Donors fulfilled their obligations on elections
The United Nations and international community work worldwide to support credible elections. Why? Because it is the political right of an individual, and as a nation, an act of self-determination, to choose their leaders. The key concern of partners is to support a credible process led by national institutions that gives voice to a country’s citizenry to choose their leaders.
The stakes of the May 2014 tripartite elections in Malawi were high, the pre-election projections uncertain and the rigging fears rampant. Ultimately, when an 11th hour drama plays itself out, as Malawi’s elections did before the courts, there are some deep-seated concerns to be addressed.
The 2014 electoral process challenged the status quo of Malawian politics and institutions. Defining the future of Malawian politics needs to be a common endeavour that starts with honest introspection and analysis that crosses partisan lines and social boundaries.
If, however, facts are misrepresented or accountabilities deflected then there is a risk that the momentum to realise needed changes will be lost. Development partners, through the UNDP Basket Fund, paid for most essential polling materials for the elections. All of these materials were delivered at least a month before the elections and with a surplus amount. The almost 24 million ballots were also paid from the Basket Fund and delivered on schedule. The donors commitments were met on time and under budget. The development partners went further to support the payment of most polling staff, also through the Basket Fund. Against the original budget of almost $44 million, development partners covered the costs of almost $15 million (or about 34 percent) of the elections. What was agreed with donors was funded and beyond.
UNDP has also been in place to advise the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC). As a sovereign and independent commission, MEC has the choice of taking that advice or not. In-line with both national and international expectations of progressively less international financial and technical support, technical advice has been provided to MEC through a team of five technical advisers, compared to 20 advisers in the 2009 elections. Implementing the process of these elections has rightly been the responsibility and duty of the electoral commission and MEC will surely draw lessons from the process.
There is a need for a balanced view of events and performance. On one hand, there were many gains for democracy that deserve to be recognised: the overall transparency of the electoral process, party conventions, candidate primaries, special measures for female candidates, considerable media openness, an auditable tally process, an accessible and responsive complaint process, a decline in null and void votes, and a level of voter turnout that would be the envy of most democracies. On the other hand, MEC experienced logistical challenges on election day, levels of mistrust infused and disrupted the process, and a lack of accountability plagued the aftermath.
Early planning is critical, but planning alone will not guarantee successful Malawian elections in 2019. Democracy in Malawi will only progress if the gaps that these elections demonstrated are acted upon. There is a need for legislative reform and perhaps constitutional review, and a structural review of the MEC. The issues arising prompt some questions: Is it time to abandon the first-past-the-post electoral system that creates a winner-take all mindset and often fares poorly for women in highly contested elections? Is there a need to change the process of selecting and appointing commissioners—should there be civil society and faith based organisation representatives? Is the electoral commission of today the institution that Malawi needs in five years’ time?
Malawi also needs to examine the political contract that is established between voters and those that are voted into power. To paint a picture: only 53 members of Parliament retained their seats; only 18 out of 57 registered political parties presented candidates; and, following a growing trend, independent parliamentarians now represent the largest bloc in the National Assembly.
As the UN, we support and welcome a healthy discussion. Let us keep the discussion going, let us get the facts right. Let us not lose crucial momentum to push through change after proper reflection.
—The author is the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Malawi.
