Word came through this week that Mr
Isaak Hassan, Chairman of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission, had been nominated for the Electoral Conflict Resolution
Award.
This award is sponsored by the London-based
International Centre for Parliamentary Studies. Mr Hassan was nominated
alongside two others including Dr Afari-Gyan Kwadwo of the Electoral
Commission of Ghana. The winner will be announced on December 4 in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
I’m confident Mr Hassan will not win
the award. But the fact that he was nominated and elevated to the same
level with the Ghanaian is shocking.
It could be that
the standards of electoral management are so low that out of all
possible nominees, Mr Hassan’s did rank high enough and the award
committee had no option but to nominate him.
On the
other hand, it might be that the committee is woefully ignorant of Mr
Hassan’s role in the just concluded electoral process. Whichever way,
nothing illustrates the difficulty we have in getting our electoral
process on a path where it facilitates the process of state-building
than this instance of the nomination.
Let us be clear,
the electoral process is a useful indicator of the maturity or lack of
it of the state-building process. It provides the framework within which
those we entrust with the process of moulding our sense of citizenship
are selected.
Seen this way, polls make sense only
when seen as part of the governance process, a process that ought to be
the concern of leaders during the electoral cycle.
The
legitimacy of leaders is renewed periodically during elections, but
that legitimacy is tied to whether the outcome of the voting was indeed
the product of a credible process run by a credible body.
Two
important issues underlie the credibility of the electoral body. The
first is its ability to guarantee fairness in the process towards voting
while ensuring the winner is uncertain until all valid votes cast are
counted.
Second, while mistakes occur in an electoral
process, they must not exceed the margin of acceptable error. Once they
exceed that margin, the process becomes biased.
On the
fairness of the process that Mr Hassan oversaw in the 2013 elections,
there occurred mistakes that eliminate him from consideration for any
award.
These include questions about the
comprehensiveness and credibility of the voter register, collapse and
utter uselessness of the electronic voter identification devices and
electronic results transmission system, and alleged corruption of the
procurement process that is subject of a court case.
These
mistakes were consequential in two major ways. First, they gave the
Jubilee Coalition a first round win with a margin of less than 10,000
votes. Second, they have cemented the polarisation of the country in a
way that is inimical to harmonious co-existence of communities.
Even
previous merchants of ‘silence, peace in progress’ have regretted not
speaking out when the electoral process was abused. It is therefore a
contradiction of major proportions for Mr Hassan to be nominated for the
Award. Nothing in his management of the electoral process speaks to
conflict resolution.
The problem is that award
committees tend to treat elections as isolated events and make
judgements around what happens during voting, counting and tallying.
This thinking entrenches these as do-or-die days when politicians pull
all the stops to win.
Over time, these few days have
come to define what elections are. They attract a vile culture in which
the person who manages to bias the electoral playing field sufficiently
wins.
Although all manner of ills are committed on
these days, the electoral management body that gets away with it wins
undeserved accolades as society polarises in unacceptable ways. This
scenario played out in Kenya under Mr Hassan.
The ICPS award committee is becoming an accomplice in a potentially dangerous game of rewarding mediocrity.
No comments :
Post a Comment