ABSTRACT
Election observation has become a feature of democratic elections in most parts of the world as well as a key indicator of the credibility of elections. Consequently, continental, regional and sub-regional bodies have moved to form their own groups to observe and, in some instances, monitor elections in countries within their regions. Notwithstanding the relevance of election observation missions, there have been criticisms relating to the extent to which the actions of such missions enhance democracy in Africa. Using the 2012 and 2017 elections in Ghana and Kenya respectively, this study sought to examine the relevance of international elections observation missions in enhancing democracy in Ghana and Kenya. It was revealed that notwithstanding the generally positive contribution that election observation missions make to the electoral process and by extension democracy in African countries, there are a number of challenges that limit the contribution of the observation missions to democracy in the respective countries. These include deficit in the technology currently being deployed for elections around the continent and the technological competence deployed by observation missions. It was also revealed that the restrictive mandates granted to election observation missions by election management bodies in respective countries limits the extent of influence exerted by the observation missions on the democratic process of respective countries. Furthermore, it was noted that a high expectation gap arising out of a general misunderstanding of the populace about the function of observation missions relative to the mandates accorded such missions by the host country often affects public opinion of the contribution of observation missions to enhancing democracy in respective countries. The research questions were examined qualitatively using direct interviews, questionnaires and scholarly data. A review of literature was presented in line with the study objectives and research questions; and findings from the study were discussed in relation to the literature and framework that guided the study. The study recommended that to guarantee a positive contribution of international observation missions towards enhancing democracy in Africa, the above challenges ought to be comprehensively addressed through measures such as the co-optation of technologically competent personnel into missions and a reconsideration of the mandate of election observation missions by election management bodies in respective countries.
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Democracy has become a major feature in Africa as a result of political independence and subsequently, the third wave of democratisation in the 1990s which swept across these states.1 A movement of mass protests and demonstrations emerged against the authoritarian regimes that had installed themselves after an initial period of multi-party or single-party politics in the post-independence era.2 But beginning in 1992, the democratization process in Africa stalled and in some cases such as Somalia and Rwanda, “degenerated into violent ethnic conflict leading to the collapse of the state.”3 The history of competitive elections in much of African countries is that of violence ‘marred by pre- and post-electoral crises.’4 These crises are generally as a result of the ‘lack of confidence in the electoral process, the agency charged with the conduct of elections, and the election outcome.’5 These crises manifests themselves by way of boycotts of elections, intimidation and violence of political opponents and the refusal to accept officially declared results by aggrieved parties. For instance, Keefer (2002) posits that 20% of presidential elections are riddled with intimidation or fraud such that the outcome is usually affected.
In order for democracy to thrive, there is the need to guarantee free and fair elections devoid of suspicion and intimidation from political parties. For this to be achieved, election monitoring and evaluation has been adopted as a way of assisting in the conduct of free and fair elections, increasing voters’ confidence in the electoral process, enhancing the acceptability of election outcome and the legitimacy of the governments constituted through such elections.’6 Election observation is a valuable tool for improving the quality of elections.
Observers help build public confidence in the honesty of electoral processes. Observation can help promote and protect the civil and political rights of participants in elections. It can lead to the correction of errors or weak practices. More importantly, election observation can deter manipulation and fraud, or expose such problems if they do occur. This is why election observation has become an integral part of the sustenance of the democratization process in Africa. In fact, most African countries have had one election or the other subjected to processes of third-party observation and monitoring in the past decade.7
Having said this however, the pronouncements of observer teams, even when affirming the conduct of elections as free and fair, have not always led to their general acceptability, nor prevented the results of such elections from being contested. A classic case is the 2012 elections of Ghana in which the accusation of electoral fraud or irregularities formed the basis of a legal challenge to the 2012 presidential results. Similarly, the 2017 Kenyan elections were strongly disputed although various international elections observers pronounced the elections as credible. This has raised questions on the credibility of international election observers.
The challenges reflected in Kenya, Ghana and other countries have been the subject of growing criticism of the activities of International Election Observation (IEO) missions. Lynge-Mangeira argues that international election observation has not increased the credibility of elections.8 He focuses his criticism on three main points: that IEO missions are partisan; that the information available to IEO missions is inaccurate or inconsistently analysed; and that IEO missions are unable to detect and deter electoral irregularities. Similarly, Bjornlund posits that “election monitoring programs can be dangerously superficial, which sometimes leads the international community to accept the legitimacy of
highly flawed processes and hinders the search for enforceable, universal standards.”9 Kelley shares similar views. She states that IEO have political entanglements, practical constraints and normative concerns which affect and compromise their neutrality.10
Problem Statement
It has become customary for emerging democracies to invite and use observer teams (local and international) to monitor their elections. Members of these teams tend to be highly respected and organizations they represent, highly reputable. After the elections, these teams issue reports on the conduct of the elections. Often, they have declared these elections as credible and that outcome must be accepted. There is evidence that the international community gives considerable weight to these reports. Kelley notes that the pronouncements of IEO have gained worldwide attention as a result of their active role and considerable influence in election monitoring.11 Their reports help the international community to evaluate the legitimacy of governments. In some instances, these reports become bases upon which sanctions are applied by the international community on countries with ‘flawed’ elections. Supporters of election observation argue that observers improve the quality of elections and make it more likely that election fraud will be uncovered. However, in some cases there is evidence that substantial violations occur before, during, and after these polls that call into question the outcome of the elections.
In the context of the aforementioned arguments, this research work analysed the 2012 and 2017 elections of Ghana and Kenyan respectively in relation to the conduct of IEO missions. In the particular case of Ghana, after international election observers had given the process a clean bill of health, a legal challenge to the results at the Supreme Court of Ghana revealed the occurrence of some irregularities. Although the Supreme Court of Ghana decided in a
majority verdict that the irregularities did not warrant a general annulment of the results, it nevertheless called for massive reforms to prevent such challenges in future elections. In the case of Kenya, in the aftermath of the August 2017 elections, all observer teams including the local Election Observation Group (ELOG) indicated a credible process. The East African Community (EAC) observer team, for example, issued a statement claiming that the 2017 elections of Kenya were free and fair and that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) had ‘done a good job.’ Similarly, the European Union (EU) observer mission indicated that it had seen no signs of “centralised or localised manipulation” of the voting process.12 These affirmations of a credible process were in spite of claims of malpractices which put the integrity of electoral observers in disrepute. Following the annulment of the Presidential Election by the Supreme Court of Kenya, IEO missions were subject to massive criticism for not being effective and threatening the democratisation process of the Kenyan state.
