Of IEC openess to scrutiny and inclusivity of its stakeholders
Dear Editor
The Public Relations Officer of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), Mr Othusitse Maroba has assured all and sundry that, “The IEC commits to remaining open to scrutiny by its stakeholders” (The Patriot on Sunday, 12th November 2023.). This is a very encouraging assurance which challenges all stakeholders to assert themselves and make the commission meet their expectations, individually and collectively, by satisfying the minimum standards for running free, fair, credible and transparent elections. That Duma Boko has accused the IEC of intending to register Namibians as voters for our next general elections is neither here nor there. I would only like to drum up and make a clarion call for the IEC to stick to its welcome commitment to being open to scrutiny as well as to include its stakeholders more as provided by both the practice and the law in the running of elections.
Openness to scrutiny is one of the ways by which transparency can be realised. It has to be seen as the modus operandi of an institution like the IEC, which is expected to not only manage elections, but also maintain a balanced and fair relationship with all its key stakeholders, especially political parties. Proper running of elections is the main ingredient of peace but the opposite is a recipe for instability. The modern citizen is a creature that thrives better on choice. This includes unfettered choice of the people s/ he would like to be led by.
Elections are a big deal and that is why voting should not be seen as just a mechanical process of casting a ballot paper. It is a ticket to securing the destiny of a nation. It has to be done in the right manner, by the right people and for the right purpose.
In some countries like Australia, voting is compulsory by law. Globally and regionally, there are protocols that are put in place to guide the running of elections for member states of the various regional bodies. Botswana, as a member of the SADC, subscribe to the “The SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections”. The expectation is that as a member state, she should have ratified these protocols and domesticated them into laws with the view to conforming to the best practices as set out.
One of the objectives of the of “The SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections” is to “promote the development of inclusive political institutions… for purposes of advancing democracy, prosperity, peace, stability and security in the region”.
Lack of inclusivity of Botswana’s elections has always been an issue for debate. The fact that the setting up of and the announcement of the date of holding elections is the exclusive preserve of the sitting president as opposed to the IEC itself, is one such issue. This very key role of the IEC is usurped by the presidency, thereby greatly diminishing the independence of the commission. Contrast this with other progressive democracies. For example, Ghana’s next general elections is already set for December 7, 2024. For the UK, which we are supposed to be emulating, will hold their next elections on January 28, 2025. Several other democracies across the globe follow the practice of setting dates of elections well in time for the convenience of every stakeholder. Perhaps if this was the case with Botswana, the lawyer for the IEC on his argument that the UDC should have registered their case of “registration observers” immediately after the last general elections, could have held water!
Going forward, every Motswana, especially those entrusted with what I would call key patriotic responsibilities, must have heightened awareness that we have Vision 2036 to deliver, for the good of our country’s future and future generations. We need to jointly deliver our national ideals as espoused in the vision.
Amongst other things, the vision proclaims that “Effective electoral management, and free, fair and credible election of leaders into office are important ingredients of a democratic system. The vision is to see Botswana as a mature liberal democracy of international standing”.
Further, the vision is quite instructive if not prescriptive on what it expects of our electoral management. It posits that “Our electoral management system will be anchored in an independent electoral body” and that “political representatives across the political divide will be equally respected and acknowledged”.
It then follows that the independence of our electoral commission must further be enhanced and as recommended by the many evaluation reports, some emanating from the commission itself. It must be seen to be totally removed and insulated from the influence, whether perceived or otherwise from the presidency. The reason for this is because when it comes to doing its work, the President and his party, must be just but another players able to scrutinise the IEC for its fairness or lack thereof, whenever the need arises, like other stakeholders.
For start and as much as possible under the current law, the IEC must utilise structures that have been established to ensure an inclusive approach to the running of elections. The Party Liaison Committees (PLCs) and the All Party Conference (APC) must be utilised more to make collective decisions that affect all stakeholders. If a collective approach is used, this will rid the IEC of burden of being accused of unfairness by any of the stakeholders.
In the absence an inclusive approach, it is expected that one after another, stakeholders who feel hard done by lack on inclusion by the IEC in deciding on key electoral processes and activities are likely to go the court route, needlessly so.
The tendency by the commission to approach the courts for defense will only help to open floodgates for further debates on the currency, relevance and nature of some of our democratic systems, process and institutions. Perhaps we need this for catalysed Mindset Change after all.