The Problem With Focussing On IEBC
BY ELIOT KIBET
October 19, 2015
With less than two years to the general election, the public is worried about whether or not the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is prepared. The spirited efforts by the IEBC to explain and to reassure that all will work well this time round are not paying off. The IEBC has repeatedly said there was no ill will in 2013; it was just overwhelmed by the hurried introduction of technology into the six-ballot election.
But as much as it is responsible for elections, the IEBC does not solely determine their success or failure. Political parties are the key players. We all know how chaotic the political party nominations are and how they struggle to come up with authentic party lists. Flawed party primaries cause disputes that take long to resolve and affect the IEBC’s timeliness, hugely inconveniencing election preparations.
The second critical player is Parliament, which facilitates the enactment of new laws and approves funding for elections. In the run up to the March 4, 2013 general election, Parliament decided to weaken the constitutional requirement on leadership and integrity. Instead of making it mandatory for those vying to undergo vetting and clearing, parliamentarians decided that a written self-disclosure would suffice. We don’t get to hear much about those disclosures but it is the IEBC that gets the beating for allowing aspirants with “chapter six issues” to stand for elections.
New regulations on elections campaigning finance, which seek to limit the amount spent and disclose sources of funding, will apply for the first time in 2017. Changes have also been proposed to electoral law on academic requirements for aspirants. These measures lay the foundation for fair and competitive politics and parliamentarians should support their enactment.
The success of elections is determined by the timing of the funding. The money given to the electoral agency is never insufficient but Parliament and the exchequer should ensure it is given in good time. Drawing lessons from the 2013 polls, the IEBC wants to be funded in good time for mass voter registration towards the end of this year. Doing so, it argues, would give room for cleaning up and verification of the register. The numbers of voters enlisted will also inform planning and logistics, which are the key ingredients in the management of elections.
Some people say everything would have sailed smoothly had IEBC asked for a week or two more in 2013 to train and test technology. Nigeria had to postpone elections because of a delay in distribution of voters’ cards. It is bad practice but it is better than confronting deadlines unprepared.
The government, with the support of civil society groups and the media, will need to step up civic education. The media need to be impartial when reporting elections. The security organs, observers, agents, monitors and the voters themselves must be prepared and ready to discharge their respective obligations. It is commendable that some politicians are already driving the voter registration campaigns.
We approach every election year with both some excitement and apprehension. In 2013, we were excited about technology but feared for violence. The elections turned out to be fairly peaceful and it was the electoral technology that let us down. In retrospect, technology was not even the culprit. The real problem was the IEBC’s administrative issues — planning, procurement, capacity building, and other ‘people issues’. We go into 2017 worried about technology but it could work perfectly well and the challenge could come from other quarters, even outside IEBC. One of the challenges identified by the now defunct ECK as having a marked impact on the electoral process was corruption, particularly around election time. Big tenders bring big trouble. The more the commission accounts for funds, the more it can account for votes.
What's New