Election violence can be avoided

Risk factors derive from failure to adhere to the pre-conditions as elaborated by Chief Justice Odoki

This is a slightly edited version of a lecture on Oct.13 by Prof. E. F. Ssempebwa in memory of Benedicto Kiwanuka organised by the Foundation for African Development and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Kiwanuka led the Democratic Party to election victory twice and was the first Prime Minister of Uganda, and later Chief Justice. He is remembered for his values of equality of humans, equal participation of all in public affairs, democracy, peace and stability.

The states in the Eastern African region, Uganda included have had lofty plans for economic growth. The plans are currently driven by ideals of regional integration to create a big single market, first under the East African Community and, subsequently through a merger with the COMESA and SADC markets. In Uganda, the leadership has toyed with a number of economic initiatives, whose impact is a matter for debate. What needs to be noted is that, however noble, plans for economic growth do not lead to development unless peace and stability prevails. It is conditions of stability that ensure the rights and freedoms to enable equitable access to political and economic opportunities. Democracy, the base upon which rights and freedoms are anchored, is central to development.

Uganda has gone through various shades of instability since independence. In 1966 democracy was the sacrificial lamb to cleanse the alleged sins of tribalism and disunity. Chaos, anarchy, degradation, and disunity have been the result since then. Periods of massive loss of lives still sound in the mind - hence the concern over electoral processes. An election is an occasion where grievances can coalesce and trigger violence. Is it a well-founded concern?

The reality of election violence

What is election violence? There seems to be consensus among observers that violence is not restricted to beatings, killings and displacements. It includes threats, perpetuation of terror, and denial of services. Any acts of coercion. Intimidation, or physical harm aimed at affecting the electoral process constitutes electoral violence. Violence could be psychological, as when in 1996, the people were crudely warned as to the possibility of returning to “bad days of the Obote era.” The objective of the violence could be to delay, disrupt, or derail the process. It could also be to affect the results. The main trigger of electoral violence is failure to play by the rules. But in reality, violence already simmers in the embers of existing social conflict.   It is recorded that in Africa, 19 to 25% of all electoral processes have experienced mid to high level violence. Another study notes that in the last four decades, 80% of elections in Sub-Saharan Africa have suffered from some form of violence, bribery, intimidation or inequitable government interference. Read more