“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
These words are often attributed to Joseph Stalin, the brutal Soviet dictator. The sentiment will not surprise Zimbabweans who remember the bizarre events around the presidential election of 29 March 2008. Back then, it took six weeks before the results of that election were announced by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). The electoral body explained the inordinate delay on the grounds that it was undertaking “meticulous verification” of the votes. It was a weak justification and the delay was illegal. Most observers believe the six-week delay was used to fiddle with the results. This allowed Robert Mugabe, who lost to Tsvangirai in that round, a second chance at a run-off election. Those who counted the votes had, indeed, decided everything.
While counting the votes is one way to manipulate an election, another method involves the voter registration process. Vote counting affects the numbers after the event, but voter registration affects the numbers before the voting process begins. Those in charge of voter registration are the gate-keepers of the voting system. They have the power to determine who among the adult population can vote. This is because although by law any person over the age of 18 is entitled to vote, only those who are registered and appear on the voters’ roll can vote. This is why voter registration has an exclusionary effect, since it excludes those who are not registered. The ability to exclude people from voting is a key power in the hands of those who run elections or influence the conduct of elections.
This article is about the law and politics of voter registration and the voters’ roll – and how they are instruments of electoral manipulation. I argue that failure to carry out voter registration and keeping a shambolic voters’ roll are deliberate and strategic mechanisms designed by the system and ZANU PF to exclude voters, particularly in demographic groups and geographical spaces that are perceived to be opposition territory.
The law on voter registration and the voters’ roll
In terms of Section 239 of the Constitution, ZEC has the mandate “to register voters; to compile voters’ rolls and registers; and to ensure the proper custody and maintenance of voters’ rolls and registers”.
These functions used to be performed by the Registrar General of Voters (RGV) but the new Constitution transferred them to ZEC, a move that was meant to improve the system and give it more credibility.
Section 67 of the Declaration of Rights guarantees that every citizen who is at least 18 years old has the right to make political choices and to vote freely and in secret. Consequently, the right to register as a voter is also fundamental.
The duty of the state to ensure that every adult citizen is registered and is able to vote is fortified by section 155(2)(a) of the Constitution, which compels the state to ensure that citizens who qualify to register as voters must be registered. It provides that the State “must ensure that all eligible citizens, that is to say, the citizens qualified under the Fourth Schedule, are registered as voters”.
The Fourth Schedule sets out the requirements for registration. A person must be a Zimbabwean citizen who is at least 18 years old and is not disqualified as a voter. There is only a small category of people who are disqualified from registration as voters. It includes people who are legally certified as mentally ill; people who have been declared by the court as being incapable of managing their own affairs; or people convicted of violating the Electoral Law and are declared by the High Court as disqualified for registration for a maximum period of five years.
Section 1(2) of the Fourth Schedule also provides that the Electoral Law may prescribe additional residential requirements, but such requirements must be consistent with the Constitution, particularly section 67. This means, these “additional residential requirements” must not operate in a manner that infringes upon the fundamental right to vote. Therefore, onerous residential requirements that effectively exclude voters are likely to be considered unconstitutional.
In addition, the electoral law requires that voter registration is a continuous and on-going exercise. Contrary to common belief, voter registration is not a process that takes place only just before the elections. It is an on-going process that should take place even between election periods. A person must be able to attend the voter registration offices to register, just as they would attend the Registrar’s office to apply for a birth certificate, ID or passport. This was reaffirmed by the High Court in the Dabengwa case (2015) where Justice Bhunu stated that the law requires “there be a continuous system of registration of voters. This is a mandatory duty from which the commission and its chairperson cannot abdicate or postpone as it is an ongoing process which they cannot suspend”.
Apart from voter registration, another key process is inspection of the voters’ roll. This is an important process that enables voters to check whether their details are correctly represented on the voters’ roll. The law requires that the voters’ roll must be made available in time to allow voters to make appeals and for any concerns to be resolved by the relevant authorities. This mechanism is designed to minimise exclusion of voters from the voting system.
In addition, the electoral law compels ZEC to provide candidates with printed copies of the voters’ roll. It also requires ZEC to provide, for free, an electronic copy of the voters’ roll, which is “searchable and analyzable”. This is also designed to ensure that candidates and parties contesting in an election have full and unhindered access to the voters’ roll, which they can audit to ensure that it is accurate and representative of the voting population.
Overall, the law on voter registration, the voters’ roll and inspection of the voters’ roll is clear, but the practical implementation is problematic.
Brief history of the right to vote
Some of the challenges around voter registration and the voters’ roll are legacy issues from the colonial era, during which the electoral system was patently exclusionary. A brief look at the history of the right to vote in Zimbabwe shows that the use of the electoral system to exclude has deep roots. The actors have changed over time, but systematic exclusion has remained a key feature of the electoral system. The major difference is that during the colonial era, exclusion was institutionalised and recognised by law, while since independence, there is a façade of inclusion by law, but on closer inspection the system is also designed to exclude, as this article demonstrates.
During colonial times, the principle of universal adult suffrage was not recognised. Indeed, Ian Douglas Smith’s infamous remark that there would be no majority rule in a thousand years encapsulates the mentality of exclusion that was dominant within the Rhodesian establishment at the time. The racial policies of the Rhodesian regime meant the majority of blacks were excluded by law from the electoral system.
When a referendum was held in October 1922 to decide whether Southern Rhodesia should become a self-governing colony or join the Union of South Africa as the fifth province, the electorate was exclusively white. Later, the franchise was extended to blacks but on a very limited basis tied to property ownership. It was on this basis that just 62 blacks qualified to vote in the 1928 election. The number progressed to just 70 in 1939 and 560 in 1956. The 1961 Constitution, which was initially accepted by some Nationalists, permitted voting by blacks but qualification was still tied to property ownership and related criteria. These limitations to the right to vote were part of the reason why a larger group of nationalists rejected the Constitution. They argued that the system was designed to frustrate majority rule.
It was under similar property ownership rules that people like the current Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku won a seat in the Rhodesian Parliament to represent the black residential suburb of Harari between 1974 and 1977, when he stepped down. Unsurprisingly, the right to vote was one of the core demands of the liberation struggle in the 1960s and 1970s. The principle of “one man one vote” became an important slogan of the struggle.
When independence arrived in 1980, following the Lancaster House Constitutional Conference in 1979, the right to universal adult suffrage was recognised. Every citizen could now vote, regardless of their race. However, the existing electoral infrastructure did not cater for the majority of the black population. There was no voters’ roll for the black adult population apart from the few who had qualified to vote before independence. The politics of the day, which involved compromises from both sides, meant the first election was based on two rolls: the White Roll and the Common Roll. The White Roll was for 20 seats reserved for white and other qualifying citizens, while the Common Roll was for the blacks (80 seats).
As stated, there was no voters’ roll for the new black voters. They had never voted before, so they had never been registered as voters and no such roll had ever been established. However, there was no time to register the large number of newly eligible voters. The Lancaster House Agreement was concluded on 21 December 1979 and the elections were held just two months later, between 27 and 29 February 1980. Thousands of refugees were returning from neighbouring countries and overseas, and they all wanted to vote. To ensure that everyone was able to vote, it was agreed that they could use identity documents to vote in the first democratic elections. There was no need for a voters’ roll. In fact, eliminating the need for a voters’ roll was designed to prevent exclusion from the voting process.
The 1985 general elections were the first elections in which a voters’ roll was used for the Common Roll seats. However, setting a pattern that would be repeated in future elections, the voter registration exercise was conducted late. The process was hurried and inefficient. While the first democratic elections in 1980 had been more inclusive without a voters’ roll, the next elections in 1985 began to have an exclusionary effect. The voters’ roll became a new instrument of exclusion as those who were not registered could not vote. Likewise, those whose details did not match what was on the voters’ roll were also excluded. Questions such as who registers voters, the criteria and qualifications for registration, who has custody of the voters’ roll, the inspection and audit of the voters’ roll to ensure corrections all became fundamental questions in the 1985 elections and subsequent elections.
Over subsequent general elections, the voters’ roll has become a point of serious contestation between electoral authorities and opposition parties. The RGV maintained a tight and authoritarian grip on the voter registration process and custody of the voters’ roll. The processes were opaque and secretive. The content of the voters’ roll has been disputed, with allegations of inflated numbers and, particularly, the retention of deceased voters on the register. Access to the voters’ roll has been impossible despite provisions under the law. All in all, the voters’ roll has been described as a shambles and there have been persistent calls to completely overhaul it. One of the first major cases to highlight problems with the voters’ roll was the legal challenge brought by Margaret Dongo after the 1995 general elections. An important part of her challenge was based on the shambolic state of the voters’ roll. Her legal victory was a serious indictment on the voters’ roll and the electoral authorities.
It is largely due to these criticisms of the RGV and the state of the voters’ roll that the mandate to register voters and to compile and maintain the voters’ roll was transferred to the ZEC. It was believed that as an independent constitutional commission, ZEC would perform the roles better than the RGV’s office, which is part of the public service and, therefore, lacks independence. Nevertheless, as I argue in this article, ZEC itself has been a huge disappointment since it took over the roles in 2013.
ZEC: neglect, duplicity and hypocrisy
Contrary to expectations when ZEC was granted the mandate over voter registration and the voters’ roll, the commission has been both a disaster and an embarrassment. Its conduct has made the RGV, Tobaiwa Mudede, appear as if he was doing a sterling job during his long and controversial tenure as the registration authority and custodian of the voters’ roll.
The Gono case
The manner in which ZEC dealt with the issue of its powers to register voters is a good example of its serious shortcomings. In 2014, ZEC refused to recognize the registration of Gideon Gono as a voter in a Manicaland constituency, arguing that he had not been properly registered. Dr Gono was in line to be nominated as a ZANU PF Senator in Manicaland province, following the death of Kumbirai Kangai. However, to be eligible for that post, he needed to transfer his registration to Manicaland province. He approached the RGV, who made the transfer. This was rejected by ZEC, which pointed out that the RGV’s powers over the voters’ roll had long expired. ZEC was right on that point. However, when it was asked to register Dr Gono, ZEC argued that it could not do that as the legislation had not been realigned with the Constitution. This argument did not make sense as it suggested that there no authority would register voters until legislation was aligned to the Constitution. ZEC was effectively abdicating its constitutional responsibilities to register voters and to compile the voters’ roll.
As I argued at the time, ZEC’s argument was flawed because the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution were more than enough for it to start registering voters and compile the voters’ roll. I pointed out that even though the legislation had not been realigned, the Constitution was the superior law and ZEC had to obey its command, regardless of what the legislation stated. I also pointed out that ZEC could start registering voters on the basis of section 342 of the Constitution, which deals with the exercise of functions conferred by the Constitution. In light of this, it was wrong for ZEC to argue that it did not have the power to register voters. ZEC still refused to take heed.
However, it was soon exposed as a duplicitous and hypocritical institution. In the aftermath of the purges at the ZANU PF Congress in December 2014, two vacancies arose in the National Assembly. One was the seat vacated by former Vice President Joice Mujuru and the other was the seat vacated by new Vice President, Emmerson Mnangagwa. Later, more vacancies arose when ZANU PF expelled more MPs who were allegedly aligned to the Mujuru faction in its internal succession wars. These vacancies had to be filled through by-elections, called in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Law. President Mugabe duly issued a proclamation announcing dates for the by-elections. ZEC found itself in a fix given that it had already denied Dr Gono on the basis that it did not have the power to register voters. Yet it had to preside over the by-elections and to do so, it needed a voters’ roll. Suddenly, ZEC discovered that it could register voters after all! It was a spectacular somersault which showed that ZEC was following politics instead of making independent decisions consistent with its constitutional mandate.
Dabengwa case
The hypocrisy of ZEC was also exposed in litigation before the High Court. Dumiso Dabengwa, the President of ZAPU, brought legal action against ZEC demanding that it complies with its constitutional duties under section 239 of the Constitution, namely to register voters and to compile and maintain the voters’ roll. ZEC opposed the application, arguing, as pointed out before, that the legislation was not aligned to the Constitution and until the realignment took place, it could not exercise that power. The High Court ruled that ZEC was constitutionally obliged to comply with its duties to register voters. Nevertheless, the High Court took with one hand what it had already given with the other when Justice Bhunu tied ZEC’s constitutional duties to the availability of resources. The judge stated:
“It is an established principle of our legal system that the law does not compel the impossible. The Commission wiII not be expected to carry out its functions beyond what is feasible within the confines of available resources. It is necessary for this court to issue a mandatory order directing it to do so within the confines of the available resources using the methods in its view best suited for the purpose.”
These remarks effectively qualified and watered-down ZEC’s mandatory obligations under the Constitution. The judge’s reasoning was legally unsound for two reasons:
First, section 239 of the constitution, which imposes these constitutional duties upon ZEC, does not include a qualification based on the availability of resources. The court’s duty is to interpret the Constitution, not to re-write it. The court cannot, as it did in this matter, write into section 239 of the Constitution a resources-based qualification to its constitutional duty to register voters.
Second, where the Constitution qualifies rights and duties to the availability of resources, it says so in clear and certain terms. For example, many of the obligations imposed upon the state under Chapter 2 are qualified by the availability of resources. For instance, the obligation to provide social welfare under s. 30 states as follows: “The state must take all practical measures, within the limits of the resources available to it, to provide social security and social care to those who are in need”. This resources-based qualification is repeated in various other sections. What it means is that where Parliament wanted there to be a resources-based qualification on the duties of the state, it made that qualification clear and certain. The fact that there is no such qualification to ZEC’s constitutional duty to register voters and to compile and maintain the voters’ roll under section 239 must mean that Parliament never intended such a qualification. The court has no power to invent a qualification where none exists. ZEC’s duties under s. 239 are absolute and the court was wrong to read in a resources-based qualification on the performance of that duty.
In tying mandatory constitutional duties to the “confines of the available resources”, the court gave ZEC an easy excuse to avoid performing its constitutional obligations. At the time of the judgment, my criticism was that:
“ZEC can always argue in return to a demand for voter registration that they do not have the resources. This would, in effect, allow ZEC to abdicate its constitutional obligation using the cover of lack of resources. If Government does not want ZEC to carry out continuous registration, they can simply starve it of resources and ZEC can always argue that it does not have the resources to perform its duty”.
As predicted, this is precisely how ZEC has been avoiding its duty to register voters on a continuous basis. Worse, however, ZEC is justifying government’s failure to provide resources for voter registration. In a recent letter to an applicant for registration, ZEC stated that it was not providing facilities for continuous registration because it did not have the resources and indicated that government’s failure to avail resources was “understandable”.
What is remarkable about Justice Bhunu’s judgment is its striking similarity to a judgment issued by Justice Mafusire during the 2013 elections regarding the voters’ roll. After noting correctly that ZEC and the RGV had a legal duty to avail free electronic copies of the voters’ roll to election candidates, Justice Mafusire went on to qualify his order by stating that they could only be made available once the RGV’s computer had been fixed. The RGV had argued that the broken computer was preventing him from complying. It became an easy excuse for the RGV to withhold the electronic copy of the voters’ roll. Both judgments by Justices Bhunu and Mafusire effectively condoned the unlawful conduct of the public officers and were for practical purposes useless to the ‘victorious parties’. They found that the public officers were wrong, but invented escape routes to perpetuate the illegality. For ZEC, it was the failure/refusal to provide continuous voter registration and for the RGV it was the failure/refusal to avail the electronic copy of the voters’ roll.
Instead of opening up registration to voters across the country, ZEC is only registering voters in constituencies where by-elections are called. Although some of these constituencies were previously held by the opposition, the majority of them were held by former ZANU PF MPs who were expelled during the succession battles. In any event, as the opposition are boycotting the by-elections in protest against the lack of electoral reforms, it means only ZANU PF is actively mobilising its supporters politically. Opposition supporters have no incentive to participate since their parties are not involved. Therefore, voters who are being registered in these by-election constituencies are more likely to be aligned to ZANU PF than to the opposition. The effect of this is that the new voters’ rolls being established by ZEC are more likely to be dominated by ZANU PF supporters, and they could be even worse than the old voters’ rolls.
Overall, ZEC has been a big disappointment since the new Constitution was adopted in 2013. It has failed to perform its constitutional role. It will spring back into life just before the 2018 elections and will once again start registering voters. But it will be too late and most would-be voters will be disenfranchised. However, this lethargic conduct by ZEC is not an accident. It is deliberate. It is a well calculated move by the ZANU PF government to delay voter registration until the last minute. Instead of being an inclusive process designed to promote democracy, voter registration and the voters’ roll are used as tools of exclusion and disenfranchisement. It is regrettable that ZEC is not demanding state support to fulfil its constitutional mandate.
Rigging and the exclusionary effect of voter registration and the voters’ roll
There are number of other ways in which the process of voter registration and misuse of the voters’ roll is exclusionary. It is important to understand the means by which exclusion is achieved.
Onerous residential requirements
The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution provides that additional residential requirements may be prescribed under the electoral law. An applicant for registration is required to provide proof of residence in the ward and constituency in which he or she is registering. This is an onerous requirement for most people, particularly the young adults who are largely unemployed and depend on relatives for accommodation. What’s more, they usually lack the formal documents required for voter registration. This leads to exclusion of voters, especially the young who form the bulk of the population. The irony of the residential requirements qualification is that it is almost a throwback to the colonial days where blacks were denied the right to vote unless they could satisfy certain qualifications, such as property ownership. Many people have been excluded from the voting system simply because of these restrictive residential requirements. In its 2013 elections report, ZEC admitted this was a problem and confirmed that these requirements had to be relaxed during the intensive voter registration exercise. Applicants were allowed to provide affidavits as proof of residence.
Stripping of citizenship
In 2002, large numbers of Zimbabweans were stripped of their citizenship when an amendment to the Citizenship Act effectively banned dual citizenship and required people with foreign parentage to renounce their foreign citizenship if they wanted to keep their Zimbabwean citizenship. The majority who were affected were former workers in farming and mining communities. Since they were born in Zimbabwe and had no connection with the countries where their parents or grandparents had come from, most were rendered stateless. Stripping them of citizenship meant they were no longer eligible to vote. They were effectively disenfranchised.
The new Constitution restored their citizenship rights and they were eligible to vote in the 2013 elections. However, they had to re-register and to do that they had to go through various processes, including obtaining long birth certificates, changing their identity documents which had been stamped with “alien”, etc. These processes cost money – both in terms of travelling and payment for the services. As the costs were prohibitive for these poor communities, the new processes also excluded most voters. ZEC and the RGV eventually succumbed to pressure from the political parties and agreed to offer the services free of charge for a limited period during the intensive voter registration exercise. However, the number of processes meant more work for the RGV at registration centres and slowed down the registration process, leading to further exclusion as many people could not register by the deadline. As the Electoral Commissions Forum, SADC noted in its observers’ report:
“The Mission notes that the new Constitution entitled many people living in Zimbabwe who were previously classified as ‘aliens’ to register for citizenship. The Mission is aware of ZEC’s call to this category of persons to apply for national identity documents reflecting the changed status to allow them to be registered as voters. The Mission is, however, concerned about reports that many of these persons might have been disenfranchised due to reported administrative impediments on the side of officials from the Registrar-General’s office…”
This was echoed by the AU Observer Mission which reported: “The AUEOM also noted complaints of exclusion by previously disenfranchised Zimbabweans, whose citizenship rights were restored by the Constitution, about the relatively short time-frame in which they were required to regularise their citizenship and registration status.”
ID barriers
In parts of Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces, young people have struggled to get identity documents because their parents were killed during Gukurahundi but their deaths have never been properly recorded because the state does not acknowledge that they were killed. This has left these young people in limbo, unable to get births certificates, let alone identity cards which are required for purposes of voter registration. For these young people the voter registration requirements are completely exclusionary and disenfranchising.
Displacement during elections
The displacement of voters from their natural wards and constituencies can be exclusionary since voters are supposed to vote in their respective constituencies. The risk of displacement is likely to increase when the polling station-specific voters’ roll and voting system starts operating. Voters will no longer be able to vote at a polling station outside their respective wards. Therefore, if voters are targeted and displaced from their wards, they will be excluded from the voting process. So, while the polling station-specific voting system has its benefits, they are also counter-balanced by risks.
Incorrect details on voters’ roll
Many people are turned away from the polling station and referred to the command centre simply because their details are not correctly recorded on the voters’ roll. In some cases, voters have discovered on polling day that their names were registered in completely different constituencies. This prevented them from voting. For example, some married women discovered that their names had been unilaterally changed by the RGV, which meant their IDs did not match the details on the voters’ roll, excluding them from the voting process.
These problems would be corrected in advance if the electoral authorities availed the voters’ roll for inspection. In 2013, the voters’ roll was provided just two days before polling day.
Further, the AU Observer Mission noted in the Report on the 2013 elections: “Given the strategic importance of a voters’ roll to the conduct of a transparent electoral process, it was the AUEOM’s view that the RGV and the ZEC should have better collaborated to ensure that all stakeholders were timely and regularly updated on the constraints and challenges relating to the voters’ roll; and efforts being made to rectify them to meet the 31 July deadline. The AUEOM believed this could have minimised the persistent negative pre-election perceptions regarding the voters’ roll. Further, greater transparency on the matter may have allayed fears raised by political contestants on the veracity of the voters’ roll.” (Paragraph 60)
Inadequate voter registration facilities in urban areas, more facilities in rural areas
There were concerns in 2013 that ZEC deliberately deployed fewer mobile voter registration units in urban areas, compared to units provided in rural areas. Critics argue that the discrimination is because rural areas are traditionally ZANU PF strongholds, while urban areas are dominated by the opposition parties. Consequently, under the influence of the ZANU PF government, the electoral authorities concentrate most of their resources in the rural areas, leaving densely populated urban areas with fewer and insufficient facilities. This resulted in long queues and delays at registration facilities in the urban areas. In 2013, thousands of urban dwellers were excluded from the voting system simply because the registration period closed before they could be registered. This was noted by the AU Observer Mission in its report: “While acknowledging the increased number of registered voters from 5.2 million to 6.4 million, as reported by the ZEC, the AUEOM noted that thousands more Zimbabweans were unable to register due to the expiry of the 30 day prescription period… The closure of this process, the AUEOM observed, was occasioned by disquiet from civil society and some interlocutors, who felt much more could have been done particularly in terms of embracing non-state actors in the pre-registration voter education exercise.” In its report, the Zimbabwe Elections Support Network (ZESN) noted that the number of voters disenfranchised in the urban areas due to the inefficient registration process was as high as 750,000.
Lack of facilities for the disabled
Access facilities are important to ensure that disabled people are able to participate in electoral processes. When such facilities are unavailable, disabled people are excluded. These facilities include transportation to voter registration centres, particularly in remote areas, where distances to registration centres can be long. The use of mobile voter registration units can minimise this problem as they would reduce the distances. The use of braille has been useful, too, helping to include the visually-impaired.
Failure to provide continuous voter registration
ZEC’s failure to provide continuous registration facilities, which I have analysed extensively above, is also an exclusionary mechanism. Continuous registration is designed to promote inclusion, as people can visit the voter registration centres at any time and without pressure. Used properly, it reduces queues and delays which are a common sight during last-minute voter registration exercises. This is why ZEC’s failure to carry out continuous registration is seen as a deliberate strategy aimed at excluding first-time voters, who form a significant part of the voting population. When ZEC finally rolls out its voter registration exercise just before the 2018 elections, it will be too late and a large number of voters will once again be excluded and disenfranchised.
Inadequate time for inspection of the voters’ roll
The inspection of the voters’ roll is an important process that enables voters and candidates to check and audit the voters’ roll to make sure names and details are accurately recorded and that the voters’ roll is a true reflection of the voting population. The law requires that the voters’ roll must be provided within a reasonable time to enable this to be done. However, inspection of the voters’ roll has been problematic because the RGV has delayed availing the voters’ roll for inspection. This has resulted in numerous problems for voters on polling day, leading to exclusion. This was criticized by the AU Observer Mission:
“The AUEOM continued to express concerns about the matter of the Voters’ Roll: Despite assertions by the RGV that hard copies of the voter’s roll were availed to all political parties – other than for one political party – AUEOM observers found no evidence that hard copies were generally available to all who required them and who by law should have them.” (Para 61)
This problem was also noted by the Electoral Commissions Forum of SADC Observer Mission, which reported: “The Mission noted with concern that the final voters’ roll was not timeously made available for inspection. The Mission is particularly concerned that the said roll was made available only two (2) days before actual polling”. The same views were echoed by the AU Observer Mission which stated: “While Sections 20 and 21 of the Electoral Act requires the ZEC to provide a copy of the voters’ roll within ‘a reasonable’ period of time, the AUEOM noted that the final voters’ roll, was made publicly available two days before the election – rather late for meaningful inspection and verification by voters, parties and candidates to take place.” (Para. 58)
This was compounded by ZEC’s failure to provide an electronic copy of the voters’ roll, which is easily searchable and analysable. Failure to provide electronic copy of the voters’ roll was also criticized by the AU Observer Mission: “It was our view that the reasons for the non-availability of electronic copies of the final voters’ roll should have been publicly communicated to ease the anxieties that have been consistently expressed by several stakeholders throughout the pre-election period.”
Inflation of voter numbers
The inflation of numbers of voters on the voters’ roll is another serious problem which compromises its credibility. Inflated numbers may be a result of keeping names of deceased voters on the voters’ roll or adding fictitious names – the so-called ghost voters or the duplication of names. This was noted by the AU Observer Mission which stated: “Related to this, the AUOEM noted serious concerns raised by some stakeholders regarding the duplication of voter names, which must not be allowed” (Para 62).
This is a problem which resulted in a voters’ roll which did not accurately reflect the actual voting population. ZEC’S official report for the 2013 elections states that 6,441,157 people were registered on the voters’ roll. However, this is implausible given that the 2012 census puts the national adult population at 6,647,779. The figure suggests that nearly 100% of the adults were registered to vote. This cannot be correct given that according to ZESN, young people below 35 represented just 5% of the total number of registered voters in in 2013 and according to the Research Advocacy Unit (RAU) nearly 2 million young people under the age of 30 years were not registered to vote.
The problem of excessive numbers on the voters’ roll is that they give a false picture that is easy to manipulate. This is allied to another problem: the printing of excess ballot papers. In the 2013 elections, ZEC printed over 2 million extra ballot papers, which was criticized by all observer missions. The AU Observer Mission was critical, stating that it “noted that the number of ballot papers printed (8.7 million), corresponding to 35% above the number of registered voters, was significantly higher than international best practices (5-10%) and raised concerns of accountability of unused ballots.” The ECF SADC also recommended in its report that the the “percentage of excess ballot papers should be reduced”.
Conclusion
As the SADC Observer Mission Report for the 2013 elections noted: “The provision of the voters’ roll in time goes to the very heart of fairness in the election process. If the voters’ roll is not made available on time, the fairness of the election is brought into question.” In that election, the electoral authorities failed to provide electronic copies of the voters’ roll. Printed copies were delivered extremely late, when they were of no use to anyone. This is why neither SADC nor the AU could bring themselves to pronounce that the election was “fair” even though, incredibly, they concluded that it was “free”, “peaceful” and “credible”.
The situation is made worse by the opaque handling of the voters’ roll. In 2013, the RGV contracted Nikuv, an Israeli company, to manage the voters’ roll. The contractual arrangements and the type of work done by Nikuv on the voters’ roll has been the subject of serious concern and suspicion among opposition parties and their supporters. The lack of transparency and the fact that the RGV failed and/or refused to avail the electronic copy of the voters’ roll only served to strengthen suspicions that Nikuv was a key player in rigging the 2013 election through manipulation of the voters’ roll. It is not clear whether ZEC is still using Nikuv or any other contractor in the management of the voters’ roll. This is a key question that citizens and the opposition must demand answers on from ZEC. Any contract in relation to the management of the voters’ roll should be subjected to intense public scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability.
This article has demonstrated the critical significance of the process of voter registration, but also why it can be an exclusionary process. The various ways in which the voter registration process can exclude voters have been discussed, demonstrating the need for vigilance. The article has also shown that ZEC has not only neglected its duties but it has also been duplicitous and hypocritical in its approach post-2013. The transfer of powers over voter registration and the voters’ roll from the RGV to ZEC was supposed to herald a new era of efficiency, transparency and credibility of voter registration and the voters’ roll. On the contrary, ZEC has been a monumental disappointment.
All the election observer missions in 2013 raised serious concerns over voter registration and the voters’ roll. They made recommendations which, until now, ZEC and the authorities have failed to heed. The AU observer mission was clear, stating: “There is a need to clean up the voters’ roll so as to ensure accuracy and adherence to legal provisions governing elections i.e. voters’ roll and inspection.”
Three years later, the voters’ roll is a piecemeal job, and probably in a worse state that it was under the RGV, whose performance was abysmal.
It is the young people who will be prejudiced more than any other demographic group. Most remain unregistered. In 2013, the registration rate of voters under the age of 30 was just 5%. Although they make up the majority of voters, the 18-35 age group is the most under-represented on the voters’ roll.
What can be done? Opponents might go to court to compel ZEC to perform its duties, but as the Dabengwa case showed, the courts will qualify their rulings to give ZEC an escape route. Citizens and the opposition parties must come to terms with the fact that the denial of voter registration and the poor state of the voters’ roll is ZANU PF’s political strategy to control who votes and who doesn’t. It is a strategy of exclusion from the voting system. The longer voter registration is delayed, the better for ZANU PF. ZEC will simply revert to the old, shambolic and compromised voters’ roll previously used by the RGV. And because the voters’ roll is critical to the election and to the rigging system, history will repeat itself.
The fight over voter registration and the voters’ roll is a political fight which demands a political solution.
waMagaisa
