|
Liberia Goes to the Polls
October 11, 2005 National Election
A “Live” Report from Liberia—Jim Bowman, FOL Treasurer
“Thank you, thank you, thank you. We
need international people to ratify the election. Thank you for
coming here to do this. We will have hope for the future because of
what you will do tomorrow.” Words spoken to me the day before the
election as I was sitting in our car in Bong County.
Although Friends of Liberia did not send an
election-observer team this time I was able to come as member of a
small ecumenical delegation from the U.S., working with the Liberian
Council of Churches (LCC). I remained in Liberia 12 days after the
election to meet with and provide some training for Friends of
Liberia partners, LEAP (Liberian Educators for Action and Peace) and
GCA (Gardnersville Central Academy).
Liberian Council of Churches and
pre-election work
First, a brief word about LCC and
their work prior to the election. LCC has played an important role
in the peace process over the years, especially in the Accra
Agreement of 2003 which resulted in Charles Taylor going into
exile. Because they believe that the Church community should play
an important role in educating its members LCC sought and obtained
accreditation from the National Elections Commission of Liberia
(NEC).
Beginning in February 2005 LCC
trained a total of 700 local church workers in civic voter education
and elections observation. Because of their limited resources and
limited access to many parts of the country this training was
limited to just 7 of Liberia’s 15 counties—Montserrado, Grand Bassa,
Bomi, Bong, Nimba, Margibi and Lofa. These 700 church workers in
turn trained people in their individual churches and communities.
When voter registration opened these same workers mobilized their
constituencies to register for the elections. The registration
process went surprisingly well considering it took place during the
rainy season, although it was not without its difficulties which I
will mention later in this report.
More than 1.3 million voters
registered this time, compared with 700,000 for the 1997 election.
More women than men registered to vote. 14% of all candidates for
all of the offices were women.
International Observer Team
Our group of 18 international
observers from 10 denominations/agencies arrived several days before
the election for training and deployment; five of us came from the
U.S. and the rest from Germany, Finland, Sweden, Sierra Leone, and
Ghana. After being trained and officially certified we dispersed to
the 7 counties under the supervision of LCC appointed county
coordinators who gave us our assignments along with 400 LCC Liberian
observers.
Election Findings
Voter turnout
First of all it should be mentioned
that the voter turnout was 74%. This was surprising to me since
people had to vote where they registered and many were living
elsewhere—especially those in the coastal cities. They had to find
the money to travel and the travel was difficult in many places. Of
course, they could register and vote for a Presidential candidate
where they lived but in order to vote for candidates for Senate and
House from their district they had to return to their home
districts. I talked to one voter yesterday who drove to Greenville
from Monrovia to vote and on the way back the next day he found
several groups of people stranded along the road who simply never
made it to Greenville—vehicles broken down or simply not available.
General findings
The overwhelming impression by the
international observers in our group was that the election was free,
fair, transparent and credible—the four categories that had been
defined by NEC as the intended outcomes. One German observer in our
group, a professor of political science in Germany, who had
witnessed/observed 14 elections in Africa in the past 20 years,
declared this election was the best he had seen in all aspects. All
of us were enthusiastic in our report regarding the orderliness and
peacefulness of the voting process especially the incredible
patience of the voters and the seriousness and attention to detail
of the poll workers at all of the stations we observed.
Opening of polling stations
Most polling stations opened on
time. There were some delays reported due to bad road conditions
and other logistical problems. Many of us observed some
difficulties and disruptions (consisting of confusion and shouting)
in the hour before the polls were scheduled to open at 8 am. This
was especially true where you had a large number registered at a
particular station and 4 to 5 sites within that station were
available to voters. However, each line was designated for voters
with registration card numbers within a certain range. The early
arrivals in the dark (at my station they started arriving at 2:30
am) simply got in the shortest line. At that time there were no
signs posted indicating any distinction between voter lines.
By 6:30 am the four lines at my
station had more than 100 voters in each line (about 2500 voters
registered at this site). When the polling station workers arrived
and put up the signs indicating, for example, that only persons with
registration card numbers beginning with the number 120 through 129
could vote in that line, a slow murmur began to rise from the crowd
that soon became a roar as people, some of whom didn’t even know
what numbers were being referred to, began to follow in confusion
the people who were trying to get in the right line. Poll workers
ended up having to go through each line and look at each card to
make sure voters were in the right line. Illiterate (and many
literate) voters didn’t understand what was going on. Eventually,
the confusion was sorted out and things returned to normal—patient
waiting in line to vote. From reports later I found that this
happened in most stations with multiple sites.
Even though most polls opened on time
the impression by people standing outside the station was that the
polls were not opening and there was some impatience expressed.
This happened because all polling workers and observers (at my site
I counted around 20 observers) were allowed to vote first before the
first in line was let in to vote. It should be mentioned that these
procedures were allowed but they gave the impression to those who
had been already waiting for hours that the polls were late in
opening.
Voting process throughout the day
The lines moved slowly at first but
speeded up as polling workers got into the rhythm of the process. I
moved around to several sites during the day before the polls closed
at 6 pm and they all were moving at about the same pace—one per
minute.
A major challenge in the process
occurred as a result of a late Supreme Court decision handed down
just a few days before the election which said that people should be
allowed to vote for two candidates on the Senate ballot. All the
voter education that took place prior to this time was that one
could only vote for one candidate for each of the three
ballots—president, senate, and house. This meant that directions
had to be given on site, so as each voter stepped to the table to
receive their three ballots they were told how they could vote for 2
persons for the Senate. Later when we observed the counting of the
ballots it became apparent that some people were confused by this
and more invalid ballots were cast for Senate and House seats as a
result.
In the early hours of voting I was
certain that the voting would last beyond the closing time of 6 pm
simply because of how slowly the lines were moving. But by 4 pm in
all of the sites I visited in the Gbarnga area the lines had either
ended or had dwindled to just a few.
Rain was not a major factor in most
places throughout the country although it did rain in some places.
Rain came to my area after 4 pm when the lines were no longer a
problem.
Voter assistance
Poll workers were extremely patient
with illiterate voters, taking time to explain the process and
helping them when they had difficulty. An example: An older woman
stepped into the booth but just stood there looking helpless. The
presiding officer went to her and asked her if she knew who she
wanted to vote for. The woman continued to look uncertain and
didn’t answer. The presiding officer again asked her if she knew
who she wanted to vote for but it was apparent that she was
confused. The officer said that she was unable to help her if she
didn’t know what candidate she wanted to vote for. If an observer
was not close enough to hear the conversation it may have looked
from a distance like the poll worker was in the booth telling them
how to vote.
Disabled persons were allowed to come
to the head of the line. At one site during the heat of the day I
saw a woman who was obviously sick yet remained in line. I visited
with another international observer who reported that his polling
site allowed women with small babies on their back, pregnant women,
frail elderly, and the sick to come to the head of the line.
At one polling site around 11 am I
asked one man who had completed voting and was exiting the polling
site what time he had gotten in line. He replied, “3 am”.
Incidents/Disturbances
No major disturbances were reported
by LCC observers. I have reported above on some of the shouting and
confusion that occurred in the early morning hours relating to
people getting in the proper queue. Two incidents were reported by
our group of 400 observers. One was serious—a poll worker was
caught trying to vote twice. She was removed from the polling
station and turned over to the Liberian National Police for
investigation.
The second incident occurred when a
voter in line (who happened to be himself one of the candidates for
the House) began campaigning for himself while in line. One of our
young Liberian observers saw this activity and asked him to stop.
He continued so the observer reported him to one of the polling
security persons who asked the person to step out of the line. He
was brought to the front of the line, was allowed to vote and then
told to leave the area which he did. One of our international
observers who witnessed this event was impressed with how peacefully
it was handled.
Counting the ballots
The counting of the ballots was a
long and laborious process. There were three ballot boxes—one for
each of the ballot categories: president, senate, representative—and
each one was counted separately and openly before certified
observers. Each party (all 22 of them) could have an observer at
each site and other civil society groups also had their observers.
In addition there were many international observers from Europe, the
U.S. and other African countries.
Counting in many places when on into
the morning hours. I was there until 1 am when my county
coordinator picked me up to take me back to my sleeping quarters.
At that time they had not even started to count the ballots for the
Representatives. Some of our group finished as late as 2:30 and 3
a.m. and we heard reports the some counting went as late as 5 and
5:30 am. Counting was difficult in some places because of poor
facilities, not enough table room, so improvisation was called for—a
door off its hinges placed over chairs, for example. Illumination
from lanterns was inadequate in some places. Again, we all reported
how in spite of these challenges the polling workers as well as the
observers stuck it out and completed their tasks even though they
were extremely tired, hungry and exhausted.
No one in our group reported any
fraud in this area. There may have been slight inaccuracies here
and there but when they did occur the ballots were checked again and
again until the ballots were all accounted for.
Results
It became quite apparent early on
that a runoff was going to happen. George Weah jumped to an early
lead with Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in second. In Bong County Winston
Tubman (nephew of the former President) was the clear choice for
President. Other surprises, at least to me, showed up. Jewel
Howard Taylor, the estranged wife of Charles Taylor was elected to a
Senate seat, representing Bong County. Prince Johnson, a warlord
who brutally murdered former President Doe, was sent to the Senate
for Nimba County. You can imagine that the streets are full of
election talk now that a run off is official.
Level playing field and other observations
Although the Friends of Liberia
election observation team in 1997 found the election process to be
orderly and without fraud, it did not find the playing field level.
The team concluded that Charles Taylor controlled with media and
outspent all the other candidates. This was magnified by the fear
factor. This time around the good news was the absence of the fear
factor. On the Friday and Saturday before the election we witnessed
several rallies by presidential candidates and thousands of
supporters filled the streets with enthusiasm and respect for each
other. The mood was upbeat and joyful. Debate was loud and
boisterous as one would expect. I would describe the mood as
expectant and looking toward the future with hope.
Having said this, however, there
remain in my mind several areas of concern related to this issue of
a level playing field. Some of these areas I observed myself and
others were shared with me in post-election conversations.
The pre-election campaigning did not
provide an opportunity for candidates to openly debate and discuss
platforms and issues. The platforms consisted of platitudes which
were pretty much the same for all candidates. The one radio station
which has the broadest coverage of the country is UNMIL. It was the
only station I could receive clearly in Bong County. The focus of
the station was news about the election process and the need for
Liberians to “accept the results” of the election. Not once did I
hear a candidate interviewed by anyone about how they planned to
accomplish promises they had made. Many of the stories in the
newspapers appeared as though they were written not by impartial
journalists but by public relations persons for the candidates.
The condition of the roads coming at
the end of the rainy season was another factor against a level
playing field. People at the end of roads or off the roads
altogether had trouble getting to their voting site. This wasn’t
something that would affect the final outcome of the presidential
election but it would have an affect on the election of senators and
representatives since many people in coastal and some upcountry
urban areas could not reach their home district to vote.
Although I was not a witness to this
I was told in several conversations that several of the candidates
for office who were government employees used government vehicles
for campaigning and others accessed public money to campaign. These
are serious charges and if proven would cast a shadow on the
election process but would probably not affect the final outcome.
Another concern I have in this time
before the runoff is a perception, especially by the supporters of
George Weah, that the NGO community is actively supporting Ellen
Johnson-Sirleaf. Evidence for this is some death threats that this
community has received in the few days after the election—the main
one which has reached the papers is to the head of the National
Election Commission (NEC). Even though the threats may be a prank
the UNMIL folks in charge of security have to take them all
seriously.
Lastly, I am concerned about the
implications of some of the religious language that I heard on many
occasions which suggest that “Whoever becomes President will be
chosen by God.” I’m not suggesting that it is inappropriate to have
faith and hope in the future—that is something that I would, in
fact, encourage. What concerns me about this language and sentiment
is the possibility that whoever is elected will abuse that trust.
We know that some political leaders in Liberia, like leaders in
other parts of the world (including the U.S.) in the past have
claimed that divine knowledge for themselves and have done terrible
things convinced that “God was on their side.”
Having expressed all these concerns,
I have to say that they do not begin to outweigh the strong spirit
and hope of the Liberian people that this election will be the start
of something new. I sensed that over and over again as I visited
with people everywhere I went. I too hope and pray that they will
not be disappointed in their determination to build a future for
themselves and their children in the days to come. This election is
an important step in this process but it is just one of many steps
to come.
|
