In the following article, Gyaviira Kisitu grapples with the semantics and the complex-political nuances encapsulated by the notion of “free and fair” in the democratic discourse. He centers his analysis on the recently concluded presidential elections in Uganda. Kisitu argues that the mere pronouncing of an election as “free and fair” is often debated by opposing groups and is in fact much more complicated.
By Gyaviira Kisitu
A common assumption implied by a simplistic description of political elections as free and fair is that they have served justice. While the means and end of the principle of justice are to serve a common good, it remains contestable whether the so described ‘free and fair’ elections are always in the interest of the masses. The phrase itself appears ambiguously used, politicized, ritualized and at times merely uttered for the sake of it. It may not matter that an ‘independent’ electoral commission of a country can both admit that electoral violence occurred, and assert a free and fair outcome of the elections. On one hand some observers may declare a certain election as a true reflection of the peoples’ will while others see the same election far less of the sort. Atuobi (2008:15) rightly argues that “In most cases, elections declared as free and fair by some observer groups are called a sham by other observer groups”. One wonders then, who is fooling whom? What does it entail for an election to be free and fair? Is it just a perceived peaceful turnout or when a certain election is not challenged in the court of law of that particular state?
It is obvious that in many electoral processes little attention is given to the seemingly ritualized usage of the term free and fair. There is little critical reflection on questions such as “Is the election management body truly independent and free from the influence of the ruling party or opposition parties beyond constitutional provisions? Does the election management body have the resources and capacity to deliver on its constitutional mandate?” (Atuobi 2008:12). During the 2013 presidential elections in Zimbabwe for instance, the world received contradictory messages concerning the authenticity of the presidential elections results. While the results were disputed by the main challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, and some local observers, the same results were recognized as free and fair by the African Union (AU) observers as well as the Zimbabwean Supreme Court.
The recent presidential election in Uganda is not excused from such paradoxes. Statements issued by bodies such as the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM), Commonwealth Observer Group, African Union Election observation Mission (AU-EOM) and the Uganda election commission (UEC), as well as groups of Ugandan religious leaders, reveal the extent at which the freeness and fairness of an election is actually a contestable phenomenon. For instance, while the EU-EOM (2016) noted that “the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM’s) domination of the political landscape distorted the fairness of the campaign and state actors were instrumental in creating an intimidating atmosphere for both voters and candidates,” the Uganda election commission on the other hand declared the flag bearer of the NRM, Yoweri Museveni as the winner, suggesting a free and fair election.
The 2016 Uganda’s presidential election was not the most promising for the Ugandan people in any case. The main opposition candidate, Dr. Kiiza Besigye, ran his campaign on a call for ‘the change we deserve’, but he appeared to assert that Uganda’s problem was simply Museveni, which diverts attention from other challenges affecting the Ugandan public. Museveni’s campaign, however, focused on steady progress, which seemed to recognize and reconfirm ‘business as usual’.
Although Museveni was the declared winner with 60.75% of the vote, significantly beating his immediate rival, Besigye, who managed to receive 35.37% of the vote, the conditions that characterized the voting demonstrate how State power used through different institutions defined the victor.
For example, the 2016 presidential election was marred by continuous arrests of opposition leaders and restrictions on their movements. This created a safe space for the incumbent (Museveni) to consolidate his influence with the electorate. The opposition was depicted as barbaric and lawless and therefore needed to be prevented from committing crime. The incumbent and his camp on the other hand were depicted as the noble class capable of offering to the State the only genuine leadership. For many local observers, such as the Uganda Joint Christian Council (UJCC), the Inter-religious Council as well as the Elders forum, this implied assumption indicated a defeat for the cause of justice and fair play. For instance, UJCC declared,
These actions which have been taken by the security personnel when a state of emergency has not been declared in Uganda appear to us to constitute impunity on the part of the State and may be interpreted as a deliberate plan aimed at depriving Dr Besigye of his rights including freedom of movement, of assembly, of expression and of seeking legal redress in connection with the elections. “We would hasten to add that the above measures have robbed the presidential election . . . of a level political playing field, its key elements being freedom of movement, of assembly, of expression and the right to equal protection of the law (Anglican Communion News Service, 2016)
Further the state’s choice to shut down social media during the voting demonstrated a mechanism employed to curtail the flow of information during the electoral process. It is therefore obvious that the government wanted to control any reports about the process, and not allow people to communicate among themselves. The shutdown was justified as a “security measure meant to avert lies…” (Duggan, 2016) -an action that was met with condemnation from local and international observers. One could argue therefore, that these events before, during and after the presidential elections in Uganda served to control, monitor, and subsequently announce an already dictated election result.
The 2016 Ugandan presidential election was not a game changer but instead one that consolidated power. Indeed, it illustrated very well what had once been Museveni’s defining view concerning the major political problem that African states faced. In 1986, when he captured power in Uganda, Museveni asserted that Africa had to get rid of political leaders who sought to stay in power after their terms were over. Then, Museveni believed such leaders were “dictators who had to be actively opposed” because “they would not just fall off themselves like ripe mangoes” (Khadiagala 1998:146). It was clear then for Museveni, who was also perceived by many Ugandans as a political visionary and liberator, that such leaders expose their countries to political bankruptcy, economic disempowerment, disunity, and under development, among many other dangers.
The 2016 elections have significant parallels with the past five presidential elections ever held in the republic. Candidates regularly claim that vote rigging occurred and so dispute election results. In the December 1980 presidential election, for example, Milton Obote of the Uganda People’s Congress was declared the winner, but Yoweri Museveni (the current president), disputed the election results as fraud and decided to wage a guerrilla war that saw him capturing power in 1986.
In 1996, under the no-party democracy (multi-party democracy had been banned in Uganda in 1967, not until 2005 when it was restored through a referendum), Museveni’s landslide victory was equally challenged, and rejected by candidates Paul Ssemogerere and Kibirige Muhammad Mayanja, both of whom claimed massive electoral irregularities. The 2001, 2006, 2011 presidential elections results were similarly challenged. Helle S.K et al (2011) described the 2011 presidential poll results not as an expression people’s will but as a consolidation of power. They rightly noted that the 2011 Uganda presidential elections witnessed certain positive developments (such as allowing opposition parties to hold delegation conferences), but that unfair and hostile conditions still worked to the disadvantage of the opposition (2011:2).
The irony revealed by the extended, 30-year rule of Museveni, which has now been guaranteed by his contested victory in the recent election, is the assumption that long time political leaders are no longer a major problem facing African states. In 2015 during a joint press conference, in which president Museveni and his Kenyan counterpart Uhuru Kenyatta sought to address the crucial issues facing the East African region, the Ugandan leader demonstrated this complete change of tone. He declared that “what Africa lacks is not who [is in the leadership], but what is to be done” (Nation Television Uganda, 2015). But to what extent is the ideology constitutive of the local people’s opinions? If the public anger directed against autocratic regimes in Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Gabon, and Togo, among other countries, was to offer any lessons, could Museveni’s new message and the way in which the 2016 Ugandan presidential poll was conducted be claimed as the best answer to Africa’s challenges today?
Gyaviira Kisitu is from Uganda and is a PhD candidate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. His main research interest is on African sexualities, gender and African religions. His current research attempts to investigate religion and its contribution to controversies over policy making on homosexuality in Uganda.
Duggan, B (2016). “Uganda shuts down social media; candidates arrested on election day” Cable New Network. Available from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/world/uganda- election-social-media-shutdown/ [accessed on 16th march 2016]
Khadiagala, G.M 1998. Review‘Sowing the Mastered Seed: The struggle for freedom and democracy in Uganda’Foreign policy No. 111 (Summer,1998), pp. 141-144. Wishingtonpost.newsweek interactive, LLC.
European Union Election Observation Mission (2016) ‘Uganda 2016 Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council Elections’ available from http://www.eueom.eu/files/pressreleases/english/PreliminaryStatement_20160220.pdf>.Kampala, 20 February 2016. Accessed on 15th march 2016
Helle, S. E; Sabiti M & Ingvild A. S (2011) “When elections consolidate power: The futile fight of the Ugandan”. CMI Brief MAY Vol 10 No.2
Anglican Communion News Service, (2016)“Ugandan churches call for reform after electoral failings”. Available from <http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/02/ugandan- churches-call-for-reform-after-electoral-failings.aspx>.[accessed on 16 march 2016].
Nation Television Uganda (2016) ‘Museveni and Uhuru Kenyatta address a press conference-10/8/2015’ <https://youtu.be/5HqmrlFHvRY> accessed on 10th march 2016.
Its a pity, majority of African countries are still far from [practicing democracy