CEC's confusing initiative

The Election Commission's dramatic move to invite 99 political parties to a dialogue on voter-list may be well intended but is clearly ill-conceived and failure-prone.

There is no question though that an exhaustive, accurate and authentic electoral roll is central to the very exercise of the right to adult franchise and the fundamental basis for the conduct of fair and credible elections in the country. So, the concern of the election commission over perfecting the existing voter list which is flawed in no small measure, aside from the new generation of voters waiting to be franchised, is well understood and deserve to be universally shared.

But while the EC's goal is welcome, it's the method it has embarked on to accomplish the task that we find ill-judged and questionable. For, of the 99 political parties being approached, as many as 41 did not field any candidate in the last election, 33 fielded only one, 10 had two candidates and five three candidates each. By inviting them all, the EC is not only giving legitimacy to the whole lot of nondescript political non-entities but also according them equal status with the top order political parties with proven political and electoral weightages in and out of parliament.

The best way to go about it for the EC would have been to mainstream the discussion with the political parties represented in the parliament and then, if need be, associate the other political parties, albeit with names, addresses and party offices which seem to be currently missing, according to some EC sources.

The way things are, however, the signboard-only political parties will be only coveting the photo-opportunity to publicise themselves, so their participation is guaranteed. But unless the major political parties see reason to participate in what is bound to be an unwieldy and unfocussed discussion it will be an exercise in futility.

It seems allocation of election symbols over the years was set as the criterion for selecting 99 political parties for the talks, which is why it is such a loosely formulated and operationally unrealistic approach. Yes, this could imply that the CEC wanted to be inclusionary with his juristic experience perhaps prompting him to appear as 'even handed'. It could as well be a calculated risk on his part to engage political parties somehow on some scale. But he has come from a specilised, somewhat coralled and cocooned legalistic pedestal which is a world apart from the complexities of the political and electoral paradigms. He heads an institution that conducts election, which at the heart of a political process so that he has to be cognisant of the sensitivities of the political realities to be effective in his designated role.

As far as the political parties go, being participants in the elections, they have a clear stake in an authentic electoral roll. But the thing is political parties do not prepare the voter list, it is the sole responsibility of the EC to do so. The reason why political parties need to be consulted though is to seek their opinion on how best an electoral roll can be authentic, and where they can fill in the gaps by having their constituencies fully represented on the voter list. Hence, the need for the EC to engage the political parties in a dialogue and the corresponding necessity for the political parties to cooperate with the EC over the question of preparing an authentic voter list.