Why Not Credible Elections in 2005?
May 21, 2004
Nat Galarea Gbessagee

I read J. Yanqui Zaza’s intriguing article, "2005:Quick Elections or Credible Elections" (New Democrat, 15 May 2004), in which he assails what he sees as ongoing formations of political alliances in Liberia. Writes Mr.Zaza, "As 2005 draws nearer, reports of alliances amongst various parties in the current regime are emerging. The simple objective is a coalition of the old wine in new bottles in 2005. The schemes have begun, raising the question of how credible the elections will be and whether they are the final solution to the political crisis."

Mr. Zaza also trumpets sheer political speculations about the mindset of Liberians in regard to the 2005 elections, and settles on the refreshing statements, "Some democratic enthusiasts at home and elsewhere say warring factions, in an unholy alliance with key members of the interim government would sweep elections in 2005 as the National Patriotic Party did in the 1997 elections, if peacekeepers do not simultaneously disarm and demobilize child soldiers. In addition, if we fail in conducting a reasonable census, anti-democratic forces would rig the results of the elections. Or third parties and warring factions, who engineered and selected Bryant, and abandoned better candidates, would promote and protect their personal interest."

Moreover, after unveiling a wardrobe of charges from warlord appeasement, Charles Taylor prosecution, and donor conference expenditure handling to the outright conjecture that the "…interim government has not only outlived its usefulness, it is creating problems for future governments," Mr. Zaza thinks the timing of the 2005 general elections are somehow premature and the elections ought to be postponed. He writes, "Most importantly, should we conduct national elections while warlords are still serving as local authorities? Would they not use their state positions (and resources such as cars, money) to influence already intimidated voters? …If we don’t elect or appoint neutral local authorities before national elections, warlords, with little efforts, would decide how voters would select their choice of candidates. Is it possible that a local authority could get out of town residents and increase the voters? I hope not. Please let's not rush for quick elections that others might use the outcome to create more chaos. Even with the rumours that chairman Bryant and his core advisors are grooming and financing a successor, let's be patient."

As you can see, Mr. Zaza raised a series of intriguing questions and issues about credible elections in Liberia that are nothing less than false alarms intended to continue to breed discontent and disunity in Liberia. First, are there really any "neutral" persons in Liberia when it comes elections? Second, are elections and politics not about forming political "alliances" and building "coalitions?" Well, if Mr. Zaza didn’t know, no political party or social group, including LINSU, which I believe Mr.Zaza once belonged to, can survive as a viable institution without forming alliances with people of like minds. In fact, all persons interested in participating in the 2005 general elections and all general elections in Liberia are required by the electoral laws of Liberia to form alliances and coalitions in order to successfully compete in the elections.

Article 77 (a) of the 1986 Liberian constitution clearly states, " Since the essence of democracy is free competition of ideas expressed by political parties and political groups as well as by individuals, parties may freely be established to advocate the political opinions of the people. Laws, regulations, decrees or measures which might have the effect of creating a one-party state shall be declared unconstitutional." In addition, Article 78 of the constitution also states clearly, "As used in this Chapter (Political Parties and Elections), unless the context otherwise requires, an "association" means a body of persons, corporate or other, which acts together for a common purpose, and includes a group of people organized for any ethnic, social, cultural, occupational or religious objectives; a "political party" shall be an association with a membership of not less than five hundred qualified voters in each of at least six counties, whose activities include canvassing for votes on any public issue or in support of a candidate for elective public office; and an "independent candidate" shall be a person seeking electoral post or office with or without his own organization, acting independently of a political party.

Surely, Mr. Zaza doesn’t think the constitutional requirement for political party registration of 3000 registered voters (500 registered voters in each of six counties) could be met without individuals with common interests forming political "alliances." Besides, Article 79 of the 1986 constitution sets additional conditions for registration of political parties and independent candidates, which reemphasize the need for the formation of political "alliances" and "coalitions" amongst individuals. The introductory text to Article 79 reads, "No association, by whatever name called, shall function as a political party, nor shall any citizen be an independent candidate for election to public office, unless…" certain conditions are met.

And these conditions are extensive, with Article 79(a) reading in part, "(unless) the association or independent candidate and his organization meet the minimum registration requirements laid down by the Elections Commission and are registered with it. Registration requirements shall include filing with the Elections Commission a copy of the constitution of the association and guidelines of the independent candidate and his organization, a detailed statement of the names and addresses of the association and its officers or of the independent candidate and the officers of his organization, and fulfillment of the provision of sub-sections (b), (c), (d) and (e) hereof…." So, there is no need to create false alarms about people forming political "alliances" in Monrovia as if that were illegal.

Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Zaza calls the ongoing political "alliances" in Monrovia a "scheme" whose "…simple objective is a coalition of the old wine in new bottles in 2005," I thought he was deliberately misleading the Liberian people about a legal constitutional matter. The constitution of Liberia gives every Liberian the right to freely form alliances toward a common cause, as long as such alliances and the persons involved did not run afoul of the law. So far, the Liberian constitution and electoral laws have no prohibitions against "old wine in new battles" forming political alliances. In fact, the Liberian electoral laws do not distinguish between "old wine in new bottles" or "new wine in old bottles" because Liberian voters have the capacity to decide who is "old wine" and who is "new wine," and whether they even want any "wine" at all, I think the Liberian people care right now only for persons with good leadership skills to lift the country from its current political dungeon, and not new wines and old wines.

The key concerns of both the constitution and the electoral laws of Liberia are that voters should not be coerced into joining a political party, nor should the names of the voters be fraudulently obtained to fulfill the registration requirements of a political party or independent candidate. After that, it doesn’t matter if all the members of a political party are in their late 70s and 80s, if they are between the ages of 18 and 32, or if they are drawn entirely from a single college, a high school, a glee club, a football team, or a paramilitary force because the decision as to whether such groups can succeed in a national election rests entirely with Liberian voters. And, as a Liberian, I don’t want anyone telling me that someone is too old or someone is too corrupt for a particular public office. I have the right to evaluate the credentials and political platforms of all the candidates vying for particular public offices and make my own decision. And I believe all Liberians have that right.

Mr. Zaza also raises two very interesting questions, "should we (Liberians) conduct (the 2005) national elections while warlords are still serving as local authorities?" Would they not use their state positions (and resources such as cars, money) to influence already intimidated voters?" Well, I don’t know how Mr. Zaza arrived at the conclusion that Liberian voters were "already intimidated;" but, even if Mr. Zaza had the power to identify, arrest, and jail all "local authorities" he perceives as "warlords" before the 2005 elections, that decision would be inconsequential to the outcome of the elections because a "credible" secret ballot election is not beholden to local officials. In a "secret ballot" democratic election, one could receive all the "cars and money" Mr. Zaza so fears from a particular candidate and still vote against that candidate. In democratic elections worldwide, cars and money do play crucial roles as in every human endeavor in our modern world.

Elections and politics involve tremendous individual time and money, and cars and money are key inducements to galvanize one’s supporters and facilitate transportation to the voting booths. But cars and money do not necessarily determine how a person finally votes in the voting booth. And for those who know anything about elections and politics in a democracy at all, key economic and political players always seek to secure their interests by sponsoring candidates at the polls. That is the essence of elections and democracy and Mr. Zaza ought not to mislead the Liberian public that it is somehow possible to hold free and fair elections anywhere in the world without those in positions of power (business, industry, and government) giving outright support to their candidates of choice to win. In fact, it is only in developing countries such as Liberia that we entertain the erroneous notion that public officials ought to resign before contesting for other public posts. That is never the case in the U.S. and other developed countries, except in cases where individual candidates desire so for personal, professional or ethical reasons.

Of course, perhaps, Mr. Zaza is sincere about free and fair elections in Liberia and doesn’t see his current statements as attempting to undermine the credibility of the 2005 elections. And that might be possible, but it doesn’t change the facts. The facts remain that Liberians signed a peace agreement in 2003 to end the civil war in Liberia, to stabilize socio-economic life in Liberia, and to hold free and fair democratic elections in 2005 to elect new corps of national leaders. As per the dictates of that agreement, a transitional government was constituted with all signatories to the peace agreement taking up their allotted seats in the government. Other instruments of the agreement are gradually progressing. The disarmament process is progressing and primary commissions on elections, peace and reconciliation, and governmental reforms have been duly constituted and staffed. Liberian refugees in some African countries are being repatriated home. Yet Mr. Zaza still sees prospects for the 2005 general elections as bleak and wants the elections postponed because of fears of the "influence" of incumbent leaders.

To me, these are false alarms because I have not known of elections anywhere in the world where the incumbent leaders did not attempt to exert their "influence" directly or indirectly to obtain an outcome favorable to them. That is the general nature of politics, which is no basis to postpone an election. I think Mr. Tiawan Gongloe had a more valid point for possible postponement of the elections when he voiced his opposition to the re-introduction of a national identification card in Liberia in lieu of conducting a national census before the 2005 elections as the national elections commission had hinted (Gongloe, The Unconstitutionality of Elections Without a Census, New Democrat, 20 May 2004). But even Gongloe’s stance is legal and logical but not sufficient reasons to postpone the elections unless the comprehensive peace agreement is re-negotiated to facilitate the postponement.

My point here is that we need to honor and respect the existing laws of Liberia and whatever agreements we have signed. We cannot abrogate the law because it is convenient to do so. We ought to follow legal or mutually agreed channels to avoid any potential future conflicts. Unilateral actions have not worked in the past and will not work in the present or in the future. Every Liberian has the right to determine the fate of Liberia and not just a few people. So if it is determined (through a national consensus derived from discussions with political parties and ordinary Liberians) to be in the national interest of Liberia to postpone the 2005 general elections that will be great. But postponing the elections would also render the transitional government and its activities obsolete or illegitimate, so the legality of the transitional government will have to be decided as well. And this is why postponing the 2005 elections must be absolutely necessary, and not because some politician or civil leader thinks so.

The current political realities in Liberia are deeper than Mr. Zaza’s false alarms and aspersion on the credibility of the 2005 elections and the transitional government in Liberia. I think it is a gross exaggeration and sheer speculation for any Liberian to suggest that "the interim government has not only outlived its usefulness; it is creating problems for future governments" when the facts are quite different on the ground. A functioning elections commission is in place, and disarmament is progressing at high speed. So what makes the interim government irrelevant when it has not even entered the first year of its two-year mandate? Or does Mr. Zaza think free and fair elections are possible only by isolating certain Liberians from participating in the elections, or clinching old stereotypes such as, "…third parties and warring factions, who engineered and selected Bryant, and abandoned better candidates, would promote and protect their personal interest?" Of course, the fact of the matter is that in a free and fair democratic electron, the "best candidates" are those declared winners and not those declared losers, even if the losing candidates had better credentials and professional experience than the winning candidates.

We in Liberia need to learn to accept political defeat gracefully and stop the dirty game of undermining the winners. After all, political parties and civil society groups elected Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Mr. Rudolph Sherman, and Mr. C. Gyude Bryant as the "better candidates" for transitional government chairman position and Mr. Bryant was elected the eventual chairman. So during which period "third parties and warring factions…engineered and selected Bryant and abandoned better candidates…" as if all concerned parties did not agree to the procedures for the elections in advance. And which "better candidates?" Surely, one might disagree with some of the ongoing fights within the transitional government for political power and prestige—if not an outright struggle for political advantage, but are those political infightings outside the bounds of normal politics anywhere in the world? I think not, unless one can show that the transitional government has not made any progress with respect to the goals set out in the Liberian comprehensive peace agreement that brought the government to power.

Certainly, conducting a "reasonable census" might be necessary for the 2005 elections, but I do see where not conducting the census could create the scenario where " anti-democratic forces would rig the results of the elections." How do we distinguish between the "democratic forces" and the "anti-democratic forces?" in Liberia, given the electoral experiences of Liberia? After all, the 1997 special elections were conducted in the absence of a" reasonable census" and many Liberian politicians and outsiders indicated that the elections were "free and fair" under the prevailing circumstances. I do believe that the circumstances of the 1997 special elections are no different from the impending 2005 general elections. Liberian politicians knew that in 1997 Liberia was still reeling from six years of civil war at the time, road networks were deplorable, and the general socio-economic life of the Liberian people were abysmal but that didn’t prevent 13 political parties from participating in 1997 special elections. And no one can argue that a new civil war started in 1999 not because of the unfairness of the 1997 elections, but because of the poor administration of the government elected.

So I do see why in preparations for the 2005 elections we should manufacture problems where there are no problems. Free and fair elections are about giving all candidates equal access and opportunity to campaign before the voters. Free and fair elections do not mean everybody should be happy or every condition in a country must be perfect. We do not live in a perfect world and everything will never be perfect in the truest sense of the word. The only perfect environment for elections is the environment in which all concerned parties agreed to a specific set of rules for the elections, and everyone agreed to abide by those rules doing the elections and counting of the ballots. Therefore, I do not subscribe to the notion that free and fair elections are only attainable in Liberia if we conducted a national census and excluded all members of the transitional government from participating because they are likely to "influence already intimidated voters." I don’t believe such a course is either possible or wise. Elections and politics are about power and prestige, and influence is a key ingredient of power and prestige if one looks at it carefully.

For example, the very individuals and groups that negotiated and signed the Liberian comprehensive peace agreement are the very people in high positions in the transitional government today. The chairman of the transitional government is from the Liberia Action Party (LAP), the transitional vice chairman is from the United Peoples Party (UPP), the foreign minister, and the speaker and deputy speaker of the house are from the erstwhile warring factions, and the heads of primary civil society groups such as ULAA, MDCL, CEDE abandoned their respective organizations to take up positions in the interim government. So can anyone out there tell me that the very people who crowned themselves as peace negotiators and national leaders subsequently severe all ties to their respective organizations in order not the "influence" the 2005 elections? I don’t think so, and I don’t think Liberian voters are so stupid to believe such political naivety? The people in power will always try to remain in power if they can. But voters always have the right to change the people in power through a free, fair, and credible election. And that is the best course for Liberia right now, not exclusionary tactics. Let us give the voters the power decide who is a good leader and who is not, as they ought to.

We need to conduct a credible election in Liberia, and not necessarily a perfect election. Even advanced countries such as the United States and others cannot conduct a "perfect election," so a poor and war-ravaged country like Liberia is unlikely to conduct a "perfect" election. But we can conduct a "credible" election. And the ideal credible election is the election whose rules are clear to the parties most concerned (voters and contestants), and applied across the board without malice or bias. That is all persons who meet the legal requirements to vote must be given the opportunity to vote, unless such persons are barred as a result of criminal and other convictions sanctioned by the constitution or court of law. We do not want to isolate people at will, nor do we want to create the pretext for someone to sing "Coco-leo-go" and shout "rigged elections" to be able to galvanize the people to stage a coup or go to war. That tactic worked in 1985 and we should not permit it to work in 2005.

For instance, when the current elections commission made sweeping statements about electoral reforms that had the potential to violate the constitution and the peace agreement, no political parties and civil society groups, except LAP, took exception to the commission’s pronouncements. We should not accept extrajudicial actions in the name of reforms. We must ensure that the electoral rules are clear, even in the absence of census, in order to avoid any future misunderstanding or misinterpretations. And once every Liberian politician or voter steps down from his or her moral high ground and play by the voting rules, we will have no need to wonder about " 2005:Quick Elections or Credible Elections." I believe the 2005 elections will be credible but not perfect. But we must also respect the right of every Liberian of required age to vote in the elections without unnecessary roadblocks.