Ballot vs. Bullet: Elections in Kenya and Zimbabwe

By Briggs Bomba, AlterNet. Posted July 12, 2008.

The world's attention has been riveted in 2008 by election crises in Africa; first Kenya, and now Zimbabwe. In both cases, challenges remain in converting electoral victory to political power. Can a victorious opposition come to power in the face of an obstinate incumbent? This question is particularly relevant when the incumbent regime controls the coercive apparatus of the state and the opposition only has the ballot in its corner. In the battle of the ballot vs. the bullet, can there ever be a fair match?

Historically the answer has been no. But new developments on the democratic front in Africa in the last decade have strengthened election support and monitoring by key regional bodies, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU). In 2004, SADC adopted 'Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections' aimed at "enhancing the transparency and credibility of elections and democratic governance as well as ensuring the acceptance of election results by contesting parties". The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance adopted by the AU in 2007 to, among other things, "promote the holding of regular free and fair elections to institutionalize legitimate authority of representative government as well as democratic change of government", consolidated gains on the electoral front. These developments have strengthened the electoral process on the continent, creating the space for opposition parties to compete fairly. At a minimum, international supervision through these protocols compels sitting governments to desist from outright repression and undemocratic practices.

Vibrant Civil Society

Another significant development on the African continent is the emergence of a vibrant independent civil society focused on democracy, human rights and social justice. In fact, the SADC and AU protocols would not count for much if not for civil society pressure on African leaders to abide. In both the Zimbabwean and Kenyan election crises, civil society played a key role in documenting, exposing and transmitting human rights violations. In addition, the advent of the Internet and other modern communication tools shrinks time and space, making it possible to build instant global people to people communication and solidarity links. Consequently, incidents that would blow away unnoticed in the past, now invoke global outrage.

Weak National Democratic Institutions

Both the cases of Kenya and Zimbabwe expose the weaknesses of national democratic institutions, particularly those mandated to oversee the conduct of elections. In Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, like its Kenyan counterpart was exposed as partisan in favor of the incumbent regime. In both countries the judiciary was no recourse as the judicial bench is routinely 'staffed' by government loyalists. A key challenge therefore is how to evolve robust democratic institutions as a lasting foundation for an enduring democracy and social stability. Key elements of a fully functioning democracy are an independent and impartial electoral commission, an independent judiciary, and a democratic constitution. Regrettably, these conditions don't always hold in countries emerging from a colonial past.

Non-Partisan security forces are also critical elements of a democratic state where people choose their leaders freely. In Zimbabwe the army, the police and secret services merged seamlessly with the violent campaign machinery of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Unity Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF). In Kenya, the police stood in President Kibaki's corner and brutally massacred hundreds of opposition activists in protests that followed the disputed election. The lessons of Kenya and Zimbabwe underscore the importance of professionalizing the army, police, prison services, and secret services so that the security forces are not party operatives. This is particularly daunting for countries like Zimbabwe, where former liberation movements are in power and their allied armed wings have been integrated into national security forces. There tends to be partisan loyalty amongst these 'war veterans', their allies, and affiliated parties.

International Intervention

Both Zimbabwe and Kenya raise the question of the role of the international community in resolving internal conflict. Clearly, in circumstances of weak democratic institutions, a victorious opposition must rely on more than the ballot to secure power. In the case of Kenya, unlike Zimbabwe, the opposition used mass mobilization and threats of total economic paralysis to leverage its power and ultimately compel the sitting government towards a negotiated settlement.

See more stories tagged with: democracy, voting, kenya, zimbabwe

Foreign Policy In Focus Contributor Briggs Bomba is Associate Director for Campaigns at Africa Action. He is from Zimbabwe. www.africaaction.org.