By Dibussi Tande
In Part 2 of our analysis of Law no. 2011/013 of 13 July 2011 relating to voting by Cameroonian citizens settled or residing abroad, we will look at the role of diplomatic missions in the electoral process, and at the logistical challenges in establishing a viable voting structure in time for the (October?) 2011 presidential elections.
Cameroonians line up to register for the 2007 symbolic vote in Paris (c) Blog du Code
Diplomatic missions in charge of the process
According to Section 3 of the Diaspora voting law,
That said, voting in embassies rather than in neutral spaces is the most common form of external voting for two reasons. First, a diplomatic mission is generally considered a controlled environment where the secrecy of the ballot can best be guaranteed by the election staff, and where the vote can be cast without undue influence or intimidation. Critics will, however, point out in the case of Cameroon, that precisely because the embassy is a “controlled environment” – controlled by the Biya regime, that is – it is the most likely place for voter intimidation and coercion.
Second, limiting voting to diplomatic missions and consular offices ensures that there are no potential violations of the laws of host countries which may not allow foreign voting on their soil. This is the case of Canada, for example, which allows external voting within its borders only inside foreign consulates and embassies or by mail.
While the reasons for an embassy-only voting are legitimate, it does not erase the fact that accessibility to Cameroon’s diplomatic missions may be a huge obstacle to registration and voting. In the case of the US, for example, Cameroon’s two diplomatic missions are on the East Coast, in Washington, DC, and New York, while some of the largest Cameroonian communities are hundreds if not thousands of miles away; Atlanta is 640 miles / 1,030 km from DC; Chicago, 699 miles / 1,125 km; Minneapolis (1,108 miles / 1,783 km); Los Angeles 2,671 miles / 4,299 km etc.).
If inclusion is the driving element behind the law, then the logical approach would be to establish designated polling centers in distant states or regions with a significant Cameroonian population. Other countries have used this option by setting up polling stations in the offices of international organizations, or in other designated locations such as community centers or schools.
In the vote-away-from-the-embassy scenario, the million-dollar question remains: Can the sanctity of the vote be guaranteed if voting takes place in an uncontrolled environment far from the embassy, say in an elementary school in Los Angeles, or a community center in Nebraska? How do you ensure equal or equitable representation of the parties/candidates? How do you select monitors and observers? How do you ensure that the votes are securely transmitted to election authorities without tampering? While these issues also exist in an embassy setting, they are even more acute in supposedly “neutral” settings…
Other Types of External Voting
While the in-person vote in a diplomatic mission or consular office is the most prevalent form of external voting, there are other methods that have been used by other countries with more or less success. The most prominent are:
- Postal voting, whereby the voter sends the ballot paper by mail [ this is the only voting method in Canada and Mexico ]
- Voting by proxy, where the voter designates an individual to cast his or her vote either abroad or at home (this is one of the voting methods available to British oversees voters)
- E-voting, whereby the vote is done by electronic means such as PDAs, Smartphones, the Internet, etc. (Switzerland piloting of this option this year)
- Voting by fax (available on in Australia and new Zealand in specific circumstances)
How will voting be organized?
Section 3. (1) In view of the participation of Cameroonian citizens settled or residing abroad in the election of the President of the Republic or in referendums, the following structures shall be set up in diplomatic representations and consular posts:
- Commission charged with the drawing up and revision of register of electors;
- Commission charged with the issuance and distribution of voters’ cards;
- Local polling commissions.
The key question here, which goes to the credibility of the entire electoral process is how the three commissions provided in the law shall be constituted, and what mechanism(s) will be used to ensure that they function in a transparent and neutral manner.
For example, who will appoint commission members? Where will they come from – embassy staff (since the commissions shall be set up in embassies), ELECAM officials from Cameroon, political party representatives abroad, from the Cameroonian community abroad, irrespective of political affiliation? Will these commissions require that individuals register in person at the embassy or will they be able to do so by mail? What checks and balances to ensure that these commissions do not “doctor” the electoral rolls as is the common practice in Cameroon? Will the polling commissions be responsible for counting the votes or for shipping sealed or unopened ballot boxes to Cameroon by courier? Etc., etc., etc.
Since the legislator has passed the buck the executive branch, it is now up to the Biya regime to answer these questions and if history is anything to go by (e.g., composition and mission of ELECAM), it is almost certain that this clause will become a source of major controversy in the coming weeks and months.
[UPDATE: These questions were answered a few days ago when President Biya signed the much-awaited implementation decree. Scribbles from the Den will be reviewing that decree in detail in a subsequent posting]
Can the Diaspora voting law be implemented in time for 2011 presidential elections?
The most controversial portion of the law has been Section 5 which stipulates that “Regulatory instruments shall specify as and where necessary, conditions for the implementation of this law.” Critics say Parliament shirked its responsibilities and effectively gave the Biya regime a free hand to tamper with the July 13 law as it sees fit.
Beyond these questions about the government’s good faith, or lack thereof, there are legitimate questions about the government’s ability to establish a credible external voting system in time for the 2011 Presidential elections, which, if the electoral calendar is respected, should to take place in October. Even though ELECAM has dispatched a 12-person team abroad to begin the electoral process and to start distributing election material, the logistical challenges are herculean; according to electoral law, registration on the voter rolls for 2011 ends on August 31, meaning that ELECAM has to barely three weeks to register the estimated five million Cameroonians abroad...
Although the ELECAM team dispatched abroad is supposedly taking election materials to diplomatic missions and ELECAM claims that 80% of election-related material is ready, the fact is that the ballot papers for the presidential election cannot be printed, let alone be dispatched anywhere, until after a date has been set for the elections, party candidates nominated and then confirmed by the competent authorities. We should also note that ELECAM also has to train those officials who will be in charge of the entire electoral process abroad to avoid errors and confusion. Experts insist that in order to successfully organize a first-time vote for citizens abroad, the entire planning process should begin at least 6 to 12 months prior to the elections. Cameroon, however, seems to be rushing towards a hastily cobbled system that may be “destined to fail”…
Will they show up? What will be the impact of Diaspora voting?
Proponents of Diaspora voting have argued that the Diaspora vote is a potential game changer, one that can or radically change the political landscape in Cameroon thanks to the addition of potential 4-5 million voters. However, the history of Diaspora voting in other countries, is a checkered one which has generally promised more than it has delivered. As the IDEA points out,
Where external voting is permitted, rates of registration and turnout among external voters are almost always lower than they are in-country. In several countries that have existing and well-functioning external voting practices, turnout has been low compared to turnout in-country. These include, for example, Brazil, Honduras, Italy, the Philippines, Senegal, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela. The turnout of Spanish external voters was below 30 per cent
at the legislative election of 2004, compared to about 75 per cent among in-country voters. (31)
Given the challenges mentioned in this article, the likely scenario, for the Cameroonian Diaspora is that there will be a relatively low registration on electoral rolls, and an even lower percentage of votes cast on election date. And the August 8, 2011 implementation decree has definitely not helped matters… In short, the vote of the Cameroon Diaspora will be more symbolic this first time around.
Note: Except otherwise noted, all citations are from IDEA's Voting from Abroad handbook.
Comments