The issue of curbing political violence before, during and after elections for decades has remained elusive and threatens to remain so for another long time. One thing we need to know from the onset is that the structures that are statutorily mandated to prevent and hold those culpable to account are not equipped enough to do their job. If they are equipped, it could perhaps be that they do not have the nerve and courage to challenge some of the parties. Which ever one is the fact is your own guess. We really need to ask the question: What are some of the issues that cause political violence?
When you attempt to answer this question, I am sure the youth factor will feature prominently. We all know that the youth are the dynamic and radical sector of the citizenry. It is no more news that youth unemployment is a big pain in the neck of development in our country. Given the fact that many of our youth missed some valuable years in their lives and many again did not continue their education, this has left a very big gap, so serious that this crop of youth cannot possible get the well- paid jobs! How we hope to get over this seems to defy the right definition.
One major recipe for violence is the use or perhaps the abuse of money. The laws have limitations as to the quantum of money to be used to promote the agenda of any political party. One little thing we need to know is that only people who are eligible to vote have the right to contribute financially to any political party agenda. Let me ask this question; are our compatriots actual electors according to the Electoral Laws Act 2002?
The law states:“…every person…who has attained the age of eighteen years and is ordinarily resident in a ward on the date specified for the publication of notices inviting claims for registration under section 12, is entitled to be registered as an elector in that ward and when so registered, to vote in such ward at any election”
Something is confusing in the law concerning the above. I know that our current parties depend a lot on outside support in order to move forward. Are we saying that such benefactors need to be in the wards at the stipulated time according to the law? There are indeed many grey areas in our laws, something I will keep saying time and time again. I do not really think we understand some critical issues in our electoral laws. We are told that if you change your residence or if you lose your voter registration card there should be an application to the registration officer so as to be registered for the new ward where you are currently ordinarily resident. Now let us look at what the phrase “Ordinarily Resident” mean. According to the Electoral laws of our land, it means, in relation to a person, the home or place where he normally resides or where he returns to regularly after any period of temporary absence.
Well let us put recent events into context. One is the alleged crossing into Sierra Leone of allegde Sierra Leoneans from Guinea and Liberia or those refrred to in certain quarters as foreigners. This scenario looks quite different from that of Diaspora Sierra Leoneans in the United States or Europe. We know that most of them, except perhaps students, are actually ordinarily resident in those countries, rather than in Sierra Leone. Do we disqualify them from registering and voting? Is all this not confusing? Now if people are crossing over to register, the question is where are they ordinarily resident? There is a whole irony in the accusations between the two main parties over the alleged truck loads of people coming into the country to register to vote. Sierra Leone shares boundaries with the following countries: Guinea and Liberia. The districts in Sierra Leone that share boundary with those countries are: in the north, Kambia and Koinadugu; in the North-east, Kono; in the East, Kailahun; in the South-east Kenema and in the South, Pujehun.
The irony here is that there is more likelihood that people entering from a particular end will register and vote for the party having a greater sway that particular region or district. For the simple fact that any development in those areas will benefit the ordinarily residents more, one would expect their loyalty to be home grown. Confusion over this whole idea of being ordinarily resident or not has the propensity of breeding animosities that could plunge this country into violence.
Another cause of violence is the credibility of the NEC officials at various registration centers. Let us appreciate that these officials are first of all Sierra Leoneans who may have their political leanings. It takes a whole lot of maturity for them to remain neutral during the registration and voting periods. This issue is more worrisome in those remote areas of the country where decision making is at the mercy of the NEC officials and the few party representatives. The pattern is that at polling stations where there is a dominant party you hardly have issues although there it is easy to rig. Perhaps this explains the issue of over voting even when there is voter apathy. I wonder why people try to over-vote when each constituency has the number of registered voters. Can you really blame NEC for the incidences of over voting that have chracterized our elections these days? I say partly- where diligent work is done there should be no over voting because they should know the total for each area. Are we saying here that over voting mostly happens in the so-called party strongholds? Well, those who monitor elections have to take a keen watch at these so-called strongholds. Indeed it is there the games that breed over voting are played.
Resource inadequacies can also lead to electoral violence. Some parties send in their representatives without providing the necessary logistics and this makes them easily irritated when we consider the whole process rather tedious. When some hungry party representatives are at the same time misinformed, they can easily fan the flames of animosity and thus put stubborn spanners in the electoral works. Over and above, violence seems inevitable due to the actions of party fanatics and sycophants. These are out there with the support of some strong party stalwarts who perhaps have promised jobs and other goodies to these fanatics who can go to lengths to satisfy their political patrons.
Another cause of violence is the fact that constituency boundary delimitation ignores other equally important factor in favour of the population. Take the case of some districts where three to four chiefdoms are lumped into one constituency. Obviously, this grossly limits their rights to choose someone they want. Underlying all this is the role of the committees that are responsible for giving symbols to candidates. A lot of politics plays here and in the end the right person is left out. When the unpopular candidate is awarded a symbol, indeed that party stands the danger to lose to the other parties. Internal squabbles emerge after symbols are awarded even within parties. There have been cases of bribery to have the symbols and this is where the negative role of money is manifested. Since it is the prerogative of individual parties to set their criteria for giving symbols, then, the process of democracy might be compromised.
Remember, an undemocratic party will definitely not provide us a democratic government when it wins. We have forgotten this fact for far too long and that is why we are yet to get our act right. Check these out.
By Ben Cambayma
ADVERTISEMENT