The Economist Europe – July 22-28, 2017

48 International The EconomistJuly 22nd 2017

2 positive, says a leading observer. (By con-

trast in Zimbabwe in 2008, when Robert

Mugabe lost the first round of a presiden-

tial election, his election commission in

the capital sat on the ballots for weeks be-

fore declaring that the challenger had nar-

rowly missed the 50% mark that would

have given him outright victory. Such le-

thal violence followed that he withdrew.)

Another vital safeguard is “parallel vote

tabulation” (PVT), whereby party agents

and independent observers can witness

the count in randomly selected polling sta-

tions and announce each result, which

will be agreed upon, photographed by

smartphone and transmitted. Elsewhere,

and in Kenya in 2013, PVT has been very

close to the final result (see chart), making

it far harder for an incumbent to inflate his

tally, at least by a large amount. “PVT is a

highly effective check on the electoral com-

missions,” says an expert from the Interna-

tional Foundation for Electoral Systems

(IFES). It is thought to have been vital for

ensuring fairness in Ghana and Nigeria.

Kenya’s main opposition leader, Raila Od-

inga, says he will put five agents in each of

the polling stations. Even justone in each

would be a boon.

The independence of the electoral com-

mission and the integrity of the supreme

court as arbiter of disputes are crucial for a

decent election. Monitors have become a

powerful force, too. In Kenya the most seri-

ous are from the European Union, the Car-

ter Centre and the National Democratic In-

stitute, an American organisation. The

Commonwealth and African Union are

also sending teams. Among the heavy-

weights lending extra credibility are Thabo

Mbeki, South Africa’s ex-president, for the

AU; John Mahama, Ghana’s recently de-

feated president, for the Commonwealth;

and John Kerry, America’s former secre-

tary of state, for the Carter Centre.

Just as vital is that local citizens play a

part in oversight. In Kenya the Elections

Observation Group, an umbrella of 19 in-

dependent outfits, including church and

human-rights groups, is set to send 6,000

watchers into the polling stations, com-

pared with a few hundred foreign ones.

And yet...

If this all sounds too good to be true, it may

be. Nic Cheeseman of Birmingham Uni-

versity, an expert on elections in Africa, has

warned against what he calls the “fetishi-

sation” of technology. “In some cases the

complexity of digital processes may actu-

ally render elections more opaque and vul-

nerable to manipulation—or at least the

suspicion of manipulation,” he has writ-

ten. Election machines in Ghana in 2012

failed more often where no observers were

present, suggesting tampering with the in-

tention of forcing a fallback onto the more

easily fiddled manual system. Technology

can even facilitate fraud. In Azerbaijan in

2013, the election commission accidentally

jumped the gun by releasing an electroni-

cally verified result—a day before the vote.

“You can’t digitise integrity,” says John

Githongo, a veteran Kenyan anti-corrup-

tion campaigner, implying that the corrupt

politicians who still dominate the coun-

try’s politics will not let technology get in

the way of fiddling the result if it goes

against them. “The manual count is defini-

tive,” says one foreign observer. “The elec-

tronic one is a backup”—and should not be

considered a fail-safe. Yet paper ballots are

always liable to be lost, stuffed or falsified.

The register, too, can be manipulated,

for example by signing up under-age peo-

ple in areas where the government is pop-

ular or by making it harder for officials to

register voters where opposition is stron-

gest. KPMG has recently expressed anxiety

about loopholes. In countries where trust

in authority is low, and fear is high, voters

may even think that technology will let the

government know how they voted.

Above all, technology cannot prevent

some pervasive forms of election-rigging.

Incumbents in Africa won 88% of direct

presidential elections since multiparty

elections became common a generation

ago until 2010, says Mr Cheeseman. That

was partly by using state resources to out-

spend the opposition, often commandeer-

ing the civil service and sometimes the

army. In Uganda the perennial challenger,

Kizza Besigye, has repeatedly been arrest-

ed during campaigns. Incumbents often

ensure biased media coverage. Technology

cannotstop vote-buying or bribery.

“I don’t think technology will everguar-

anteecredible elections,” says one of the

world’s most experienced monitors, who

does not wish to be named. “The best it can

do is increase the transparency and ac-

countability of the data. By exposing the

data to broader scrutiny there is some hope

of creating broader acceptance of close out-

comes.” PVT, for instance, depends on reli-

able technology.

Dispatching party agents to every Ken-

yan polling station will be hard. “You

won’t find many Luos [who overwhelm-

ingly back Mr Odinga’s coalition] wanting

to be sent as agents to polling stations in

the heartland of the Kikuyus [where their

leader, Mr Kenyatta, will prevail]—or vice

versa,” says a white farmer. “They’d be

chased out or murdered.” It is unlikely that

Mr Odinga will be able to put an agent in

all 41,000 polling stations, let alone five in

each. Nor are foreigners likely to observe

polling stations in parts of the north-east,

where Somali terrorism may be a threat.

Mr Odinga’s campaign has made much

of accusations of unfairness, sighs a West-

ern ambassador. It iswidely believed that

Mr Odinga was robbed of victory in 2007,

and that in 2013 he genuinely trailed in the

first round but probably not by so much

that Mr Kenyatta truly won outright. This

time at virtually every step he has accused

the authoritiesand commission of bias

against him, implying, for instance, that the

printers are likely to print extra papers to

aid ballot-stuffing, or that the returning of-

ficers are likely to be government stooges.

Good losers required

In the end, an unrigged election requires

the protagonists’ goodwill and willingness

to accept defeat. Mr Kenyatta may be sin-

cere in saying he will step down if he loses.

But it is widely surmised that the Kikuyu

old guard would stop at nothing to keep Mr

Odinga out of power. “The one thing we all

hope for,” says a foreign monitor, “is that

the margin of victory, one way or another,

will be wide.” Alas, it may be close.

It is in transitional democracies—coun-

tries struggling to embed a tradition of fair

polls—that trust and transparency are most

needed. In countries where the incumbent

blatantly fixes the vote, nobody bothers

with the effort that is going into Kenya’s

poll. If it is fair and peaceful, like Ghana’s

last year, itwill mark a massive advance for

east African democracy. Though a large

dose of scepticism is warranted, it is still a

hopeful moment. Hold your breath. 7

Watch them like hawks

Sources: CODEO; CCMG; ELOG; Project 2011 Swift Count; NDI

Selected presidential elections, % of vote won

30 40 50 60

Kenyatta

Odinga

Actual

result

Kenya, 2013

Hichilema

Lungu

Zambia, 2016

Akufo-Addo

Mahama

Ghana, 2016

Buhari

Jonathan

Nigeria, 2011

Parallel Vote

Tabulation result

Margin of

error

Thumbs up for a fair vote