Recommendation 3: ZECs independence needs to be strengthened, free from governmental oversight in the approval of its regulations. B ZEC Management of the Electoral Process ZEC put in place the administrative arrangements to ensure that polling took place on schedule on 30 July, including the recruitment and training of some 131,000 officers who worked in 10,985 polling stations which were established in all 1,958 wards across the country.20 Polling station lists were made public in national newspapers on 9 July and again on Election Day.21 A number of legal and administrative changes made a positive contribution to the process. The introduction of biometric voter registration, the change to a system whereby people must vote at the specific polling station where they are registered as opposed to any polling station in the ward, and increasing the overall number of polling stations, by splitting those of busy urban areas in particular, were all positive actions as they enhanced integrity measures. 22 Legal amendments to limit the printing of excess ballots to no more than 10% and the 2014 decision to provide for MPLCs were also welcomed as good practices which could enhance confidence and communication respectively. However, these potentially positive measures were somewhat undermined by the conduct of ZEC’s management, which often lacked inclusivity, transparency or effective communications. For instance, key MPLC meetings were cancelled at critical moments in the process; details on the newly-created polling stations were poorly communicated, leading to suspicions among the opposition regarding the extra polling places; procedures for ballot printing lacked transparency and meant that trust was not enhanced; mistakes in the voter roll, a paucity of timely voter education and the failure to provide a second voter roll for use outside polling places23 meant that some voters were unable to easily identify their correct polling station. Given the low base of trust in the electoral process among many stakeholders, a more inclusive and transparent approach by the election management body should have been a priority and ZEC could have used discretionary powers to provide for transparency. EU observers reported more positively on the provincial and district level election administration. Election officials were pro-active in sharing information and were committed to work with more transparency. Lower level commissions established their operational logistics committee and stakeholder relations were strengthened with the set-up of constituency and local-level MPLC. 20 ZEC initially proposed a budget of $179 million to run the harmonised election. However, it was only allocated $95.9 million. 21 The Financial Gazette 12-19 July, The Herald Supplement, 30 July. 22 The increase of polling stations compared to 2013 elections was a positive attempt to decrease the number of voters per polling station and thus decrease the waiting time to vote. ZEC did not adequately explain this positive innovation, and some opposition parties raised questions regarding the creation of new polling stations and whether they would possibly be misused by the authorities. In a press statement published in print media on 10 June, in response to a petition by the MDC Alliance, ZEC confirmed its intention to create sub-polling stations within the same locations. 23 This was not required by law, but was suggested to ZEC and discussed by the election management body. The proposal would have facilitated the administration of the process on election day and would have been very helpful to voters, but the idea was eventually not pursued by ZEC. 10