The recent elections in Zimbabwe have once again shone a light on the importance of election processes in the advancement of democracy as the will of the people.
Last week’s elections that saw the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announce incumbent President Emmerson Mnangagwa as the winner of the presidential race, have been criticised by the SADC, Commonwealth and EU observer missions as falling short of the standards of being free, fair and credible.
Elections are one of the few opportunities people in a democracy have to use their power to act directly to affect governance outcomes. So, reports that ballot papers had not yet arrived by the end of voting day at voting stations in cities like Harare and Bulawayo, raised questions about the credibility of the electoral process.
Voters in affected areas reported waiting in lines for hours, some even overnight, refusing to leave without the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
The SADC, Commonwealth and EU observer mission reports all agreed that there were at minimum irregularities in the voting processes but further raised issues related to the pre-election day conditions that were characterised as unfair to opposition parties.
Parties and candidates contesting reported that their gatherings were disrupted, their candidates unlawfully detained and their access to local media intentionally limited. These are not issues limited to Zimbabwe or other African countries. In the US elections are often tainted by stifling the voter rights of Black voters and other marginalised communities.
By creating draconian laws for voting and even unfairly removing people from voter rolls, the disenfranchisement of voters is not something that only happens on voting day, as unfair rules can disadvantage people even before the ballots are printed. The pre-elections issues in Zimbabwe were less about infringements on the right to vote but more on the right to be voted for.
The credibility of an election is not limited to the optics of what happens on election day, it predates the election as the playing field for and during campaigning must also be free and fair. The right to be voted for should not be curtailed.
As SA edges closer to the 2024 elections, a set of challenges are due to be heard in the Constitutional Court today to test the fairness of the playing field to contest the 2024 elections. With a new electoral law passed in parliament and signed into effect by the president earlier this year, South African voters will have a markedly different voting process leading up to and on election day next year.
Based on a 2020 ConCourt judgment in favour of the New Nation Movement, independent candidates will be allowed to contest in national and provincial elections for the first time in our democratic era.
The new law that gives effect to the judgment has been called out by various civil society groups for apparent irrationalities, primarily for having individual candidates compete on the same ballots as parties (represented by lists), that risk innate unfairness for the value of votes and allocation of seats in parliament.
The court challenge today will be brought by the Independent Candidates Association, One SA and as a friend of the court, Rivonia Circle, who seek to test the fairness, thus the constitutionality of the new electoral act before the election.
The challenges centre on the fairness of three aspects of the law. First, the court will be asked if the unfairness in limitations on seats individuals can access could be offset by increasing the number of seats independent candidates will contest for from 200 to 350 out of the 400 available seats. Second, the fairness of the raised thresholds for participation will be tested, with the last challenge being a call to ensure that all parties, whether already represented in parliament or not, are subjected to the same thresholds for participation.
A constitutional challenge before an election to decide the constitutionality of the laws governing that election are far better for the credibility of the election and our democracy than having these challenges occur during or after the election, as is the case in Zimbabwe this week as opposition parties seek to challenge the outcome of the elections.
TESSA DOOMS | Zim election underpinned significance of levelling playing field for fairness
Unfair rules can disadvantage people even before the ballots are printed
The recent elections in Zimbabwe have once again shone a light on the importance of election processes in the advancement of democracy as the will of the people.
Last week’s elections that saw the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announce incumbent President Emmerson Mnangagwa as the winner of the presidential race, have been criticised by the SADC, Commonwealth and EU observer missions as falling short of the standards of being free, fair and credible.
Elections are one of the few opportunities people in a democracy have to use their power to act directly to affect governance outcomes. So, reports that ballot papers had not yet arrived by the end of voting day at voting stations in cities like Harare and Bulawayo, raised questions about the credibility of the electoral process.
Voters in affected areas reported waiting in lines for hours, some even overnight, refusing to leave without the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
The SADC, Commonwealth and EU observer mission reports all agreed that there were at minimum irregularities in the voting processes but further raised issues related to the pre-election day conditions that were characterised as unfair to opposition parties.
Parties and candidates contesting reported that their gatherings were disrupted, their candidates unlawfully detained and their access to local media intentionally limited. These are not issues limited to Zimbabwe or other African countries. In the US elections are often tainted by stifling the voter rights of Black voters and other marginalised communities.
By creating draconian laws for voting and even unfairly removing people from voter rolls, the disenfranchisement of voters is not something that only happens on voting day, as unfair rules can disadvantage people even before the ballots are printed. The pre-elections issues in Zimbabwe were less about infringements on the right to vote but more on the right to be voted for.
The credibility of an election is not limited to the optics of what happens on election day, it predates the election as the playing field for and during campaigning must also be free and fair. The right to be voted for should not be curtailed.
As SA edges closer to the 2024 elections, a set of challenges are due to be heard in the Constitutional Court today to test the fairness of the playing field to contest the 2024 elections. With a new electoral law passed in parliament and signed into effect by the president earlier this year, South African voters will have a markedly different voting process leading up to and on election day next year.
Based on a 2020 ConCourt judgment in favour of the New Nation Movement, independent candidates will be allowed to contest in national and provincial elections for the first time in our democratic era.
The new law that gives effect to the judgment has been called out by various civil society groups for apparent irrationalities, primarily for having individual candidates compete on the same ballots as parties (represented by lists), that risk innate unfairness for the value of votes and allocation of seats in parliament.
The court challenge today will be brought by the Independent Candidates Association, One SA and as a friend of the court, Rivonia Circle, who seek to test the fairness, thus the constitutionality of the new electoral act before the election.
The challenges centre on the fairness of three aspects of the law. First, the court will be asked if the unfairness in limitations on seats individuals can access could be offset by increasing the number of seats independent candidates will contest for from 200 to 350 out of the 400 available seats. Second, the fairness of the raised thresholds for participation will be tested, with the last challenge being a call to ensure that all parties, whether already represented in parliament or not, are subjected to the same thresholds for participation.
A constitutional challenge before an election to decide the constitutionality of the laws governing that election are far better for the credibility of the election and our democracy than having these challenges occur during or after the election, as is the case in Zimbabwe this week as opposition parties seek to challenge the outcome of the elections.