Mozambique: Civil society demands election transparency

MOZAMBIQUE
POLITICAL PROCESS
BULLETIN

Election e-mail special issue 8
Thursday 25 November 2004

=========================================

IN THIS ISSUE

Continued pressure for transparency
What is the minimum information needed?
No polling station lists
Observers cannot talk to polling station staff
Election violence criticised

=========================================

CIVIL SOCIETY DEMANDS
MORE TRANSPARENCY
IN THE COUNT

"There are no legal restrictions or principles which justify impeding the
access of national and foreign observers to the locations of vote counting
at all levels," declared an independent legal opinion submitted to the
National Election Commission (CNE) earlier this week. The CNE has
repeatedly said that the law does not allow more openness, but this has
been contested by observers and media.

The Electoral Observatory, a coalition of the seven prominent national
groups which are observing this election, commissioned the independent
legal opinion. In a covering letter, it demanded that the CNE respond
publicly to the alternative legal view. The Electoral Observatory said
civil society must take action to promote more observer access to the
final count to ensure a "clean" election.

WHAT IS THE MINIMUM
ACCESS NEEDED?
by Joseph Hanlon

The Frelimo majority in the CNE is anxious to prevent outside observers
from seeing the politically charged, acrimonious, time-wasting and
confused conduct of CNE meetings. Observers do not actually need access to
the meetings, if the CNE is prepared to release enough detailed
information about the decisions taken.

This has already happened with respect to the reclassification of invalid
votes (nulos). In 1999 and 2003, the numbers of nulos which were accepted
by the CNE (and which parties or candidates they were for) were published.
This week, the CNE agreed to give access to the rooms where the nulos will
be reconsidered. This should be sufficient to resolve this issue.

But three other problems remain.
1) At provincial level, up to 10 per cent of polling station results
sheets (editais) are rejected and not included in the final totals. Mostly
this is because of errors in filling out the sheets, but there have also
been cases where editais were rejected because of alleged fraud, such as
ballot box stuffing in Nacala in 1999. This is done in secret and no
record is published. It would be sufficient to publish a list of rejected
editais with reasons, and simply show the editais to observers and press;
they need not attend the meeting.
2) Similarly, at national level, the CNE considers problem editais
submitted by provincial election commissions (CPEs). Some are accepted and
some are rejected. In 1999 Renamo walked out in protest at the process by
which this was done. The process is secret and again no information is
given to press and observers.
3) The CPEs do the official provincial totals, while the CNE does a
separate "provisional count". (Confusion is caused by similar sounding
words, even in Portuguese: provincial and provisional) Then the CNE
adjusts the official provincial totals to take into account information
for its provisional count. Again, this is done in secret, and no
information is published as to what changes were made and why.

In all three cases, observers do not need to be present in the meetings,
but they do need the information on the decisions quickly (and not two
years later when the detailed results are finally published).

How would this information be used? The first and simplest check is simply
to look at the numbers, to see if the changes make any significant
dfference in the result. If the changes are minor or do not change the
result, then observers, press and ordinary voters can have reasonable
confidence in the process. If the changes are significant, especially if
one candidate or party gains enough votes to win, to avoid a second round,
or to gain a majority in parliament, then observers and voters will want
more detail. If the CNE has published details and reasons for its
decisions, observers, parties and journalists can consider those in more
detail, especially checking against copies of the editais held by the
political parties or made by observers. More detailed investigation will
show if the decisions seem justified.

The CNE might find it easier to simply allow observers and press to be
present and take their own notes. But the key point is that observers do
not need to be present if the CNE promptly provides enough information to
allow an independent assessment of the decisions taken. Three sets of
information are needed:
1) Editais excluded at provincial level, with reasons.
2) Editais included at national level, with reasons.
3) Details of changes made to official provincial totals based on the
national provisional count.

The fourth required set of information needed, on nulos, is now being
provided.

COMPUTER SYSTEMS
NOT USER FRIENDLY

Speaking to the Bulletin, Raimundo Samuge, the Renamo vice-president of
the National Elections Commission (CNE), said it was not computer
tabulation of the results that he objected to, but rather the inability to
control the process. Samunge said that the way the computerisation of data
is done at present is that both at provincial and national level, data
processing is done largely in isolation from the election commission
members, who are then presented with the final results "15 minutes before
the deadline" and expected to sign them. There is not enough time to check
the results against the editais or to do independent sums to check the
computers.

And Samunge is right that the computer systems are not user friendly;
information is presented in a way which is difficult to handle and check.
Samunge suggests, for example, that an attempt should be made to complete
the tabulation of one district at a time, and those results could be
posted to be checked by parties and observers, while other districts are
processed. The difficulty with this is the excluded editais, a problem
noted above, Few districts are ever completely computerised, because in
few districts are all the editais accepted, but there is no note on the
computer to say an edital has been excluded rather than simply not input.
So parties and observers keep waiting for gaps to be filled, in ignorance
of the fact that the missing edital may have been excluded. This would not
be difficult to resolve, but it is a mark of the unwillingness, at least
in past elections, to make the computer systems user friendly.

Lacking useful access, Renamo has increasingly opposed computerisation at
all, while both Renamo and international observers have demanded access to
the computer rooms and computers systems, when such access is not of any
practical use. But Renamo and observers are right to argue that the
computer tabulation systems used in past elections have not been designed
to be of much use to outsiders.

NO POLLING STATION LISTS

With less than a week to go before the election, the full list of polling
stations has still not been published. The election law (art 46) requires
that 30 days before the election the CNE publish "the definitive list of
polling stations" ("o mapa definitivo das assembleias de voto"). In early
November, the CNE published a list of all the polling centres and their
locations, simply saying how many polling stations were at each centre.

A polling station can have up to 1000 voters, and corresponds to one or
more electoral registers. Typically, a polling station will be in a school
classroom. The polling "centre" is the group of polling stations in one
location, typically a school.

Observers and opposition parties argue that a definitive list should
include the numbers of the polling stations and the numbers of the
registration books to be used at that polling station, and that a
"definitive list" cannot simply be the number of polling stations at a
centre. Renamo CNE vice president Raimundo Samuge says that such a list
must exist, because it is needed for packing the kits of voting materials
and registers which are sent to individual polling stations.

Whatever the precise legal position, the failure to produce a full list
creates problems both for voters and parties. In some cases, the location
of individual polling stations has been moved -- say from one school to
another, and often for good reasons, such as moving the polling station
closer to the majority of its voters. But voters have no way of knowing
that their polling station has been moved. This occurred in the 2003 local
elections and the law was modified to ensure that voters would know in
advance, but this has not happened. (The first numbers in a person's
voters number are the numbers of the register book, so it is easy to
check.) In cities, polling stations were moved only one or two kilometres,
which was enough to stop some older people from voting, but in rural areas
polling stations might be moved 5km or more.

There is some worry that this could be manipulated; Simuge alleges that
Frelimo-aligned staff in STAE, the technical secretariat, will move
polling stations in Renamo areas to make it harder for Renamo supporters
to vote. Diplomats have pointed out that there are many new polling centre
locations this year, which will further confuse voters.

The lack of a full list also creates problems for party and observer
parallel counts. Normally, they set up computer systems in advance and
then simply fill in a form for each polling station, with the computer set
to check if the number matches the location, but this cannot be done this
year.

OBSERVERS CANNOT TALK
TO POLING STATION OFFICIALS

Following complaints in past years of international observers interrupting
the voting process, the National Election Commission (CNE) has now issued
a blanket ban. Observer groups being briefed this week have been told that
they are not allowed to talk to polling station staff at all.

This has angered international observers and reflects a growing government
hostility to foreign observers, but it is also a response to past
arrogance on the part of foreign observers. Most international observation
missions gave their observers check lists of questions which they had to
ask the polling station president or secretary, for example if the polling
station opened on time. Often the observers would interrupt the voting and
demand immediate answers.

There have also been incidents in which observers stopped the voting
process, claiming that the staff were doing things incorrectly. In
particular, some European Union observers in past elections caused
controversy when they said that the voting booths faced in the wrong
direction. Mozambican practice is that the booths where the voter marks
their ballot paper should be open on the side facing the polling station
staff; European practice (except for Britain and a few other countries) is
that the booth opens away from the staff. (There are arguments for both --
the normal European practice increases secrecy, but the Mozambican/British
practice allows staff to ensure that no campaign literature has been left
in the voting booth.)

The CNE has made clear that observers are present to observe only; they
can watch but cannot interfere in the process, and cannot speak to polling
station staff. But observers remain free to talk to the party agents or
delegates (delegados) in the polling station, who will normally report if
anything untoward has happened.

OBSERVATORY CRITICISES
ELECTION VIOLENCE

The Electoral Observatory, the group of seven Mozambican organisations
observing the election, issued a statement Monday noting its "profound
preoccupation with occurrences of physical and verbal violence and the use
of children and adolescents to disturb the campaigns of other parties."

In general, the campaign period has been calm and often festive, but the
Bulletin's 50 correspondents throughout the country have reported a number
of incidents of the type cited by the Electoral Observatory. In
particular, there has been heavy pressure by both main parties to keep the
opposition out of what they consider their heartland -- there has been
Renamo violence against Frelimo in Sofala and Frelimo attacks on Renamo
throughout Gaza and in parts of Tete and Niassa.

Several of our correspondents report Frelimo's use of what it calls "shock
groups" ("grupos de choque") -- groups of young men with access to cars,
fuel, food and drink who confront the opposition. In one province, a
Frelimo parliamentary candidate actually bragged to our correspondent that
"we are directing these people".

Our correspondent in Maxixe, Inhambane, says that when presidential
candidate Afonso Dhlakama was due to speak at a rally, Frelimo youth
occupied the meeting ground in the morning and set up a sound system which
they played throughout the day, making it impossible to hold the rally.
Similar actions are reported in Xai-Xai, Macia and Chimoio. In other
places, Frelimo youth have drowned out opposition rallies with sound
systems and car horns; for example PDD was forced to abandon rallies in
Namialo, Moma and Ribaue in Nampula.

Problems continue in Tete. In Xitima, Cahora Bassa district, Frelimo youth
blocked the only road into town and forced Renamo to turn back. In
Changara, the Renamo delegate says he has been forced out of the district.

Renamo accuses the police of informing Frelimo of its plans and then
failing to take action against the Frelimo shock groups. For this reason
its says it has stopped announcing its plans in advance. But this has also
had the effect of reducing the press coverage and turnout for its rallies.

But Renamo is responding in kind. In Memba Renamo youth occupied a field
intended for a Raul Domingos rally, which had to be cancelled. Frelio
rallies have also been overwhelmed y Renamo noise. In Mandimba, Niassa,
Renamo members beat anyone who tried to speak out at a Dhlakama rally. In
Memba and elsewhere, Renamo has mobilised children to tear down opposition
posters.

STATE CARS STILL USED

Reports continue of Frelimo using state cars for the campaign. For
example, our correspondent said that in a parade of 40 cars in Quelimane
on Saturday, half had the names of state institutions painted on their
sides.

There is a report of a party in Tete using the car of a church aid agency.

=============================

MOZAMBIQUE POLITICAL PROCESS BULLETIN
Editor: Joseph Hanlon ([email protected])
Deputy editor: Adriano Nuvunga
with reports from 25 correspondents

Material may be freely reprinted and circulated.
Please cite the Bulletin.

Published by AWEPA, the
European Parliamentarians for Africa

==========================================

TO SUBSCRIBE OR UNSUBSCRIBE

During the 1-2 December election period, we are publishing frequent
e-mailed issues of the 'Mozambique Political Process Bulletin' based on
reports from more than 50 local correspondents. To SUBSCRIBE or
UNSUBSCRIBE:
1) Using your web browser, go to
http://mail-lists.open.ac.uk (note no "www")
2) enter your email address
3) you then see a list of Open University mailing lists.
Next to
dev-mozambiqueelection-list
click on SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE. That's all.
4) If you are subscribing, you will receive an e-mail asking if you really
want to subscribe. Simply reply and send back the same message, and you
are on the list.

Or if this is all too complicated, send a message to the editor on
[email protected]

This mailing is the personal responsibility of Joseph Hanlon, and does not
necessarily represent the views of the Open University.