By Prof. Ruth Meena
In 2010 election, a group of young Chadema supporters guarded the vote counting in Ubungo constituency, complelling the process to be extended for a week before the results were released. This was done in a peaceful manner. The police who were on duty, quite interestingly, joined them whenever they were chanting or singing. This action did not raise an alarm at that time.
However, this year, the opposition camp has been calling upon its supporters to guard “their votes” so as to deter the possibility of rigging. This call has triggered the concern of law enforcers. Initially, the debate was on allowable distance. However, a presidential order has been given for all voters to go home after casting their ballots. The opposition insists they will call upon their supporters to mount guard over the vote counting exercise so as to deter rigging, apparently because the law allows that.
The question is, why guard the votes in the first place? On the other hand, what is the issue of concern this time around? There are few possible explanations as to why the opposition is demanding the right to mount guard over the vote counting exercise. On one hand, the competitive nature of this year’s election creates tensions and mistrust. When one of the competitors does not trust the system of managing the election processes, he will always find a way of defending his interests, the ultimate impact notwithstanding.
The opposition continues to harbour fears that the election management bodies are not free and independent, that they do not have the required capacity to ensure free and fair elections. They apparently fear that the incumbent party is not ready to accept defeat.
On the other hand, why is the government preventing vote guarding which is provided for in the books of law? There could be a genuine concern over the security of citizens during vote counting, particularly if the two major competitors refuse to accept the poll results. Barring vote guarding is thus considered as a quick measure of deterring violent encounters between the two major players at poll stations.
A counter argument is, if both parties are not willing or ready to accept defeat, violence is more likely going to happen anywhere, even outside the polling stations. The solution might not be preventing vote guarding, it has to be directed to the root cause of potential violence. What are the best ways of convincing the key players to accept the outcome of the voting exercise without sacrificing the lives of our voters? Already, the campaigns have been marred by few incidents of violent encounters, particularly involving the young people, who are being used by both parties to cheer the candidates or boo the opponents during the campaigns.
Worse still, the campaigns have been characterised by verbal vulgar language, which provokes acts of violence. Additionally, the opposition camp has been able to attract the young voting population, who are demanding change at whatever cost. Current data availed by NEC shows that the majority of the registered voting population are young people, with young women constituting a slight majority. Out of the total 22,750,789 registered voters, those who are between 18 -35 are 12,894,756, that is , almost half of the registered voters are young people ( 27% are male and 30% are females).
Those who are 50 years and above are just 4,165,544 . While those in the age category of 36-50 years of age number 5,690,668. This demographic composition has some political implication as well. The opposition camp has been able to attract the younger voting population, basically unemployed, or marginally employed motorists, street hawkers, and daladala drivers who are perpetually at loggerhead with law enforcers in the normal day to day activities.
This is an angry constituency, who believe that any change to the current situation will bring some relief to their predicament. Encounters with police are their day to day way of life. This implies that this is a group ready to fight with police because they have very little to lose, except their lives.
In this type of environment, preventing vote guarding is, to my opinion, not the best way of preventing violence, the legality of this notwithstanding. When both parties are not psychologically prepared to accept defeat, allowing more transparency in voting might deter violence. In this respect, it needs the wisdom of key players to determine and agree on the best way of making vote counting a transparent exercise as far as possible so as to remove doubts from both parties. The bottom line is: Electoral violence will cost the lives of our young people who are going to be used by the powerful who will not be there when the police pull the trigger.
Those who are 50 years and above are just 4,165,544 . While those in the age category of 36-50 years of age number 5,690,668. This demographic composition has some political implication as well. The opposition camp has been able to attract the younger voting population, basically unemployed, or marginally employed motorists, street hawkers, and daladala drivers who are perpetually at loggerhead with law enforcers in the normal day to day activities.
This is an angry constituency, who believe that any change to the current situation will bring some relief to their predicament. Encounters with police are their day to day way of life. This implies that this is a group ready to fight with police because they have very little to lose, except their lives.
In this type of environment, preventing vote guarding is, to my opinion, not the best way of preventing violence, the legality of this notwithstanding. When both parties are not psychologically prepared to accept defeat, allowing more transparency in voting might deter violence. In this respect, it needs the wisdom of key players to determine and agree on the best way of making vote counting a transparent exercise as far as possible so as to remove doubts from both parties. The bottom line is: Electoral violence will cost the lives of our young people who are going to be used by the powerful who will not be there when the police pull the trigger.
No comments: