How elections may lead to political violence
Introduction
Elections are supposed to function as a peaceful means for making decisions and settling political differences. However, they do not always function in this way: sometimes, they trigger political violence. Especially ethnically divided societies are often thought to be prone to such dynamics. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the 2007 Kenyan elections and the 2006 and 2011 elections in Zambia. Working with these cases, it asks, first, whether the presence of ethnic diversity must lead to violence around election time. In a second step, the paper gives an analysis of under what conditions ethnic diversity tends to lead to election violence, considering factors such as the electoral system, the numerical balance of ethnic groups, the closeness of elections, economic, social, and historical background conditions, and elite strategies, as well as how these factors might interact with one another. The paper’s conclusion briefly considers whether the argument developed can ex plain what happened in the 2013 Kenyan elections.
Analysis
Most countries in Africa call for democracy that gives people the power to rule. Elections of political leaders form the main fundamental bedrock of democracy in Africa when citizens go to elections booth to make their choices. Most electoral processes are characterized by various acts of violence in different stages of the election process (Eiffert et al 27). Election violence is a common phenomenon in the African countries whose motivation lies behind different political stands of citizens. Election violence occurs when one individual or a group of individuals unfairly takes political advantage over others. Hence, election violence occurs due to political competition. People or politicians who engage in election violence aim at acquiring power through the violent way blaming the electoral process used. Mwagiru argues that politicians use violence as a tool of intimidation and disempowerment of other political opponents. Election violence can occur in a period prior to election (pre-election violence) during elections themselves, or a period after the election (post-election violence) especially when ballots are being counted. The electoral process that is aimed at giving people the right to choose their democratic leaders turns into a threat to security, development and peace among citizens (Mansfield and Snyder 13-15).
Various political analysts have come up with different arguments towards the causes of election violence. Some argue that violence appears as a natural action of some people who believe that violence is the only way to win democracy. On the other hand, violence erupts because of the prevailing environment surrounding a group of people. This view gives a chance to eliminate violence by encouraging political leaders to promote peace and unity among their followers. There has been a proof that election violence results into political violence because supporters of a certain political party become political enemies with their rivals and can use any means to sabotage competitors (Collier and Vicente 2; Barron et al 9). Election violence leads to political violence in one of the following five ways.
Identity conflict
This political violence occurs during the registration process especially for refugees or immigrants who cannot establish their official identities.
Campaign conflict
Campaign conflicts occur during campaign times when rivals disrupt an opponent’s campaigns because of differences in political backgrounds. Such actions result into election violence caused by voter intimidation and use of threatening words.
Ballot conflict
Violence erupts during voting time when rivals play out their competitors at the polling stations
Results conflicts
These conflicts occur because of a disputed election processes where one party claims their rivals have used unfair means to win. Such a case occurred in Kenya during the 2007 general elections resulting into a major post-election violence. The judicial mechanisms adopted by a country assists in eliminating claims of election irregularities as the case of 2013 general elections in Kenya (Amnesty International USA 2).
Representation conflict
These are rare cases where elections are organized favoring one political party and those who lose never participate in the government.
One of the main causes of election violence that leads into political violence is cultural and ethnic differences between communities. The political culture of people determines the political party that they support. Management of political conflicts and settling political contests lies within the context of an existing political system, which leads to decay of political and social systems. Cultural stimulates political violence when people from different cultural backgrounds support different political parties. In most African countries, people have intermixed and there is no specific region that belongs to a certain cultural community (Schaffer 25-30). In case of election violence, people fight their fellows from other cultures who they claim to support competing political parties (Barron et al. 56-63).
On the other hand, election violence results into political instability of a nation. Election violence in African nations accelerates political crisis that are manifested on a regular basis. For instance, 70% of African nations have been involved in one way or another of election violence. This introduces a threat to a strong, efficient and democratic country. In addition, various acts of inhuman occur because citizens ignore basic human right acts such as gender equality, cultural rights, and social identities. The human security and social development of a country is interfered with once a nation engages in political violence caused by election disputes.
A comparative analysis of 2007 Kenyan election
The United Republic of Kenya underwent the most paining period during the 2007-2008 post-election violence that left deep scars. The violence erupted after a disputed presidential election that occurred on December 27, 2007. Within a few weeks, the country had transformed from the Africa’s most stable democratic nation into a field of chaos with gunshots and cries of innocent souls filling every space. The violence was attributed to political and ethnic differences between people who supported either the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) or supporters of National Alliance Rainbow Coalition (NARC). The violence left more than 1000 people dead and over 350, 000 families forced to leave their homes and leave as refugees in their own country (Amnesty International USA 2). Later on, two key leaders who were running for the top position, Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga agreed on a coalition government after three months of chaos, violence and insecurity (Roberts 25-27). What was the main cause of this violence?
The violence that erupted in Kenya after the 2007 general elections affected Kenyans in any of the following three ways. Firstly, people encountered various injuries, secondly, people were freed from their homes and finally, there was the destruction of property, loss of jobs and loss of loved ones. Ethnicity and cultural backgrounds of people was the main cause of violence. In addition, those people who live in areas where frequent land disputes between various communities erupted were the likelihood victims of the post-election violence. In addition, political actors and other politically connected gangs such as ‘mungiki’ contributed also to the violence in Kenya. Kenyan police forces and politically supported gangs collaborated in most killings that took place during the election violence (Ohito and Obonyo 7). However, the main cause of the 2007 election violence in Kenya is believed to be the perceptions of a rigged election.
Kenya has 42 tribes and each tribe has its political affiliates. Thirty-nine out of the forty-two tribes supported the NARC party that was the main stakeholders of the Kenyan government because it composed of people already in government. The party flag bearer, former Kenyan President, Kibaki, was the President then. On the other hand, the ODM party comprised mainly of people from three ethnicities, the Kalenjins, the Luhyas and the Luos. This clearly suggests that it was a fight of three against 39. The Kalenjins come from Rift Valley Province, which holds the largest population in Kenya. It was assumed that the three tribes had the potential of beating the remaining 39 tribes due to their large numbers. After the election, ethnicity fights erupted, especially in the Northern region of the country where people from different ethnicities lived. The Kikuyus were displaced from the Northern region while the Luos and Kalenjins were displaced from the Central region (Ohito and Obonyo 6).
On the other hand, the electoral body used to conduct elections then also contributed to the eruption of violence in Kenya. The then chairperson of the Kenya Electoral Commission (ECK) made the announcement of the presidential elections winner in private knowing well that tension among people was high in the country. It was after the announcement that violence erupted. Political leaders influenced their followers to attack their rivals using crude weapons such as machetes, bows, and arrows. In addition, houses were burned as people were displaced from their own lands, especially where different communicates lived together (Roberts 16-19).
A comparative analysis of 2006 and 2011 elections in Zambia
In 2011, Zambia broke into election violence because of the slow pace of election results from the country’s general elections. The chaoses were caused by the delays in vote counting in Ndola and Kitwe mining towns. The country banned a privately owned media from broadcasting the results officially verified by the Electoral commission. In addition, three media outlets were barred from publishing the results that lead created tension forcing people to erupt into violence. The Zambian president, Rupiah Banda faced a strong challenge from his opponent Michael Sata, as Sata supporters claimed that the government withheld the results in order to favor Banda. The voting took place on September 20, 2011, and was expected to be released within 48 hours (Globalpost 2).
Zambia has been known for its political instability resulting from frequent election chaos spearheaded by youths. In the past, the country used to hold peaceful elections with a clear transition between competing parties with low crime rates. After the 2006 Zambia general elections, the country was hit by a wave of political violence that acted as a form of mobilizing followers. The trend has caused many deaths and injuries to innocent people during each election whereby the youth and unemployed people are paid by major politicians to cause violence. The Zambian president promotes peace and unity among people from different cultures and political affiliates, but there are possibilities of the country staying without peace for a longer period.
The presence of ethnic diversity was the main cause of violence in the Zambia 2006 and 2011 elections. Rufunsa villagers who have political alies in PF were responsible for the chaos with the help of local police officers. The Zulus became angry for because of Rufunsa’s actions and retaliated back resulting into an ethnic fight. In addition, the MMD and UPND members contributed to violence because they were reportedly seen carrying weapons matching towards rival villages and spearheading a number of PF supporters (Globalpost 3). Elections from developing countries improve policies if they are conducted in the correct manner (Chauvet and Collier 510). From the Zambian perspective, the aftermath of 2011 election constituted a setback of the current economic and social status of its citizens. Moreover, the government might never achieve a stable economy if it fails to discipline its people to avoid ethnic differences and work as one nation.
Conclusion
The arguments made on this paper represent what happened in Kenya and Zambia during the 2007 and 2006/2011 elections violence respectively. From the analysis, it was clear that elections have the potential of causing political violence. On the other hand, the presence of ethnic diversity contributed more into political and elections violence experienced in Kenya in 2007. The country has 42 tribes and out of which, 39 tribes supported the winning party NARC. The private announcement of presidential elections triggered post-election violence in Kenya while the delayed election announcement triggered violence in Zambia. Moreover, other factors that contributed to eruption of election violence include poor economies, different social and political backgrounds of voters, and the influence of political leaders.
Cited works
Amnesty International USA, Press Release, 15th Friday 2008. Available at
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20080215003&lang=e
Barron, P., Kaisser, K., Pradhan, M. Understanding variations in local conflict: Evidence and
implications from Indonesia, World Development, 37(3). 2009: 698-713.
Chauvet, L. and Collier, P. Elections and Economic Policy in Developing Countries, Economic
Policy, 24(59): 2009: 509-512.
Collier, P. and Vicente, P. Votes and violence: Evidence from a field experiment in Nigeria.
Centre for Study of African Economies (CSAE), University of Oxford, working paper, 16. 2008. Print
Eiffert, B., Edward M. and Daniel P. Political Sources of Ethnic Identification in Africa,
Afrobarometer working paper No. 89. 2007. Print
Globalpost. Riots in Zambia over slow election results. 2013. Available September 22, 2011
at:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/110922/zambia-riot-election-violence-rupiah-banda-michael-sata
Mansfield E. and Snyder, J. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go To War
Cambridge: MIT Press. 2005
Ohito D. and Obonyo O.. Chaos: Kibaki, Raila dilemma over allies, The Standard, 4
April. 2010. Print
Roberts, M. J. Conflict Analysis of the 2007 Post-Election Violence in Kenya. 2009. Available at:
http://www.williamtsuma.com/sites/default/files/conflict-analysis-2007-post-election-violence-kenya-mara-j-roberts-2009.pdf
Schaffer, F. (Ed.),. Elections for Sale: the Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying.
Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado. 2007
