There's more than one way to destroy 'free and fair' elections

With the US midterms delivering another agonisingly slow vote count, interspersed with protestations from former US President Donald Trump, it will soon be South Africa's turn to take to the polls. And - as regular 'free and fair' elections continue to be counted in the basket of key indicators of a healthy democracy around the world- South Africa's, too, will likely face scrutiny at home and abroad. 

In the early years of South Africa's post-apartheid democracy – before the arrival of the notorious man from Nkandla into high office – those addressing foreign gatherings as part of promoting the country never omitted to mention the number of free and fair local and general elections the country had held without glitches.

But, as much as free and fair elections may be key parts of a healthy democracy, they have also been a rare commodity in many post-independent African states since the 1960s.

Moreover, seemingly free and fair elections alone do not suffice to give a clean bill of health to any democracy, particularly if by "free and fair" we limit ourselves to the presence or absence of violence or the intimidation of opposition players by the incumbents in the period leading to, during, or after the elections. 

There are many ways to rig elections, and, of course, this is not limited to Africa.

The mere practice of allowing carefully selected/approved election monitors from friendly origins – who may lack the means, the time, and other resources to issue reports before they get to look deeper into processes before, during and in the immediate aftermath of elections – should be discarded.

For many years trusted as credible and truly independent, the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has, deservedly, come up under increasing media and public scrutiny in recent years. It also doesn't help that it saw it fit to approach the courts, in the lead-up to the 2021 Local Government Elections, to try and persuade them to allow it to postpone the elections.

Agreeing with the application by the electoral commission were, unsurprisingly, the ANC, the EFF, and others whose reasoning remains suspect. Its argument that the Covid-19-related restrictions that had been imposed since early 2020 would make it impossible for political parties to campaign and for the commission to get its own structures and processes ready on time for the elections were thrown out by the courts.

Countries in other parts of the world had held successful elections after the advent of the global pandemic and before South Africa's 2021 local government election. It is also no wonder that it was mainly parties and individuals fearing a possible toppling of the status quo that were in favour of either an election postponement – if the delay would not last longer than the Constitutional 90 days – or outright cancellation – if longer than 90 days. Some were even calling for an outright cancellation while they misleadingly called it a postponement.

Following the court judgment, the electoral commission went ahead to deliver on its mandate to have elections without the world falling apart.  

"Free and fair" elections must be attained on multiple levels, but throughout, independence must be ensured.

Notably, the chairperson of the IEC is appointed by the president under the current dispensation. But the president is also the president of the African National Congress (ANC), which has long turned into more of a (mis)governing political party since 1994, with a lot to lose if it were to be removed from power.

In his capacity as state president, the president is also a political deployee of the said party, which also has the power to recall him if it no longer deems him to represent its wishes. It is therefore reasonable to believe that he cannot make key appointments in key state institutions, especially Chapter 9 Institutions, without due consultation with and endorsement by party leadership.

Yet some of the individuals he must consult have been implicated in criminal wrongdoing and cannot be trusted to act in the interest of independent democratic institutions, particularly those institutions whose work could result in them losing their positions and control if left to deliver on their mandates without fear, favour, or prejudice. 

Despite the crime-tainted dark clouds hanging over their heads, some of these individuals have already been given the thumbs-up by party branches for future leadership positions after the party's elective conference in December. If they get elected, they will become even harder to be called to account for suspected criminal past actions by South Africa's criminal justice system, which has been weakened over time when it comes to dealing with crimes committed powerful politicians.

Should these people be elected, it would also ensure that suspected criminals get to be retained as lawmakers. They would have all the reasons to make decisions that would first be in their own interest and that of their party ahead of the country's sovereign interests, something that has long become the norm in South Africa, a real Orwellian Animal Farm of our times.        

More than one way to skin a cat

Elections can lose their "free and fair" status in many ways – both direct and indirect. Unfairness can sneak in via:

• Manipulation of the voters' roll: disadvantaging areas that do not support the status quo and enable only the ones that do by flooding voter registration with the latter. This includes disenfranchising voters who are not trusted to support the status quo, e.g., citizens living abroad and those living in areas that do not support the status quo.
• Introducing repression by rendering access to registration stations difficult or impossible.
• Frustrating the registration of potentially hostile opposition political parties/individuals through technical disqualification.
• Printing a lot more ballot papers than needed, getting some of them pre-marked in favour of the status quo and secretly stuffing them into ballot boxes.
• Manipulating the IT/vote counting/consolidating, system by changing vote numbers in favour of one party.
• Appointing designated people with specific alignments or biases as electoral officers with a clear mandate to protect the electoral interests of the incumbents.
• Using captured/biased parties to print, transport and store ballot papers.  
• Manipulating the logistics: making materials more available in some areas than in others.

What must happen:

• Appoint only ethical, independent people to work at all levels of the Electoral Commission, starting with the most senior officials and filtering all the way through to ground level;
• Create structures, checks and balances to shield all electoral commission processes, and all electoral officers, from undue political influence and pressure;
• Change the culture of the organisation to one that must serve the country and all South Africans, not any one political formation, and irrespective of which party the electorate casts most votes for
• Ensure voter education by an independent, politically unaligned body, including at school level, so that South African voters do so rationally – not emotionally or based upon race – but rather, well-informed and armed with a clear understanding of what is at play in their future. As currently constituted, the IEC cannot be trusted to be that body.  

A lot of the manipulation that can happen would not succeed if the electoral commission was run by individuals who do not have to constantly look over their shoulders for fear of taking action that might jeopardise their political deployers even while it is good for the integrity of the country's successive elections, or individuals concerned only with their future political deployment.

It is when all of this is done correctly that South Africa can look anyone in the eyes and claim to have truly free and fair elections, irrespective of their outcomes. Until then, anyone making such a claim is in denial and being disingenuous. It cannot be good for the country's democratic reputation.