The Controversy of 19 boxes: A matter of election integrity
There are indeed several obvious reasons why many patriotic Sierra Leoneans remain reluctant to participate in the country’s party politics. What is supposed to be a simple and straightforward process can by design easily become rocket science. Not only are many of these complications deliberately created by the same set of players trading roles in attempts to strategically position themselves for personal gains at the expense of the greater good, but many appear to go great lengths to ensure true democratic principles never thrive in Sierra Leone’s electoral process. Recent record of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) in this area is nothing to write home about. Therefore, the pending standard bearer election is another opportunity for the Party to either prove its critics right, by alienating its support base and admirers, and go back into exile for decades; or prove its critics wrong, by energizing its support base and attracting more admirers, while stepping into 2012 as a winning party proven to be the most diversity tolerable in the country. Innervate
Whatever the case may be, the choice is that of the Party’s key leadership machinery to make, and many of us will stand aside and watch with objective skepticism. No one should fool themselves that a different result will ultimately emerge with the party doing business as usual. And of course, the All People’s Congress (APC) will not only learn from a SLPP imposed disenfranchisement strategy, but the aftermath will once again leave the SLPP with no moral ground to question an APC victory in 2012, whether by hook or crook. Perhaps the most daunting task of all will once again be the party’s ability to unite after the flag bearer election, if the winning presidential candidate is generally believed to have manipulated his or her way to party leadership by means of undue influence, whether by design or chance. What is ultimately at stake here is ensuring that the SLPP flag bearer election is conducted in an environment that is free, fair and transparent.
It may not matter whether there is one box or 19 boxes, if the election is conducted with integrity. But the current disagreement over the number of boxes appears to stem mainly from the lack of confidence in the proposed process. Over the last couple of weeks, conspiracy theories have emerged some pointing out attempts to rig the election through several creative means including vote buying. While the party’s electoral team is yet to convince many, including certain flag bearer candidates, that the change from a system of one box for all candidates to one box per candidate is for reasons other than an attempt to compromise the election, designing and implementing effective safe guards to ensure the electoral process is free, fair and transparent is critical in guaranteeing a level playing field for all candidates. In my opinion, here are few options for the electoral team to consider in reaching a solution:
- Stay put with the one box for all candidates: This could be seen as free, fair and transparent if each voter is given a ballot after which he/she retires into a room alone, mark the ballot selecting the candidate of their choice, emerge from the room and place the marked ballot into the single box placed in open for all candidates or their representatives to see. This approach seems to have worked in the past although many considered the presence of certain incumbent party leaders to have intimated voters into voting the candidate presumed to be favored by key party leaders. But with the issue of incumbency being a non-factor, voters will have the choice of voting without any influence by incumbency. The only risk here again is that the presence of certain party leaders may influence certain voters to lean on the side of the status quo whether or not such candidate represents their respective issues of importance. However, the effect of any such influence may be considered negligible.
- Go with 19 boxes with effective safe guards over the process: As proposed, each voter is to be given a single ballot after which he or she retires into a room where the 19 boxes are located, mark their ballot and place it into the box of the candidate of their choice. This approach could only be seen as free, fair and transparent if effective safe guards are put in place to mitigate several risk factors that appear to be inherent in the process. If not mitigated, many of these risk factors increase the likelihood of compromise in the voting process which will ultimately place doubts on the reliability of the outcome. Therefore, with this approach, the electoral team must ensure that:
I. Delegates actually voted (placed their ballot in the box of the candidate of their choice) when they enter the polling room. This could be done by having one representative for each candidate present in the room to man their respective candidate’s box during voting. No one else should be allowed in the room until the voting is complete.
II. Delegates who have already voted are not allowed access to those who have not yet voted whether directly or indirectly- for no reason should anyone including those delegates who have already voted be allowed access to the area where delegates who have not yet voted are waiting. Exceptions could be granted to select party secretariat staff (those serving refreshments to delegates or carrying out other administrative and logistical responsibilities) as long as individuals are thoroughly searched before entering waiting areas of delegates. This will ensure that potential ballot trafficking is prevented and/or detected. Representatives for the respective candidates must be present as observers during the search and objections by each observer must be addressed by party electoral team at once before the objected individual is allowed into the delegates waiting area.
III. Voting is done in one day avoiding an interruption of the established process-There is no reason why the voting could not be completed in a day. The flag bearer election must be prioritized. And with about 600 delegates, voting could be completed in about 10-12 hours (an average of about 1 minute per voter and 60 voters in an hour).
IV. Any candidate alleged and found convincingly guilty of vote buying or voter intimidation must be disqualified at once.
V. Ballots are pre-numbered and accounted for at the end of the voting and before results are announced. Any duplicate ballots must be investigated for authenticity and counterfeit ballots must be disqualified from the count.
Given that the party’s constitution is silent with respect to the details of the election process, the electoral team should consider drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) mapping out the election process to be adopted by party National Executive Council (NEC) and signed by all candidates. We must remember that independence and objectivity of electoral officials both in fact and in appearance are critical to the effectiveness of the controls proposed above and the ultimate reliability of the related election results. All stakeholders are therefore now seen as being responsible for the future of the SLPP party as well as Sierra Leone’s democracy. They can chose to do right and let true democracy thrive or do wrong and engrave their hand prints in the book on the dark history of our young democracy.
By Mustapha Wai, Virginia, USA
Stay with Sierra Express Media, for your trusted place in news!
© 2011, https:. All rights reserved.
