|
Mediating Election-Related Conflicts
ReliefWeb
July 14, 2009
by Chris Fomunyoh
Full Report (pdf format -
273 Kb)
Introduction
 Beyond major conflicts in Africa over
the territorial integrity of states such as Sudan and Somalia, many recent
conflicts on the continent are ignited by grievances over bad governance and
exclusionary political practices. In many cases, flawed or failed elections have
either precipitated political disputes or aggravated simmering tensions into an
outburst of conflict. For example, in the last five years, violent conflicts
have ensued from the competition for political power in Africa as demonstrated
by dramatic election-related crises in Ethiopia, Kenya and Zimbabwe. While the
magnitude of hostilities in all cases may not rise to the level of armed
conflict or civil war, invariably, many lives are lost, property destroyed,
societies are further polarized and democratization efforts are either stalled
or reversed. In some cases, intense and long drawn-out disputes over electoral
processes and outcomes raise questions about the legitimacy of the winning party
and candidate through the duration of that candidate's term of office.
Election-related disputes raise special challenges, particularly around issues
such as: how to revive political will and recreate neutral space for citizen
participation and confidence in various aspects of the country's governance
process; and how potential mediators from within national boundaries or the
international community can walk the fine line of respecting the sovereignty of
nation-states while at the same time giving high regard to universal principles
such as the responsibility to protect in cases where disputes spill over into
full blown conflict. Regional and international actors also face the dilemma of
intervening if called upon to do so by one of the parties, and the difficulties
of undertaking mediation efforts without the approval and collaboration of the
host country government. In Zimbabwe, for example, many observers believe that
by limiting mediation efforts within the realm of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC – a regional entity in which incumbent
President Mugabe held swear over some of the other leaders) to the exclusion of
other international actors, the country missed an opportunity to mitigate the
negative impact of further polarization and civil strife in the aftermath of the
very controversial parliamentary and presidential elections of March 2008.
 While there is a general understanding
that elections alone do not a democracy make, there is also recognition that
multiparty elections are a necessary pillar in democratic governance. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for citizens to have the rights
to elect their representatives through regular elections. As members of the
United Nations, all African countries adhere to the Universal Declaration, and
many of them cross reference its provisions in the preambles of their respective
constitutions. Elections therefore serve a primordial function in every
democratic society. In some cases, peace agreements for countries emerging from
armed conflict provide a timeframe for elections in a bid to obtain legitimacy
for those that win power, and also in the hopes of providing an opening for
former belligerents to transform themselves into more positive political actors
that resort to ballots rather than bullets to make their voices heard. If
properly organized, elections, even when conducted as part of a post-conflict
agreement or strategy can in fact lend legitimacy to the government that
emerges; as was the case with the post-conflict election in 2005 in Liberia won
by current President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Conversely, failed elections can
exacerbate further conflict. For example, an attempt to hold competitive
multiparty elections in Angola in 1992 — the first such effort since the
country achieved independence in 1974 – reignited armed conflict
supposedly because the parties were not prepared or the elections were
premature.
Overall, by their very competitive nature, elections in fragile states generate
extensive political activism and participation, and generally add stress to
existing political systems and their nascent institutions. Activities
surrounding elections tend to bring to the fore issues such as the right of free
association as citizens and candidates engage in campaign activities across the
country; the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which may be called
upon to rule on election-related grievances, and needs to assure citizens that
they can obtain fair and equitable recourse through non-violent means; the
professionalism and neutrality of the military, the police and other security
services; and the faith of citizens in civil discourse and tolerance of diverse
viewpoints. When poorly conducted, elections exacerbate tensions and can spark
conflict in transitional societies with fragile institutions.
Elections, even when successful, cannot be considered an end in themselves.
Rather, elections need to be viewed as a means to achieving the greater
aspirations of good governance by citizens in a democratic society or in a
democratizing environment. Elections should be viewed as an important step in
the continuum of ongoing political and social interactions among citizens and
leaders in a given nation-state, involved in negotiations and frequent renewal
of the social compact and not be treated solely as a technical exercise that
takes place on election day. A holistic or comprehensive approach to elections
allows political actors and various stakeholders to identify flash points or
early warning signs for potential conflicts, so as to be better prepared to
seize opportunities for eventual monitoring and mediation by national and
international actors. Such a comprehensive approach views elections through the
broader prism of political (as opposed to technical) undertakings, and the full
array of conflict mediation tools ought to be activated or deployed to prevent
or quickly resolve election-related conflict.
How elections are managed, and responses to election related tensions by various
stakeholders – prior to, during and after elections – underscore the
linkages between mediation activities and election monitoring by both domestic
and international groups. Experience has shown that there is a nexus of
overlapping interventions possible when seeking to conduct peaceful elections in
conflict prone societies, predicting flashpoints for potential conflicts around
elections, and contemplating concrete steps that could be taken to mitigate and
mediate conflicts that emerge there from. Also, there are many different forms
that mediation can take, at each phase of the electoral process. Traditionally,
while much effort is focused on preventive mediation – addressing disputes
prior to the eruption of violent conflict, in some cases,"crisis
response" mediation will be required, as was in both Kenya and Zimbabwe.
Each form of mediation takes a specific approach and requires different actors
and strategies. Reviewing the full electoral process through the lens of
mediation is therefore important.
With over 20 national elections expected to take place in Africa in 2009 and
2010, there is a growing interest in obtaining a better understanding of
mechanisms that could enhance the efficacy of mediation efforts around elections
so as to mitigate humanitarian crises and make a long lasting positive impact on
the governance process, especially for countries engaged in post-conflict
reconstruction and reconciliation.
Copyright © 2009 ReliefWeb
|
