ELECTION OBSERVERS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS By MBAPNDAH AJONG Laurean*

When elections are held in the western world, there is hardly much talk of International or National Election Observer Missions to assess the veracity of the polls. At best one may hear of invitations extended to third world nationals, often pressmen, politicians or intellectuals to experience how their own democracies function. The presence of these people more often than not is explained by the desire of the developed world or the “advanced” democracies to dish out lessons or enable nationals from apprentice or budding democracies to measure first hand what a veritable or real democracy is all about.

With democracy en vogue today, the trappings of aid from donor countries and Institutions lure even countries which are very reluctant to adopt it. Elections in Africa where democracy is struggling to take root often attract an avalanche of observers and monitors who come out with opinions of sorts. The presence of observers and their opinions are considered crucial by most African countries especially those with a hitherto strong dose of dictatorship. Their presence is of paramount importance to countries with poor track records that are so anxious to prove to the rest of the world how democratic there are or how much genuine progress is been made. For diverse reasons, despite enormous potentials, Africa has by fate or design reduced itself to or accepted to remain at the receiving end. The continent receives aid, receives technology, receives instructions, and receives lessons even on things there are capable of handling better than the rest of the world. Some countries of the continent even go to ridiculous extents to swallow western style democracy wholesale. While it is but fair to acknowledge efforts made by leading democracies to help Africa, it may also be time to sound the alarm bells louder especially when personal interest seems to be increasingly influencing the judgement of International Observer Missions. Certainly, the reports of the various observer missions have helped to lay bare the cacophony and blatant disregard of basic democratic norms in most countries. In some cases the accompanying pressure from within the countries and the International Community has helped to push forward the democratisation process. Unfortunately there are times too, when observers even from countries which should be references on issues of democracy have given reports which are most unfair, biased and out of touch with local realities. Elections in Africa are increasingly been rated free and fair, democratic, good or bad depending on the interest of the observer mission or the stakes for the country that sponsored the mission. During the Presidentials of October 11 1992 in Cameroon, the highly respected National Democratic Institute based in the U.S.A. seriously faulted the process that saw the incumbent emerge victories. Despite blatant irregularities, the leading opposition challenger Ni John Fru Ndi of the Social Democratic Front Party (SDF) was widely believed to have actually won but backed by coercive forces incumbent President Biya weathered the storm. Inspite of the NDI report that led to a chill in relations between Cameroon and the International donor Institutions and countries like the U.S.A and Great Britain, the French Government stuck religiously to President Biya. The sluggish apprenticeship of democracy and poor human rights record not withstanding Cameroon was still able to earn a place into the Commonwealth of Nations often considered as the gentleman’s club. Though the process of admission took a long time and only came after several missions to Cameroon including one from the then Commonwealth Secretary General Chief Emeka Anyaoku, many are those who for varied reasons felt that the admission was based on some other criteria other than the Harare Declaration whose lofty ideals of democracy and respect for human rights In the 1994 elections that brought Olusegun Obasanjo to power ending long decades of military rule in Nigeria there were reports of wide spread violence and corruption. According to former President Jimmy Carter who led the U.S. monitoring team, there was a wide disparity between the number of voters at polling stations and the final results. The monitoring group of Nigeria with circa 11.000 observers firmly opined that the scale or magnitude of the fraud was enough to completely mutilate the outcome. Yet probably in excitement at the possibility of ending military rule or some other covert reasons, the Nigerian elections received the acceptance of the U.S.A., Britain, the Commonwealth and others. A well researched piece in the New African Magazine of July/August 2002 by Osei Boaterng x-rays reports of flagrant electoral malpractices in several countries of Africa but which paradoxically attract very different reactions from the Western masters of democracy. Whereas Zimbabwe involved in a controversial and thorny issue of land reforms with white settlers incurred the wrath and sanctions of the West led by Britain and the U.SA after presidential elections there allegedly failed to meet acceptable democratic norms, elections with similar if not more serious flaws in other countries have been given a pass mark or viewed with complete indifference. Recently during the October 2004 Presidential elections in Cameroon, a novelty in what many considered rightly or wrongly as a mockery of democracy was the complicity of the International Community in the charade. The irregularities were so blatant and all media organs cried full. Even the respected Radio France International came under threats from the Communications Minister for critical reports on the elections including views from one of the leading moral voices in Cameroon Christian Cardinal Tumi Head of the Douala Archdiocese who seriously faulted the masquerade. The Justice and peace commission of the Catholic Church which had some 1200 trained observers though under enormous pressure from the Government concluded that the elections were neither free, fair, nor transparent in any form. Calling for the annulment of the Presidentials of October 11 2004 in Cameroon, the opposition SDF whose candidate emerged second behind incumbent Paul Biya in power since 1982 highlighted a litany of irregularities in a memo of 11 pages which made mince meat of the elections. The irregularities inter-alia included selective registration of voters, massive disenfranchisement of voters including candidates, non existence of electoral registers, issuing of multiple voters’ cards to the same individuals, biased choice in location of polling stations, absence or shortage of ballot papers of the SDF (other opposition parties complained of this too), the absence of indelible ink (which caused elections to be repeated in Afghanistan!!), ambulant voting, the inability of the local elections observatory to have a firm grip on the electoral process etc. Since the first multi-party Presidentials of October 1992 during which the National Democratic Institute on the invitation of the Cameroon Government wrote a report considered in bad taste by the Government, and the ruling Cameroon Peoples Democratic Movement, precautions have been taken on the nature of the observer missions. For the Legislatives of 17 May 1997, the International Foundation for Electoral systems (IFP) was in Cameroon and its report was very similar to that of the NDI. In the Presidentials held in October of the same year, a Central Committee member of the ruling party and now one of its most vocal critics Chief Milla Assoute brought in an obscure group. The group reportedly from Harlem had positive comments for the polls boycotted by the leading opposition parties. For the twin Municipals and Legislatives of June 2002, the Government, faced with the refusal of credible Organisations got observer missions from the UNO, Francophonie and the Commonwealth who re-echoed earlier calls made by the NDI on the need for a truly neutral and independent organ to run elections. Apart from local groups to monitor the elections sent to the field by the Catholics, the National commission for Human Rights and Freedoms, the Ecumenical Service for Peace etc, the observer missions which came in from outside included the Francophonie, the Commonwealth and a group of former members of the U.S. Congress all led by apparently eminent personalities. The views shared by all these groups greatly epitomise the double standards that have prompted this paper. The Commonwealth observers led by former Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clarke concluded that the Presidentials of October 11 in Cameroon lacked the necessary credibility with respect to several key issues including widespread disenfranchisement of voters. The eternal cry for the creation of a veritable independent election management body was repeated with a call for the separation of the State from the Party. Probably been diplomatic, the Commonwealth observers felt that the out come of elections reflected the wish of those who succeeded to vote though serious deficits on the contents of the electoral lists reported by the opposition were confirmed. Though previous criticisms and pressure forced Government to create a harp less National Elections Observatory void of any meaningful powers, the Commonwealth report states “consequently we believe that the absolute priority for Cameroon is to create an Independent election management commission either by strengthening the National Elections Observatory or by creating a new Institution whose function shall be to organise and conduct all aspects of the electoral process”. The Group made up of 16 eminent observers and nine support staff from the Commonwealth secretariat was present in Cameroon for two weeks and on Election Day it was present in all ten provinces at over 260 polling stations. Instead of threatening fire and brimstone as was the case with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, the Commonwealth through its Secretary General Don Mckinnon was quoted as saying that “the Commonwealth looks forward to working closely with the Government and people of Cameroon to strengthen democracy in that country”. The Francophonie observer mission on its part virtually endorsed what took place and in a dangerous precedence, the French president Jacques Chirac extended congratulations to incumbent President Paul Biya for his ‘brilliant re-election’ even before the official vote counting commission finished its assignment and at a time when the Supreme Court sitting as the Constitutional Council had not yet met to entertain litigations and proclaim the final results. The message gave the impression, that the French were completely indifferent to what transpired though Radio France International as afore Perhaps the most interesting participation at the October 11 2004 polls in Cameroon was the Group of Former U.S. Congress men led by Greg Laughlin. Ahead of the elections, the media had been awash with stories about former US congressmen been corrupted to back rigged elections. The report from the African Independent was blunt. “At this very period when the United States invades Countries and young American men and women are killed on a daily basis to spread democracy over the world, - as Presidential candidate George W. Bush uses that purpose to justify the war on Iraq, retired American Congressmen are corrupted by an African dictator to give the U.S. backing to rigged elections. The U. N., the Carter Center and other credible International Election Observing Organisations had rejected Cameroonian Presidents offers to do the dirty job. But the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress took it without hesitation. After a short four day stay in Cameroon, the U.S. delegation of 7 former members of Congress has no shame to proclaim that the “Presidential election was transparent and democratic” while other election observers denounce massive frauds”. According to Alex Gustave Azebaze of the French Daily “Le Messager” quoted by the African Independent, “The Cameroonain Government paid a colossal sum to obtain the presence of “American observers”. For their part they filled their contract well. A tough school of thought wants from now on that the American Government, what ever its political colour be less and less looking on the respect of real democracy’s values and principles in the Central Africa (and in particular Gulf of Guinea) area, since the area seems to become the future U.S oil bonanza. The “American observers” who have indicated less than 24 hours after the yet controversial Presidential poll during a press conference in Yaounde – a country’s capital they almost did not leave after their arrival a few days before, that the “Presidential election was transparent and democratic” resemble a band of racketeers paid for that purpose. How can one think differently at the time it is known for example that their head of delegation, Greg Laughlin is a business partner of Patton & Boggs, a Washington based law practice specialized in lobbying. Contacted in Washington by Peter Mafany Musonge (Cameroonian Prime Minister) who was there for the funerals of former President Ronald Reagan, the Law practice of Pattern & Boggs signed last September with the Cameroonian government a contract of business amounting to …………….. & 400.000, which is to say more than 200 million F CFA!” With leading opposition parties crying foul, with respected moral authorities expressing disgust at the conduct of the polls, the rantings of the “American observers” seemed out of touch with local realities and were considered more or less by many as a figment of their own imagination. To their head Greg Laughlin “The elections were conducted fairly”. “At the closing of the poll, we have never seen such a transparent way to show who got the vote. Everyone was able to witness the process”. To Ronnie shows another member of the delegation “in general the process was free. This is what democracy is about.” In a sharp twist from the initial views of colleagues former New Jersey congress man Andrew Maguire said in a paper that “there was a time when dictators were dictators and democracy was something else but today dictators masquerade as democrats using the ballot box as a potent symbol and instrument to prop up corrupt repressive regimes”. Maguire likened the situation in Cameroon to Ukraine and concluded that if balloting were all that democracy required, both countries might be considered democratic but they are not. Cameroon, Ukraine and similar regimes the former congressman said use the façade of democratic stability to secure international approval, advance their diplomacy and manipulate International-lending Organisations. Maguire believed that a pretend form of democracy is on the march where ballots are cast and counted but it is dictatorships and kleptocracies that The American Ambassador Niels Marquardht who had on June 15 declared during his hearing before the U.S senators that he hopes the “Presidential election in October will offer Cameroon a new opportunity to showing its intangible progress on the way to democracy” coded his reaction in very diplomatic terms that many were unable to see in it the hard line position of his country in the early 90’s when the multi-party democratic experiment re-surfaced in Cameroon. In its preliminary report calling for the cancellation of the Presidential elections of 11 October 2004 in Cameroon, the opposition Social Democratic Front condemned amongst others the late arrival of International observers, the doubtful integrity and partisan nature of some observers like the “Senators” from the USA, early declarations by some unrelated to the actual happenings in the field, late accreditation of local observers and unnecessary interference in their function. Africa remains endowed with enormous material and human potentials but its people remain largely the “wretched of the earth” to borrow Franz Fanons’ expression. The poverty, misery, conflicts, disease, persecution, bad leadership (chronic in many cases) have led to the flight of its best brains and the bulk of its youth continue to be in desperate quest of escape routes. The solutions to these problems are many but one of them could jolly well be the emergence of vibrant if not functional democracies which will make those elected accountable to the people. If those in power firmly believe that they owe their offices to the people who voted them and the people can make or unmake and break them in future elections, they will definitely strive to live up to expectations. Democracy will certainly guarantee separation of powers, ensure checks and balances, peaceful transitions, better respect for human rights and a strong judiciary which will met out adequate sanctions to those who take delight in looting the public treasury or siphoning resources meant for all. It is foolhardy to take delight in reports of International observers especially when there are tailored to suit selfish designs of the observed and the observer. If the report is favourable when internally and in actual fact the people are sitting on a volcano or time bomb, sooner or later it will explode. Africans themselves must genuinely, work hard to see that things improve. The devotedness with which Zambians fought the design of former president Frederick Chiluba to foister himself to an unconstitutional third term (the constitution talks of two), the sustained efforts of Malawians which forced President Bakali Muluzi to back down on a similar sinister scheme and the heroic resistance of the people of Madagascar which forced Didier Ratsiraka to flee and the legitimately elected Marc Ravalomananan to take over are all signs that the people need to be heavily implicated if the continent has to move forward. After all like Plato says “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men” The African-American singer and actor Sidney Poitier is equally very right when he says “the vote is the most powerful weapon in the hands of the poor” The examples from South Africa, Benin, Mali, Niger (with a two round election) Botswana Senegal Mozambique, Ghana, Namibia etc are heart warming. Irrespective of what the International Observers say, what should be of paramount importance is the interest of the people, which must come first. The west has certainly helped and remains willing to see democracy solidly entrenched in Africa but better results could be obtained if double standards are eschewed and the same yard stick used for all or are least similar cases. When elections are flawed in two countries and only one is condemned or singled out for sanctions while the other is allowed to wallow in false glory and self deception, it does disfavour and harm to a worthy cause. When election observation becomes a commercial activity with people of dubious integrity involved then it calls for great concern. The same may be said of corruption where a lot of lip service is paid. Many African leaders are known to be corrupt with some having bank accounts which out weight the budgets of their countries. The west does well to condemn corruption but the bulk of this money obtained under highly questionable sources if not out rightly looted with impunity is stashed in banks based in countries which profess to shun corruption. Repatriating part of the ill gotten wealth obtained by late Sani Abacha of Nigeria for instance is highly laudable but it should be extended to all other dictators who have colossal amounts stashed in foreign banks. With a promising African Union, the New Partnership for African Development, the Peer Review Mechanism etc there is no denying that progress is been made. The African Union has taken a step forward by refusing to dine with those who came to power through unconstitutional means. Hopefully it will someday move a step further by rejecting or meting out sanctions to those who take glee in staying for decades in power through perpetually flawed elections that bring dishonour and disrepute to the entire continent. *Mbapndah Ajong Laurean is a Jurist. He presently serves as Development Secretary of the Cameroon based Pan African Organisation AFRICAphonie and is a strong advocate of civil rights.

Comments

[jen]

massa, no paragraphs!!!??? Dificult to read!!!

[Robin Bullis]

I am only an average US citizen, but in reading this felt that it needed a response. Do you really expect the US to intervene in all the elections around the world that are unfairly done? Stop and think of the ramifications of this, if they did so. Obviously, if the US chooses to interfere in one or two, that may seem hypocritical to some,...I say we are just "picking our battles." It would be wonderful if elections were always fair...but that's for the people of YOUR own country to enforce.

[Eric Ngonji Njungwe]

Hi Robbin,

It may not seem real for the US to intervene in all elections around the world, but then we know that the aspect of "picking battles" based on strategic US interests is equally unfair to some citizens of the world. Why should the US criticize and pressure for changes in some countries while being aloof to atrocities committed on human beings 'with the same blood' in other countries. We do not need US boots all over the world, but we understand the are many available channels through which the US can institute meaningful change in countries like Cameroon.

[tom rogers]

Mr. Biya was just recently placed on the "Top 20 Dictators" list, and I was astounded to learn that seven former US Congressmen were willing to sell whatever honor was left of the US, and take Biya's money to lie about the election performance. These jackals should be investigated by our congressional committees, and if found to be frauds, imprisoned and fined for their shameful cowardice and greed.

While Robin may no longer read this, the only reason we had any US presence there, was because of Biya's bribery. They had plenty of other observers who, I might add, did a much better job than the US's 'observers'.