By Dr Christopher Twesigye, Lecturer of Political Science at UCU
The last general elections in Uganda were held in February 2011, starting with the Presidential and Parliamentary elections on 18th February. Mayoral elections followed a week later, although those elections were postponed to a later date due to the discovery that riggings had been discovered in some areas. Elections at the lower end of the electoral exercise were held soon after. Although there were reported incidents of election related violence reported in a number of areas of the country, both local and international observers described the 2011 elections as having been the most peaceful in the history of Uganda.
At the end of the electoral process, the Electoral Commission (EC) declared candidate Museveni as winner with almost 68% of the vote. The opposition has since denounced the results because in their view, the elections were fraudulent. They have also vowed not to recognise Yoweri Museveni as President.
The Commonwealth Observer Group(COG) in its final report concluded that” the election did not fully meet national, regional and international standards for democratic elections” The Group goes to state that there was overwhelming evidence of “abuse of incumbency, lack of a level playing field and commercialisation of politics which spoilt the ballot”.1 It was ironic that the conclusions of the 2011 Commonwealth Observer Group Report were a repeat of their Report following the 2006 election. The COGs report also said more or less the same. So the issue here is, can an election described in this manner be upheld as having been free and fair? It is one thing for an election to be relatively peaceful but quite another for it to be” free and fair.”?
So, what do we understand by the concept of a “free and fair” election and what are its implications for a democratic process? An election is a process carried out to enable citizens of a given country to freely choose their leaders who will represent them2. In a direct democracy all citizens of a particular country participate in taking decisions on matters affecting their governance. This type of democracy is however only suitable in societies where numbers are very small like it used to be in the ancient Greek city states. However with the increase in population numbers of a particular country it was no longer possible to apply direct democracy. Thus, it becomes necessary for the people to elect representatives who will go to Parliament, and take decisions on their behalf3. This is what is called representative democracy that is now practiced in most countries that call themselves democratic4.
Second, it is important to place elections in the context of democracy. While elections are not themselves a sufficient condition for effective political representation, there is little argument that they are a necessary condition. In fact some thinkers like Joseph Schumpeter have portrayed elections as being at the heart of democracy (Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942). Elections are indeed the heart of democracy they are the only means through which the people can choose and control their government. This means that there is a symbiotic relationship between elections and democracy. This further means that if elections are held but flawed then it brings the whole issue of democracy into question.
Given the above, can the recently concluded election in Uganda be said to have been free and fair? It is a major requirement that in a democratic system, the election must be held on a regular and periodic basis. This means that a specified date must be known well in advance so that Political Parties and civil society should know and prepare in good time. Article 67(1)5 provides that “The Electoral Commission shall ensure that elections are held at times fixed and notified in advance to the public”. From a legal perspective, this condition has been fulfilled as elections were held in 2001, 2006 and in 2011.
Having said that, the mere holding of regular elections, though a necessary condition is not in any way a sufficient one to guarantee a free and fair election several other conditions must also be met. Below are some of the factors that have been identified to have marred the last election.
The Electoral Commission
It is crucial that the EC must be independent and indeed seen to be so. Again Article 62 of the Constitution states that “the Commission shall be independent and shall, in the performance of its functions, not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority” The implication of this, is that The Electoral Commission must of necessity, enjoy the confidence of all interested parties; Political Parties, civil society and other interested parties.
Unfortunately, all the past three general elections were held in an atmosphere characterised by suspicion and in some cases anger, because the Electoral Commission was seen not to be independent. Indeed there was a general belief before the election, especially among the opposition parties that the EC could not deliver a “free and fair” election. The opposition in particular saw the EC as being partisan and working at the behest of the government. Despite repeated calls and demonstrations for a reconstitution of an acceptable Commission by the opposition and some foreign governments, the President remained adamant and continued to insist on retaining the incumbent EC. The Commission had in 2006 been branded inefficient and incompetent by the High Court of Uganda6. It was therefore reasonable for the opposition to conclude that the President had indeed a personal interest in maintaining the discredited Commission.
The manner in which polling officials were recruited by the EC was done in a way that critics of the Commission said was biased towards the NRM. “We know for a fact that the recruitment of election officials like presiding officers and supervisors favoured NRM operatives. In Gulu, I saw people I had seen presiding at polling stations openly wearing NRM T-Shirts and jubilation at a party organised at the NRM offices”7
A week after the Presidential and Parliamentary election the Mayoral elections were held throughout the country. Those in Kampala had to be cancelled by the EC because of massive malpractices. By the time the polls opened at six in the morning, ballot boxes at a number of poling stations contained pre-ticked ballot papers in favour of the NRM candidate8. At other polling stations the polls opened as early as five in the morning when the official opening time was six in the morning. Following these irregularities, the EC instated an investigation and 20 officials involved in the malpractices were dismissed.
Indeed, subsequent events appeared to substantiate the opposition view as many aspects of the elections left much to be desired. As most observer reports stated, there were many irregularities, including bribery, electoral maladministration like the late arrival of election materials at voting stations, missing names on local voters registers, chasing away of agents of opposition candidates who sought to observe and intimidation especially by security forces and other state agents like Resident District Commissioners, among others (Commonwealth Observer Group Report, 2011) .
The Voters’ Register
The other ingredient required for a free and fair election is a transparent and up-to-date voters’ register. In spite of repeated promises by the Electoral Commission that up-to-date voters register would be ready for the 2011 elections, this did not happen. Although the EC displayed the register and efforts were made to remove the names of those “ghost voters”, the final version was far from accurate. The reason the EC gave for not implementing the bio-metric data system for all eligible voters was that they did not receive sufficient resources to include all Ugandans of voting age.
To make matters even worse, the EC also failed to carry out a comprehensive civic education exercise. Again the reason given was that the funds were insufficient. Thus, a good number of Ugandans, particularly in the rural areas were not in a position to understand the significance of their votes. It became common, due to poverty, for the ordinary folk to vote for candidates who were able to effectively bribe them with soap, sugar, salt, hoes, boxes of matches and other similar commodities, which made make a great material difference to their day to day lives.
Mass Media
Although Article 67(2) and (3) of the Constitution states that “no candidate in the election shall be denied reasonable access, and use of State-owned communication media and that all Presidential candidates shall be given equal time and space on the State-owned media to present their programmes and policies to the people, this legal requirement was not observed especially by the State-owned broadcasting television, radio and newspaper companies. Even the privately owned companies like those in Kiboga, Masindi and Lira among others, were also pressurised and threatened with the withdrawal of their licences if they allowed opposition candidates especially Dr Kizza Besigye, time on their radios and television channels at the behest of government operatives especially the Resident District Commissioners. Even where opposition candidates had already paid for air time, their money was refunded.
Level Playing Field
Then there was the issue of the playing field not being leveled and the abuse of incumbency by candidate the President who campaigned with all the privileges attached to his office at the expense of opposition candidates. Again in their final report the Commonwealth Observer Group singled out “overwhelming” abuse of incumbency, lack of a level playing field and commercialisation of politics as having spoilt the vote. The report goes on to state that “Reports of commercialisation of politics through the distribution of money and gifts were most disturbing”
A few days to the elections, the government requested and was granted by the ruling NRM Parliament, what has been described as a “record Shs 650 billion supplementary budget, most of which went to election related expenses of the President9. To ensure the supplementary estimate easy passage in Parliament, each MP was given Shs.20 million said to assist the MPs in monitoring government programmes. How the monitoring could be carried out just days before elections defeated every observers imagination. It was seen as a bribe intended to ensure easy passage of the supplementary estimate. Although Parliament is charged with the legal responsibility of making laws regulating the use of public resources and institutions during election campaigns (Article 67(4)), this was not done.
Institutional Fusion – The role of public institutions
Some critics have observed that some of the failures of the Yoweri Museveni regime are his failure to build institutions that are independent of government. Apart from the EC that has already been covered, the other institutions that are said not to be professional and independent are the army and the police. Yet independent institutions are indispensable in building sustainable democracy and development.
The UPDF is seen as loyal to one person, Yoweri Museveni. Despite denials from him and the other members of the government, a good section of Ugandans also believe so. The President himself has publicly stated that he is not prepared to hand had power to those who will create chaos in the country. This is commonly interpreted to mean that he would not hand over power, even if he were defeated at an election and the only way that can be realised if by use of the armed forces.
To a certain extent, the Police are also viewed in the same light by the public. The police is viewed as an institution that is slowly being militarised especially as the current Inspector General of Police and his predecessor are generals in the UPDF It is baffling that the appointing authority has not been able to identify a suitable career police officer to head the institution. Addressing the press soon after what was a brutal suppression of the “walk-to- work” demonstrators; President Museveni praised the Inspector General as a good NRM cadre. Although this was not a surprise, many people were baffled as to why he chose to state so publicly.
The UPDF and the Police are increasingly being seen as being part and parcel of government in the sense that there appears to be institutional fusion, contrary to the constitutional stipulation that both institutions should be independent of government. The COG report previously referred to in this respect states that “after so many years in power, elements of the state structure are now synonymous with the party”, meaning NRM.
The role of the army at election time is to safeguard the security of the country by guarding its borders while leaving the police to make sure that the election is not disrupted by maintaining order. What happened at the last election as had been the case in previous elections was to see the active participation of UPDF and the Police in the electoral exercise. A number of ministers sought the assistance of armed soldiers in their bid to defeat their opponent. In an article written by one John Njoroge10, he stated that “revelations of military activities during the just concluded elections are pointing to a much wider and deeper role the military could have played in determining final results of voting than previously known. He goes on to say that “in the run-up to the polls, human rights organisations-local and international, religious leaders and opposition groups-expressed concern over increased military activity countrywide, which they argued was beginning to cultivate an air of fear and uncertainty amongst the population”
Incidents of negative military involvement in the elections were indeed reported in many parts of the country. In Kasese, FDC’s Christopher Kibazanga is quoted as having said that the villages of Kasese were under a fictitious “state of emergency” He goes on to say that “the people’s army fought the people in my area. Never has the army been deployed in the hills of Kasese during elections. The last time these villagers saw the army like that was during the ADF insurgency. Villagers who were otherwise free were told they could not move freely in their own villages at night”. Mr Kibazanga, a respected politician goes on to say that “the army went as far as campaigning for the ruling party. “Villagers were told to vote NRM or else rebel insurgency would return to Kasese11.
Although the government spokes person dismissed these accusations as mere propaganda, they were corroborated by reports from the other parts of the country. In Budadiri West, the then MP elect and now leader of the opposition in Parliament, said that “the army beat up and terrorised civilians on the eve of elections. They used civilian vehicles some of which had their number plates removed or covered. Mr Mafabi further wondered where the soldiers had come from since there were no military barracks in Sironko. He went on to narrate how he and a journalist Julius Odeke were stopped by the army and actually shot at and injured (Sunday Monitor, 20.3.2011).
The Uganda Constitution (1995), provided for 10 members of the UPDF to represent the army military in Parliament. Although the opposition, civil society, layers and others have called for their exclusion from the legislature, the government and NRM dominate Parliament have insisted on their continued inclusion. This has led to accusations that the UPDF is indeed part and parcel of the NRM, particularly as the military representatives normally vote a long side the NRM in Parliament.
In his statement after the election, the President of the Democratic Party, Nobert Mao said that “on the road to the 2011 elections the tell tale signs were of a flawed process were clear”. He goes on to say that “we went into the election not because we trusted the Electoral Commission but because we trusted the people” (Daily Monitor 23.2.2011).
So, was it a wise political move by the opposition to go into an election very well knowing that the odds were overwhelmingly against them?
First, it is vital to bear in mind that boycotting the election would probably not have worked. Given the history of electoral boycotts elsewhere in Third World countries, the government would have been provided with free licence, with a compliant to the EC to fix the figures the way they wanted to. Second, with a largely politically uneducated electorate, particularly in the rural areas, the people would quite likely be coerced to cast their votes anyway. Third, the opposition was under enormous pressure from the international donor community not to boycott the election. Fourth, there was the mistaken belief among the opposition that it was possible to defeat the NRM by sheer numbers. They believed that it would be possible to win the election even with odds staked against them. After all Yoweri Museveni’s popularity had been declining as demonstrated by the electoral results of 2001 and 2006.He had won with about 79% in 2001 and came down to 59% in the 2006 election. The expectation by the opposition was that he was headed for below 50%.
Even though the election of February 2011 was described as having been the most peaceful in the history of Uganda, unfortunately they cannot be described as having been free and fair, when all is considered. It is most unfortunate that most of the irregularities that took place were apparently deliberate and definitely avoidable.
Conclusion – Looking to the future
Finally, it is perfectly reasonable to pose the question; what happens next for purposes of future elections? The obvious answer is that there has, as a matter of utmost urgency, to be drastic constitutional and administrative reforms if future elections are to actually be free and fair. It is not acceptable, as some politicians have argued that democracy is a gradual process and that Uganda is on the correct democratic path. If indeed Uganda was consolidating a democratic process, then we should not be witnessing repeated and in some cases worse mistakes, some of them deliberate, being repeatedly made.
There is urgent requirement to rethink how the EC is appointed. Although the Constitution gives authority to the President, with the approval of Parliament to appoint the EC, the expectation is that, that authority will be used judiciously and in consultation with other stake holders like political parties and civil society. It is this insistence that convinced many especially in the opposition, that Museveni and the EC had long hatched a plan to rig the election. In fact it would have been in the interest of the President, if he had been confident of a win, to have accepted the opposition demand. The insistence by the President on the discredited EC undermined the credibility of the whole electoral process.
The urgent need for an accurate voters’ roll and reliable voter identification to avoid impersonation cannot be over emphasised. Although very expensive equipment for the registration exercise had been bought for that purpose, it was not made use of and anyone anywhere could have turned up to vote without being identified. The reasons given by the EC that there was not enough time and money to carry out a comprehensive exercise does not wash.
It is vital that there should be a cap put on campaign cash as well as candidates having to disclose the source of all funding for election purposes. The fact that the candidate Museveni was allowed to use State resources and probably more from undisclosed sources put the other candidates at a major disadvantage and probably that perhaps partly accounted for their poor showing. Related to that is the necessity for transparency, through legislation that State resources that the incumbent President is entitled to. It was grossly unfair to the other candidates for candidate Museveni to campaign around the country literally at State expense, with hundreds of security personnel, his assistants, cooks and other staff, all paid for by the tax payer.
Mention should also be made of the fact that there is absolute need to put a limit, by legislation, on what the incumbent should promise during the period leading to elections. It was totally unacceptable that the President who was also candidate go around the country promising all sorts of goodies to particular voters, including granting of new districts, ministerial positions, roads, schools, hospitals, among others, if the people of the area gave him their votes.
Since the Constitution enjoins the security forces to be politically neutral, this should not only be so but must be seen to be so. Their involvement in the election and especially their deployment on the streets and the other areas prior to the election served to intimidate many citizens, many of whom chose to stay at home rather than go to vote and risk their lives. This may partly explain why close to 30% of eligible voters did not cast their vote (see final figures by the EC) The presence of the military could also be interpreted to have been in support of candidate Museveni who is their Commander-in-Chief This went a long way to confirm the commonly made accusation that the UPDF is not professional but a personal army loyal to Yoweri Museveni.
The government owned Uganda Broadcasting Company which owns a television and radio stations, plus a number of newspaper publications should be swiftly and urgently transformed into a truly independent services. It should also be made mandatory and a condition for granting licences for all media houses to allow fair access to all candidates equally at all times and especially during elections. This would include set amounts of air time at equivalent cost, at slots of their own choosing, as it is normally done in many democracies.
1 Commonwealth Observer Report, 2011
2 Article 1 (4)
3 Article 59
4 Andrew Heywood, 2007
5 1995 Uganda Constitution
6 (Kizza Besigye v Museveni and the Electoral Commission, 2006)
7 (Nobert Mao, Daily Monitor, 23.2.2011).
8 (New Vision, 26.2.2011)
9 (Daily Monitor 2.6.2011)
10 Sunday Monitor of 20 March 2011
11 (Sunday Monitor 20.3.2011)
