The debate around the introduction of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) has caused me sleepless nights. But given the toxicity of the public space with accusation and counter accusations flowing thick and fast, it was difficult for some of us to engage in discussions as it is not easy to separate facts from interpretation of facts, opinions from analysis, and the true from the false. There are even instances where emotional manipulation is used to scare us from honestly debating the issue, with newspaper headlines such as ‘Botswana braces for bloodshed over electronic voting machines?’ (http://www.sundaystandard.info/botswana-braces-bloodshed-over-electronic-voting-machines)
Be that as it may, I cannot be silent no more, and have decided to put my head on block. Neither will I allow the EVM to be an orphan and face the world alone as Spencer Mogapi states in his column. (‘Like an orphan, EVMs have been left to face the world alone’ http://www.sundaystandard.info/orphan-evms-have-been-left-face-world-alone.’)
I am for modernization of voting and therefore support the introduction of any technology that will improve the efficiency of our electoral process including EVM. I wish to state from the onset that I worked for the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) from August 2002 to December 2008. In that period I participated in the conducting of the 2004 General elections and numerous by-elections. I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and very much appreciate the challenges of mobilizing logistics (vehicles to transport ballot boxes, ballot papers, tents, election officers etc) and personnel especially in places such as Kgalagadi where I was based for some time in charge of Kgalagadi North and South constituencies.
I also participated in the ‘Stakeholders Evaluation workshop, 2004 General Elections’ held at the Grand Palm Hotel, Gaborone from 9th to 10th June, 2005 where the idea to introduce EVMs was first mooted. The report is publicly available.
Although all Political parties and organizations were invited, the following were represented: Botswana Congress Party by Phillip Bulawa; Tshepho Chape-Wareus-Botswana Caucus for women in politics; Botswana Peoples Party-Ramasu Mogatle and Richard Gudu; Benjamin Modimoothata and Gordon Mokgwathi-Botswana National Front; Peter Ngoma and Dr. Batlang Comma Serema-Botswana Democratic Party and Smarts Shabani Botswna Alliance Movement.
Also present were civil society organisations such as Trade Unions and staff associations, church umbrella bodies and other religious organisations, media, NGOs, and different government departments relevant to elections. Bharat Electronics was represented by Mr. Nagaraga Kumaraswamy (I am not too sure why this time around there are media reports that they did not provide their names! What really is the problem about names of Bharat Electronics representatives? If they provided names will people accept EVMs or it is just a case of clutching at straws!). Democracy Research Project facilitated.
I have deliberately enumerated the broad range of stakeholders who were present to argue that for me the IEC consultation was sufficient. This is because since the establishment of the IEC consultations for electoral reforms have been through stakeholder workshops where all political parties were invited and I am baffled by the current hullaballoo around lack of consultation. What is it that the IEC should have done that will make those who say there was no consultation happy? What did the political parties and other stakeholders who are always invited to the stakeholder engagements by the IEC do to cascade the information to their organizations and ultimately general public? I assume the IEC invites them so that the information discussed can reach a wide variety of stakeholders.
The 2015 Stakeholder consultation report has a detailed presentation by Bharat Electronics which to me has addressed all the issues that are raised now such as ‘provision to print “voter Receipts” as paper trails confirming the vote cast and providing a backup.’ (pg.145) I wonder whether people who are commenting on the EVM have read the Bharat Electronics presentation!
In the report mentioned above the discussion and responses by participants is summmed up as follows:
‘The main concern expressed was how an Electoral Commission can reassure voters that electronic voting cannot be manipulated by either the ruling party or the electoral management body, hence the stress again on the neutrality of the electoral body is vital. Concerns about how an Electoral Commission reassures voters with low levels of formal literacy in respect of their reaction to an innovation such as electronic voting, poses a major challenge.’
However, the EVM was not part of the recommendations made after the 2005 stakeholder consultative workshop.
I understand from press release by the IEC that the participants at the 2014 stakeholder consultative workshop recommended that ‘Botswana should adopt electronic voter registration and voting in the next 2019 general elections (‘Electoral reforms stakeholder recommendations’. Daily News June, 07, 2017, NO. 106, pg.5). The introduction of EVM is coming over ten years of after being first presented.
It is interesting to note when parliament has to decide issues by voting they either use electronic voting or ballot paper. Voting by show of hands was disallowed by courts of law in 2014. But I have never heard any Member of Parliament request for paper trail from the Speaker who does the collation, counting and announcement of results.
If politicians use recommendations or discussions emanating from the stakeholder engagement workshops organized by the IEC to canvass for electoral reforms without raising concern about consultations or lack of it, what are they on about this time around when it comes to EVM?
It is public knowledge that the BCP has gone to court for the replacement of voting by Ballot Paper by EVMs to be declared unconstitutional and in violation of Section 32 (3) (c) of the Constitution of Botswana which states that voting be conducted through a ballot. The BCP’s interpretation of ballot is only limited to paper. What is a ballot then?
According to the http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ballot a ballot is:
“1. a slip or sheet of paper, cardboard, or the like, on which a voter marks his or her vote; 2. the method of secret voting by means of printed or written ballots or by means of voting machines; 3.voting in general, or a round of voting: Our candidate was defeated on the third ballot; 4. the list of candidates to be voted on: They succeeded in getting her name placed on the ballot; 5. the right to vote: to gain the ballot after years of struggle.
6. the whole number of votes cast or recorded;7.a system or the practice of drawing lots: The assassin would be chosen by ballot, and 8.(formerly) a little ball used in voting.”
Evidently from the online dictionary I have referenced, the constitutional interpretation of ballot by the BCP is narrow. They introduce the word ‘paper’ next to ‘ballot’ and therefore invent their own constitutional provision. If indeed their interpretation is correct, does it mean that all elections held before 1999 when ballot papers were introduced are unconstitutional? By the way, before 1999 voters in Botswana used discs to cast their votes. If the interpretation by BCP is anything to go by, then we have been voting wrongly since 1965 which bring in to doubt whether our parliament was properly constituted since independence. The implication of this is that every law or decision ever made by parliament is unconstitutional. Put differently, we have a constitutional crisis!
I am working under the assumption that the constitutional provision under consideration (Section 32 (3) (c)) has always been talking about ballot since 1965 and never been amended. But if it was amended to cater for the introduction of ballot papers in 1999, then the BCP might have a point when they argue that ballot refers to nothing else but paper. Be that as it may, I still maintain my position that the definition of a ballot is as broad as it is captured in the definition by dictionary.com cited above which takes in to account all components of selecting representatives and the method of doing so such as ball, disc, paper, electronic machines and anything that might be invented in the future on which a voter marks/indicates his or a vote.
The challenge we are facing in Botswana is lack of trust in the Elections Management Body but not necessarily the introduction of the EVM. As mentioned earlier, voting in 1965 was by discs which were placed in envelopes. May I remind us as an example, that the BNF disc was solid black. But as times went by, they made a hole in the disc. This they said was to avoid the BDP cheating. The BNF claimed then that they were in possession of knowledge of the existence of a chemical that was sprayed in the ballot boxes before voting because it had the ability to change the colour of their black solid disc to the BDP red solid disc. The BNF said that the hole in their disc will show at the counting of votes that the disc which was originally cast in favour of the BNF changed colour and turned red in the ballot box thus proving that the BDP has cheated. Politicians will always cry foul or is it cry vote rigging which should not stop the nation from progressing.
I wish to make the point that the Ballot Paper, piercing a hole in a voting disc or paper trail does not stop vote rigging. If someone ‘sat on a ballot box’ in the biggest electoral fraud ever in the country otherwise known as Tshiamo ballot box then the argument that electronic voting equates rigging cannot be sustained.
The Mmegi article by Rampholo Molefhe titled ‘How ‘free and fair’ are ‘regular’ elections in Botswana?’ (http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=6&aid=559&dir=2010/March/Friday5/ ) records that:
‘The most significant case related to election rigging is that of the ‘Tshiamo Ballot Box’ of 1984 named after the school at which the incident took place.
Then, returning officer for Gaborone South where the Tshiamo ward box was located refused to make an audit of the ballot boxes that arrived at the Town Hall where the parliamentary votes were counted. He gave as his reason his obligation to conceal the voting patterns of the civil servants who voted previous to the date of the general election so that they could take their posts in different parts of the country where the director of elections posted them.’
Some might remember that some politicians used to encourage voters to’… keep the tokens they did not cast as evidence to onlookers, on or outside the premises of the voting booth, to show the parties they did not vote for, and by implication, the party they did vote for.’ (http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=6&aid=559&dir=2010/March/Friday5/)
Even after the introduction of the ballot paper, some opposition politicians used to say that the pen/marker that was used by voters to indicate how they wish to vote was made such that after making a mark at their opposition party of choice, the ‘X’ will shift from where it was placed and move to the BDP.
That is why some voters brought their own markers as they could not trust the ones provided by the IEC.
Maybe what will make politicians comfortable during voting is to have people line behind their preferred candidates because nothing seems to satisfy their suspicions!
By way of conclusion, I support modernization of our elections and anything that can help the nation to move forward I embrace. Stakeholders in our elections should also trust the institutions that have been created to facilitate the electoral process especially the Electoral Management Body. Also, I urge all stakeholders to do their part in educating the nation after the IEC consultative workshops so that we nurture our democracy.
*P.S. The views expressed are personal and do not represent that of government where I am employed
