#Vote2018: The People Must Know The Risks To A Free And Fair Elections

In his response to my earlier article on protecting democracy, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) claimed that I was casting doubt on the integrity of the coming elections. On the contrary.
The prime aim of my article was to raise people’s awareness of the risks to a fair and free elections.
I stress that it is the people that need to be the judge of whether the EC has taken adequate steps to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.
The EC stressed that I should have consulted them and the Supervisor of Elections (SOE) first. I had. Unity Fiji was a signatory to several submissions by the opposition parties to the EC to change the laws and the processes of the elections. I am fully aware of the responses from the EC to these submissions which was why I had decided to inform the people.
Independence and role
It is not enough for the EC to dismiss the views of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights on the independence of the EC because he did not meet with him.
It would be more useful if he provided evidences of the independence of the EC from the SOE and the Minister. Let me point out some glaring issues:
- The 2013 Constitution (Section 75) and the Electoral Decree (Sections 4-7) envisaged the role of the EC to be independent which is crucial to its effectiveness. The President, in his sole discretion, used to appoint the Chairman of the EC. The EC tells us that now, under the 2013 Constitution, the Chairman is appointed by a “proper Commission”. Which Commission is this? Section 75 (7) of the 2013 Constitution states that the President appoints the Chairman of the EC on the advice of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC). The COC is chaired by the Prime Minister and the government members, who includes the Attorney General, outnumber the members appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask: which appointing authority is more independent of Government?
- The Constitution (Section 76), and the Electoral Decrees intended the EC to direct the SOE. This is no longer the case as now the SOE is directing the EC. The SOE is the Secretary of the EC. He does not have to be. He could simply be invited to attend the meetings of the EC. As a Secretary, he can directly influence the decisions of the EC and, more importantly, dictate to the EC. It’s a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
- We all know that only Parliament can pass electoral laws and regulations. The Constitution gives the EC the responsibility of conducting a fair and free election in accordance with the relevant laws. By extension, if these laws are not conducive of fair elections, I believe that it is the responsibility of the EC to fight for democracy and convince the Government to change these laws.
Risks
It appears to me that the EC is trying to manage the downstream risks rather than avoid the actions that create the risks in the first place.
Let me itemise the risks that I still see in the election processes outlined by the EC:
- Pre-polling: I still see this as one of the biggest risks. The EC highlighted the accessibility of voters which we all support. But how is accessibility related to pre-polling?If we can access these locations on pre-polling day, surely, we can access them on polling day. The only logical reason that I see for pre-polling is to cater for voters that are required to work during election day. So why don’t we limit pre-polling to these group of people? Instead, the EC has increased the number of pre-polling. What are the reasons?
- Serial numbering of ballot papers: The EC clarified that a book containing 50 ballot papers will be numbered but not the papers themselves. At the close of the poll, the number of ballot papers are reconciled. This is fine. But the EC has completely missed the most critical point. The risk of tampering with ballot boxes full of unnumbered ballot papers is significantly reduced if the ballot papers are serially numbered. You cannot trace a numbered ballot paper to a voter if the number on the ballot paper is not recorded against the voter’s name.
- Scrutiny of the count: The police, agents of political parties and observers will be the eyes and ears of the people at the polling centres. They therefore need to be physically present throughout the voting process at the polling centres. Can the EC assure us that all agents of political parties and police will be allowed in the polling centres when the poll opens until the count ends?
- Reconciliation: The count at each of the 2000 plus polling stations is consolidated at the Result Centre. Why are the agents of political parties not given the result of the count immediately after the count at the polling centres? Why do they have to wait to be given the same results at the Result Centre so many hours or even days later? What independent checks will be in place to ensure that the consolidation of votes at the Result Centre is reconciled with the count from each of the 2000 polling stations? Why is the EC refusing an independent audit of the IT system?
- I firmly believe that the EC is accountable to the people and therefore need to assure us that the risks to democracy are mitigated. Assessing and mitigating these risks now is not passing judgement on the conduct of the coming elections. It is simply protecting our democracy.
- The people must know. I am therefore inviting the EC to a public debate to discuss these important issues. The people deserve no less.
The views and opinions expressed in the article below are entirely those of Savenaca Narube and not the Fiji Sun.