute

ARI is working with Janet Banda of the Malawi Law Commission to produce a publication examining issues of law reform and constitutionalism in Malawi.

Déja vu, in Uganda

This is the third of three blogs about Uganda’s 2011 elections written by a Ugandan journalist living in Kampala who has asked to remain anonymous.

In the run-up to Uganda’s second successive multiparty elections on 18 February 2011, Ugandans keenly followed the popular protests that have swept North Africa. Dr Kizza Besigye, the main challenger to President Yoweri Museveni, indicated that Ugandans would be prepared to follow their lead and take to the streets if he did not win. It appears that the majority of Ugandans side with Museveni who insisted that “there will be no Egypt-style revolution here”.

The outcome of the elections were as opinion polls predicted. President Museveni was re-elected for a fourth term, receiving 68.38% of the vote, up from 59% in 2006. Besigye took a disappointing 26.01%. In the new parliament, Museveni’s National Resistance Movement party continue to dominate, winning over 76% of constituencies. Voter turnout continued to decline.

Reactions to the election results revealed that Besigye was not prepared for such a resounding defeat. In the past three elections – in 1996, 2001 and 2006 – Museveni’s share of the vote declined, while support for opposition parties grew. Besigye was convinced support for Museveni would further fall, but he underestimated the tenacity of his opponent. Museveni racked up a higher percentage of votes than in 2006. The seven challengers for the presidency – Kizza Besigye, Norbert Mao, Olara Otunnu, Abed Bwanika, Beti Turwomwe Kamya, Jaberi Bidandi Ssali and Samuel Walter Lubega – played right into the president’s hands, dividing any coherent opposition to his reign.

Besigye described the elections as a “sham”, and insists Museveni’s re-elected government is illegitimate. While the conduct of the elections has been criticised, with Human Rights Watch claiming that political and human rights activists were detained, accusations of voter intimidation and violence are fewer than in previous ballots. Museveni reverted to the old trick of buying voters’ loyalty. Edward Scicluna, the European Union’s election observer mission chief, told the UK’s Financial Times:

“While in the past the way of influence was with the stick and violence, now we’re getting a lot of carrots: ‘You give me a vote, I give you a bowl of rice or a goat’ – goats and money were distributed ... Definitely the ruling party has more resources and therefore a great imbalance, it uses scarce state resources as well.”

Museveni becomes East Africa’s longest-serving leader, overtaking Daniel arap Moi who ruled Kenya for 24 years. By 2016 – when Museveni completes fourth term – he will have been president for 30 years, joining an elite group of African leaders that include Angola’s Eduardo dos Santos, Cameroon’s Paul Biya, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, and Burkina Faso’s Blaise Campaore. A real U-turn for a man, who shortly after coming to power in 1986, insisted that heads of state who hold office for more than ten years have outstayed their welcome.

Popular revolt to Museveni’s rule is unlikely, for a number of reasons. Ethnic divisions remain strong in Uganda, and divide civil society. The opposition is reluctant to incite revolt for fear that Uganda will suffer the same fate as Kenya in the aftermath of the 2008 elections, when ethnic violence rocked large parts of the country. Nicholas Sengoba, an analyst, told Bloomberg News, “Many people are fearful of rising up in case the violence turns ethnic, and goes the Kenyan way. If you entice people and then lose control, you could still be held responsible and that may end up at the ICC.”

In Kampala – Uganda’s capital – offices, shops, schools and banks are open and running as normal. But the presence of security and military personnel in the city streets, alleys and suburbs is clear for all to see. Museveni warned that anyone one who uses “extra-constitutional means” to influence politics will be “locked up”. He appears to be staying true to his word.

Uganda decides

This is the second of three blogs about Uganda’s 2011 elections written by a Ugandan journalist living in Kampala who has asked to remain anonymous.

Kampala, Uganda - The end is in sight for Uganda’s eight presidential candidates whose election campaigns began in November last year. The polls on February 18 will mark the end of a carnival-like atmosphere that has swept the country over the past months. Symbols, signs, colours and anthems of the country’s major political parties have been on near constant show since the campaigns kicked off. Supporters from all parties have been enthusiastically waving their flags, thrusting their clenched fists, clapping their palms, and giving the occasional two-finger salute!

President Museveni and his main challenger for office, Dr Kizza Besigye, have been keen to showcase their political clout through a series of high profile political rallies. Large political demonstrations are a long-standing obsession with Ugandan politicians keen to flex their muscles in public. This time, more than in previous campaigns, the youth have been the main target of election rallies. Over half of Uganda’s population is under 30, representing a significant political constituency.

Music has been the principal medium to engage with Uganda’s burgeoning young population. President Museveni has been particularly astute in this respect, releasing his very own ‘rap’ video in an attempt to reach out to Uganda’s younger voters. In a direct appeal to Uganda’s rural youth, Museveni recites the following lyrics: "I was given a knife. I gave it to the people who harvested millet and they gave me the millet. I gave the millet to the cattle keepers, who in exchange gave me a cow." At every official campaign rally, President Museveni’s National Resistance Movement party (NRM) have hired the country’s top music artists to attract hordes of young voters.

Media jostles

Behind the noise and vibrancy of the political rallies that have characterised the campaigns lies a more subtle clash for votes and influence – the ongoing battle for the airwaves. Radio remains the most popular medium of communication in Uganda, particularly the rural areas. InterMedia, a non-profit research organisation, estimates there are about 200 private FM radio stations in Uganda. But many of these stations, however, are thought to be owned by members and allies of the ruling party.

Opposition parties have accused the government of blocking their access to the media. The Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), led by Dr Besigye, paid for special announcements on the public broadcaster, Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). But the announcements were not aired, nor was the money refunded. No explanation was given. The FDC have filed a legal case against the UBC, demanding US$600,000 in compensation for the lost opportunity.

In the face of adversity, the opposition supporters have taken the battle online, using the popular social media site Facebook to call for President Museveni’s resignation. But with internet penetration currently at 7.9% of the population, such initiatives will have limited impact. The government are well aware that the radio remains the most powerful tool to inform, educate and mobilise Ugandans.

Third time lucky?

The elections on Saturday 18^th February will be the third time that the retired colonel, Dr Besigye is contesting the presidency. He has failed in the two previous attempts to unseat Museveni who has ruled Uganda since 1986. Museveni is the longest serving president of Uganda, outstripping by nearly three times the rule of Idi Amin Dada whose oppressive junta lasted nine years. Ugandans born in 1986 when Museveni took power are now women and men with families.

Since 2000, Museveni’s popularity has been dwindling, and his share of the national vote is expected to further decline this year. Such realities have spurred the opposition. Dr Besigye has tried to persuade voters that President Museveni is yesterday’s man: “The trend shows that Museveni’s vote has been declining while our vote is increasing. In 1996 he got 75 %. In 2001, he scored 69% of the vote. In 2006, even when I campaigned in handcuffs, Museveni got 56%. With such a trend, what would you expect Museveni to get this time round?”

Opinion polls continue to favour President Museveni and his NRM party. Most predictions suggest Museveni will capture between 60 and 65% of the vote. These figures have been widely published in the state and private media. But opposition parties maintain that the opinion polls are simply propaganda, and that the government is trying to hoodwink Ugandan voters. Both Museveni and Besigye have announced that victory will be theirs on February 18^th. In the event that neither candidate received 50% of the vote, a re-run will be required.

The scene is set for a gripping contest, one that will likely push Uganda’s young democracy to its limits. Dr Besigye maintains that past election victories were stolen from him by a combination of voter intimidation and vote rigging. While President Museveni still holds substantial political support in Uganda, he cannot rest on his laurels. With popular protests sweeping North Africa, the political climate for the polls has changed dramatically since the beginning of the campaigns – a reality that is not lost on his main contender for office.

In a written statement to the armed forces on February 6, 2011 as they commemorated the 30^th anniversary of the armed rebellion against former president Milton Obote, Besigye noted: ‘If the election is rigged again, I will not go back to the court; the struggle is not mine alone. It belongs to our supporters across the country. If our victory is stolen it is the court of public opinion to which I will appeal’.