. Mwaliteta

ELECTIONS, especially those in which different political parties participate, are naturally adversarial because they very often represent a contest for power.

This is true even for by-elections, particularly here in Zambia where, for some people, vying for a parliamentary or ward seat which for some reason falls vacant becomes of a matter of life and death.

Only on Sunday, Patriotic Front campaign manager for the Mangango by-election, Obvious Mwaliteta was attacked by suspected supporters of the United Party for National Development.

In the incident, Mr Mwaliteta lost some money, as well as the immobiliser of his car, which also had its number plates stripped.

The ugly incident happened barely days after the campaigns for the Mangango parliamentary by-election were described as being largely peaceful.

It can be noted from the outset that the Mangango violence is not an isolated incident because taking a leaf from past experiences, more such scenes are likely to happen, even in places where ward by-elections are being conducted.

We, therefore, join the Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) in condemning this form of violence and, like FODEP, we reiterate that, no matter who is involved, violence has no place in Zambia’s politics.

Of course election violence is not a new phenomenon in Zambia as it has been happening in nearly all (by-)elections that have so far been conducted country-wide.

Observers, particularly civil society organisations, say that wherever violence occurs, its emergence clearly signals a sharp departure from the accepted rules that govern the electoral process as outlined by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ).

Election violence takes many forms. To begin with, it can be any harm, or threat of harm, to any person or, as in the case of Mr Mwaliteta, that person’s property in use during the election process. In the worst case scenario, there could be harm even to the election process itself, during the election period that is.

For instance, some elections have recorded low turn-outs as many of the registered voters stayed away fearing to be caught up in the election violence. Women in particular find themselves in this

situation, yet they are said to constitute majority voters.

For this reason, violence, both during the campaign period and voting itself, constitutes one of the greatest threats to free and fair elections, and thus a big threat to democracy.

Violence, which is often triggered by the rivalry between supporters of the contesting candidates and/or political parties, remains a threat, especially to Zambia which is still building a democratic society.

Democracy is what the Zambian people have embraced and this must be nurtured if the overall aim is to have election campaigns which are safe for all.

In this process, people should be free to campaign for candidates of their own choice without being intimidated, harassed or fearing to be lynched.

This calls for Zambians from all walks of life to say ‘no’ to election violence, which is clearly against the electoral code of conduct.

It would certainly be asking for too much expecting the law-enforcement officers to police any election campaign because it is clear they are not enough to be found anywhere each and every campaigner goes.

This then means that rivalry between the contestants and their supporters can be controlled by other measures such as what we have already referred to: The codes of conduct for political parties as outlined by the ECZ. There is need for people to strictly abide by these electoral regulations.

The ECZ should further be assisted with intensive voter/civic education programmes concerned with election campaigns and polling. In addition, there is need for special programmes or activities aimed at preparing parties and candidates for election loss.

This is because, as we said earlier, some people resort to violence because they want to win an election at all cost. As for ECZ, it should come up with strong sanctions penalising electoral violence.