The stakes in first post-conflict elections are high. Recent developments in Africa such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2006), Burundi (2005) and Sierra Leone (2002) have proven that elections need to be seen as one link in the fragile chain of events that allow a country to emerge from years of conflict and pave the way towards peace and “sustainable stability”.
In Africa as elsewhere, countries emerging from conflict face enormous pressure to hold elections as early as possible as a way to fast track the process of establishing a new regime: expectations among the population are high; the euphoria of ending the conflict brings momentum for fundamental change; the international community is ready to invest in transitional elections and shift their mode of support from conflict to development; meanwhile, the media is eager to showcase elections as democratic “events”.
But rushing post-conflict elections holds a cost: electoral systems are there to last. If designed too rapidly and with too much external assistance there is a risk that they will not be aligned with the existing institutional framework or that they will be unsustainable with no national ownership guaranteed. It is insufficiently recognised that institutional frameworks involve not only the substance of design, but also a political process towards reaching design.
The pitfalls for negotiating and designing post-conflict electoral institutions are threefold:
First, transitional elections are often planned in a way that is linked only tenuously to other elements of the emerging institutional framework. Experience of transition such as in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq show that the impact of electoral frameworks is intimately connected with issues addressed in constitution-building processes, political party systems, and provisions relating to the establishment of legislative bodies at all levels. Successful electoral system design thus comes from looking at the framework of political institutions as a whole: changing one part of this framework is likely to cause adjustments in the way other institutions within it work.
Second, the sustainability of the electoral cycle is not taken into account. The consolidation of democracy involves electoral events which follow each other: if stability is maintained, elections will become cyclical; there will be other types of elections too involving local government, the legislature, maybe even referendums. The electoral cycle demonstrates that democracy building needs to be considered as an inseparable element of the process of development, and not merely as a series of events.
In the past donors have considered transitional elections as a single event, without taking into consideration the elements that may help sustain the cycle. As the high profile of the transition on the international agenda fades, and other countries emerge as candidates for donor support, international donors seek to redefine their assistance in terms of a pressing social agenda or define an exit strategy. However, as has been proven, an election is just the starting point for the consolidation of democracy and it is at this point that countries emerging from conflict require the most support. Recent developments in the field of electoral assistance as well as among the peacebuilding community, have identified this need and are seeking ways to address the support that a new government may require in this crucial period.
Third, institutional frameworks are not only about the design of institutions, but about the political process towards reaching the design. It is not sufficient to have the ‘right answer’ if the answer does not come from those whose life it will affect.
The nature of institutional design implies that trade-offs have to be made between a number of competing desires and objectives. Design is both a technical and a political process often plagued with risks that can lead to further conflict. Promoting dialogue among competing parties in the design process is key to securing national ownership of a system that responds to the interests of the population and not just one or two groups.
To carry the debate on these issues further, the current edition of International IDEA’s newsletter focuses on the outcome of a recent conference on “Sustaining Africa’s Democratic Momentum” that took place in Johannesburg, 5-7 March, with the support of International IDEA. The Conference addressed several of the issues highlighted here and the challenges democracy is facing on the African continent.
Vidar Helgesen
Secretary-General, International IDEA
Discuss
Tell a friend
