suburbs voted for what candidate and therefore make the voters easy targets for
post-election retribution, i.e. punishment of having voted wrongly.
These negatives must be weighed against the positives of the polling stationbased voters’ roll. What makes sense in theory might not be the right thing in
practice. The first question to be asked is: do the identified risks exist in the
present system? They do, which is why there has been pre-election and postelection violence in the past. The second question may be: do the risks increase
under the polling station-based voters’ roll? It seems that they do escalate given
the localised character of the polling station-based voters’ roll. But there is a third
question, which is, would the opportunities ‘bussing in’ voters and double-voting
be reduced under the polling-station based voters’ roll? The answer seems to be
that those opportunities would be reduced.
If therefore the system of preventing election violence and intimidation discussed
last week is effective, it would seem that the benefits of polling station-based
voters’ roll outweigh the negatives. However, this is an assessment that needs to
be made seriously and voters must give their informed opinions based on
experience.
A further noteworthy point on the voters’ roll is that relatives of deceased or
absent voters now have a clear avenue to remove their names from the voters
roll, which would help to increase the currency of the voters’ roll at any given
time. We recommend however that people be given incentives to ensure they
take initiatives to have their deceased relatives removed from the voters’ roll. It
is understood that Mozambique embarked on a campaign to update the register
by giving incentives in the form of state-assisted burials where relatives would
have informed the electoral authorities.
The authority responsible for the registration of deaths should also be compelled
by law to pass on information on deaths to the ZEC for purposes of removing
names from the voters’ roll. As a long term measure this is likely to be more
sustainable and effective as long as information is passed on efficiently. There is
the advantage that people are already compelled by law to register deaths of
their relatives before burial so there will be no added obligation on the part of the
voters.
The biggest shortcoming of the proposals is that the ZEC still does not have sole
and exclusive ownership and control of the voters’ roll. This is still shared with the
Registrar General’s Office. The Registrar General’s Office does not have a good
record in keeping a clean, accurate and up-to-date voters’ roll. This risks tainting
the record of the ZEC. There is no reasonable justification as to why the Registrar
General’s Office should be involved in compiling the voters’ roll. The ZEC was
created specifically to take up the role of chief elections body and is
constitutionally mandated to manage the conduct of elections. The creation of a
voters’ roll is an essential part of the electoral processes. As the body responsible
for elections it should be given due recognition by taking up the sole and
exclusive ownership of the voters roll including its compilation.
Finally, there is a proposal that there may be a completely new voter registration
exercise. This would greatly enhance the credibility of the voters’ roll because the
current version is highly discredited. However, voter registration is probably the
most resource-intensive electoral exercise. If this exercise is to be done, then it
worth initiating it without further delay otherwise it may not meet the terms of
the Elections Road-Map agreed by the parties to the current Inclusive
Government. It would need huge input of financial and material resources. One
possible way of getting around the problem of time is if people are encouraged to
2