‘We are failing to learn from the past’

Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) has been under fire following the handling of the May 20 Tripartite Elections. There are also reported divisions among the commissioners. Our Reporter ALBERT SHARRA talks to political analyst Dr. Boniface Dulani on these and other issues.

Q: Overall, how would you assess the performance of MEC during the May 20 Tripartite elections?

A: I share the view that MEC’s handling of the recent tripartite elections has been very poor. This in turn has played a big role in undermining the credibility of the election results. In hindsight, we should perhaps not have been surprised by the challenges that were manifest on election day as the telltale signs MEC’s lackadaisical approach were there months before elections day. We can all recall the fiasco over MEC’s initial agenda to employ electronic voting; the messy voter registration that spilled over into an equally chaotic voter-verification exercise. Given this background, it is no wonder MEC was unable to run a problem-free election whose results remain in doubt nearly two months after the winners were announced.

Q: There appeared to be some divisions among MEC commissioners as evidenced in the (unofficial) statement that some of them released a few days before the announcement of election results announcement saying they do not trust the results. Some have attributed these differences to the fact that some of the commissioners were appointed while they were active political party executive members who have the interests of their parties at heart. What is your take on this?

A: It was abundantly clear in the days following the close of polling and the announcement of results that MEC was indeed a house divided and that political partisanship had a lot to do with these divisions. This is largely a factor of MEC’s institutional set-up, which seeks to ensure the commission’s autonomy and independence by bringing together different political interests into the electoral body. While this can secure partisan balance, the evidence thus far shows it does not serve the country well in delivering a truly independent and impartial commission. Instead, this has the unintended effect of populating the commission with individuals that have an open political agenda. Whenever there are disagreements, the default position of each commissioner is to look at the position of the party that nominated them and pursue that within MEC.

Q: In your opinion, what should be the way forward in appointing commissioners?

A: There are several ways to ensure independence of an electoral management body. Some countries, such as South Africa and Namibia, recruit commissioners from a pool of applicants based on their academic and professional qualifications. In Zimbabwe, nominations for electoral commissioners are made by the Parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. In Lesotho, the Council of State makes nominations for commissioners based on candidates proposed by political parties, but that do not hold any party position. In my view, the South African/Namibia case offers the best model of ensuring a truly independent and professional electoral commission.

Q: This year’s elections were characterised by several irregularities which included delay in delivering voting materials which resulted in chaos. Do you think this had an effect on the voting?

A: It is telling that this year’s voter turnout of 71 percent is seven percentage points lower than the 78 percent who voted in the 2009 elections, and the fourth lowest since the reintroduction of political pluralism in 1994. The lowest turnout was 59 percent in 2004. However, while 71 percent is relatively low, it is seven percentage points above the continental average of 64 percent. So we are still doing very well at a continental level. While there is no doubt that the shortage of voting materials might have put off some people from coming back to exercise their right to choose national leaders, studies have time and again demonstrated that turnout is influenced by many factors. As much as shortage of materials can be one such factor, short of a detailed study, it is impossible to say with a measure of accuracy whether it was such a major and significant factor in 2014.

Q: Election observers expressed the need for continuity on the part of MEC officials, saying it is easier for the same team to continue with next elections as they have experienced the challenges and thus are better placed to resolve them as opposed to if a new team came in as it would have to start from scratch. But of late we have heard political parties calling for the dissolution of the current MEC, citing incompetence. What are your views on this?

A: There are strong arguments that can be made for both positions. Continuity provides ability to learn from mistakes and correct them. But that requires individuals and leaders at MEC who are willing and capable of doing a thorough review of their performance and having the mind to accept and act on criticism and advice of all stakeholders. If such spirit is lacking, continuity could mean carrying over the same blunders that marked this year’s elections into 2019. There have been moments I have felt encouraged that the current crop of MEC commissioners is capable of learning, but there have also been instances when I have felt we need a fresh start. On balance, I tend to lean towards having a fresh start with a new set of commissioners to start preparing for the 2019 elections.

Q: What lessons can be drawn from the past elections?

A: Malawians have proven time and time again that they value their right to vote, but have repeatedly been disappointed by those entrusted with managing the electoral process. Most of the current failures and challenges have been highlighted in previous election reports and studies. That they keep recurring suggests that, as a nation, we are failing to learn from the past.

Q: Any additional comment?

A: MEC is an important player in this country’s nascent democracy. The commissioners do a very difficult job, one that is exhausting and emotionally draining. It requires our understanding and everyone’s support. But they have to earn our support by performing to the best of their abilities, without bias and with the sole purpose of serving the nation. If they are not up to it, they can do the most noble thing and resign to pave the way for others.