.png)
Here are our observations from the 29 March 2008 elections as communicated to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.
Regards,
THE CDP TEAM
Our Ref: CDP004-08
23 July 2008
The Chief Election Officer
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission
Century House East
HARARE
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Opportunities for Refinement.
On 15 February 2008 we submitted nomination papers for both Presidential and Member of Parliament elections of 29 March 2008. As we navigated the processes leading to those elections, we noted various opportunities for improvement, which we list below for your consideration.
Public Relations
1.1 Please train your staff to avoid interrogating candidates seeking information. We went to your offices at 4th Floor Cecil House to enquire how much the nomination deposits were. The first thing they asked was “Where are you from?” Surely the nomination deposits are the same for all candidates, regardless of which party they are from! So we felt that question was totally unnecessary.
1.2 Please do not sell the voters rolls. It is our understanding that those voters’ rolls are produced using taxpayers’ money. So it is off-putting to then ask the same taxpayers for more money to access the voters’ rolls.
Venues
2.1 State of the Courts
The Court used for the Presidential nomination at Mashonganyika Building was not in a good state of repair. Among other things the paint on the walls was peeling badly. Attempts had clearly been made to conceal these with flags and table cloths but there weren’t enough to cover the whole room. That is likely to have de-campaigned the country because there were reporters in that room taking photographs that were beamed right across the world. We suggest that you select a court that is in a better state of repair in future.
2.2 Court Amenities. The parliamentary court at the Magistrates Court was held by gas light because there was no power. We felt sorry for the poor clerks who had to pore over the voters rolls in semi darkness. Surely a small generator could have been found for that day only.
Information Technology Opportunities
Recent advances in information technology provide incredible opportunities which were not exploited in full. More utilization of information technology could have saved the Commission money and candidate’s time. For example candidates from outlying areas had to travel to main centres just to collect nomination papers. If those papers had been on a website, candidates could have downloaded them from where they were and it would have saved the Commission printing costs as well.
Contrary to popular belief, websites are no longer expensive. In fact they could easily be set up for free. Also if the voters roll could be put on a web site, it could save the Commission printing costs and candidates would be able to verify their nominators on site, wherever they happen to be. In both nomination courts we saw massive mountains of printouts which were supposed to be voters’ rolls. These were not only expensive to produce but were also very cumbersome for the poor clerks who had to wade through them. If the voters’ rolls had been on an official website, it would have represented one version of the truth which would have helped everybody. As it is we have reason to believe that there were differences in the versions of voters’ rolls used at Mashonganyika Building and the Magistrates’ Courts.
Voter education modules could also be put on a website. This would save the Commission travel and other expenses.
4. Nomination Papers
4.1 Please make nomination papers available well in advance of elections. To make the nomination papers available as close to the Nomination Court Day as you did put undue pressure on the candidates.
4.2 Please advertise where nomination court papers can be found. We went to at least three wrong places before we eventually found where they were. Making them available on a web site would be even better.
4.3 Please put a header or a footer on each page of the nomination papers, especially the Presidential ones, so that when they are taken apart for checking, it is still very clear on each page which candidate they belong to.
4.4 Please make all the nominator cells on the nomination forms identical. This was not the case on the Presidential Nomination papers. Cell No 9 on page 31, as well as Cell No 11 on page 28 did not have provision for residential address. This can be solved by typing out only one cell, copying it on to the clipboard and pasting it repeatedly throughout the rest of the document.
4.5 Please proof read the nomination papers before releasing them. There were embarrassing typographical errors as well as legal inaccuracies on the forms. For example, the forms requested one photograph, yet when we got to both Courts, they wanted two photographs. On the Parliamentary Nomination Form, there was a legal inaccuracy which implied that a candidate has got to be a registered voter in the Constituency in which they are contesting.
4.6 There was a major ambiguity on the Nominator Cells for both forms. The last line for each cell which says, “signed in the presence of” did not specify exactly what was required. It could have been the name of the candidate, just a tick or the signature of the candidate. It was not clear. Please remove this ambiguity in the future by explicitly stating that a signature is required, if that is what was required.
5. General
5.1 The Parliamentary Nomination Court only finished at 9.30 pm. It appears to have taken long because it also had to process Senatorial candidates. In the future please consider staggering the dates for Parliamentary and Senatorial nominations. There does not appear to be any compelling reason why they should be held on the same day. Your staff looked worn out at the end of the day. We are sure they would welcome a staggering of these two.
5.2 We understand a passport is not acceptable as a form of identification. Surely that is a valid identity document which is even more difficult to get than an ordinary identity card. Why is a passport not acceptable?
5.3 What safeguards are there against candidates forging nominators signatures? The checkers in the Nomination Courts do not have signatures of all voters, so how do they check them ?
5.4 We understand some political parties began their primaries before publication of Statutory Instrument 11/2008. How did they know the constituencies before this Statutory Instrument was published? Was there an alternative source of this information?
5.5 To access the constituency maps at Cecil House, one had to find one’s way through a warren of rooms. This inconvenience could be avoided if the maps were put on an official ZEC website. To access those maps one had to complete a register which recorded a lot of personal details, stopping little short of asking for one’s grandmother’s shoe size! What was the point of all that? What is the worst that could happen if those details of people consulting maps were not taken down?
6. Polling Day 29 March 2008
6.1 The rate determining step (bottleneck) in the polling process was finding the voter’s name on the voters’ roll. We suggest you consider deploying two or more voters’ rolls per poling station.
You may also want to consider giving the officers manning this step more training and selection effort than others. Addressing this limiting factor should directly translate to improved throughput for the entire polling station.
6.2 Colour differences between ballot papers for different elections were not vivid enough. This resulted in some ballots going in the wrong boxes, which in turn wasted time. We recommend bolder colours for ballot papers in the future.
6.3 The ball point pens provided in the polling booths were not bold enough considering the ballot papers had to be sorted and counted at night, sometimes in poor light. We suggest you consider supplying bold black markers in the future.
6.4 Ballot boxes in some polling stations were nearly full after only a few hours. It was just as well that voter turnout was less than 50% otherwise there could have been problems. Bigger ballot boxes or more polling stations may be required in the future.
6.5 Some polling stations took too long to complete their work. Please consider allowing appointment of alternate election agents to maintain coverage even in emergencies.
6.6 The lighting in some polling stations was unsatisfactory, sometimes with only a couple of lights working in the entire hall. Poor lighting increases the risk of error. Please inspect and address any deficiencies in polling venue amenities.
6.7 We could not find published standardized housekeeping regulations for polling stations. The presiding officers announced the regulations verbally but we were never too sure whether they were standard regulations or the officers were improvising. The first prize would be to publish such regulations as a schedule to the Electoral Act.
6.8 We were invited to witness sealing of postal ballot boxes on less than 24hours’ notice. Furthermore it was not practical to station election agents at the polling stations for a week to observe the postal ballot boxes. Even if we could, it would have provided little assurance because we were not adequately briefed on the processes and safeguards applicable to postal ballots before they arrive at the polling station. This appears to be a risk area which needs more clarification in the future.
We trust you will find some of these suggestions useful as you streamline your systems for the future.
Yours faithfully,
For : CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
William Gwata
CHAIRMAN
23 July 2008
The Chief Election Officer
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission
Century House East
HARARE
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Opportunities for Refinement.
On 15 February 2008 we submitted nomination papers for both Presidential and Member of Parliament elections of 29 March 2008. As we navigated the processes leading to those elections, we noted various opportunities for improvement, which we list below for your consideration.
Public Relations
1.1 Please train your staff to avoid interrogating candidates seeking information. We went to your offices at 4th Floor Cecil House to enquire how much the nomination deposits were. The first thing they asked was “Where are you from?” Surely the nomination deposits are the same for all candidates, regardless of which party they are from! So we felt that question was totally unnecessary.
1.2 Please do not sell the voters rolls. It is our understanding that those voters’ rolls are produced using taxpayers’ money. So it is off-putting to then ask the same taxpayers for more money to access the voters’ rolls.
Venues
2.1 State of the Courts
The Court used for the Presidential nomination at Mashonganyika Building was not in a good state of repair. Among other things the paint on the walls was peeling badly. Attempts had clearly been made to conceal these with flags and table cloths but there weren’t enough to cover the whole room. That is likely to have de-campaigned the country because there were reporters in that room taking photographs that were beamed right across the world. We suggest that you select a court that is in a better state of repair in future.
2.2 Court Amenities. The parliamentary court at the Magistrates Court was held by gas light because there was no power. We felt sorry for the poor clerks who had to pore over the voters rolls in semi darkness. Surely a small generator could have been found for that day only.
Information Technology Opportunities
Recent advances in information technology provide incredible opportunities which were not exploited in full. More utilization of information technology could have saved the Commission money and candidate’s time. For example candidates from outlying areas had to travel to main centres just to collect nomination papers. If those papers had been on a website, candidates could have downloaded them from where they were and it would have saved the Commission printing costs as well.
Contrary to popular belief, websites are no longer expensive. In fact they could easily be set up for free. Also if the voters roll could be put on a web site, it could save the Commission printing costs and candidates would be able to verify their nominators on site, wherever they happen to be. In both nomination courts we saw massive mountains of printouts which were supposed to be voters’ rolls. These were not only expensive to produce but were also very cumbersome for the poor clerks who had to wade through them. If the voters’ rolls had been on an official website, it would have represented one version of the truth which would have helped everybody. As it is we have reason to believe that there were differences in the versions of voters’ rolls used at Mashonganyika Building and the Magistrates’ Courts.
Voter education modules could also be put on a website. This would save the Commission travel and other expenses.
4. Nomination Papers
4.1 Please make nomination papers available well in advance of elections. To make the nomination papers available as close to the Nomination Court Day as you did put undue pressure on the candidates.
4.2 Please advertise where nomination court papers can be found. We went to at least three wrong places before we eventually found where they were. Making them available on a web site would be even better.
4.3 Please put a header or a footer on each page of the nomination papers, especially the Presidential ones, so that when they are taken apart for checking, it is still very clear on each page which candidate they belong to.
4.4 Please make all the nominator cells on the nomination forms identical. This was not the case on the Presidential Nomination papers. Cell No 9 on page 31, as well as Cell No 11 on page 28 did not have provision for residential address. This can be solved by typing out only one cell, copying it on to the clipboard and pasting it repeatedly throughout the rest of the document.
4.5 Please proof read the nomination papers before releasing them. There were embarrassing typographical errors as well as legal inaccuracies on the forms. For example, the forms requested one photograph, yet when we got to both Courts, they wanted two photographs. On the Parliamentary Nomination Form, there was a legal inaccuracy which implied that a candidate has got to be a registered voter in the Constituency in which they are contesting.
4.6 There was a major ambiguity on the Nominator Cells for both forms. The last line for each cell which says, “signed in the presence of” did not specify exactly what was required. It could have been the name of the candidate, just a tick or the signature of the candidate. It was not clear. Please remove this ambiguity in the future by explicitly stating that a signature is required, if that is what was required.
5. General
5.1 The Parliamentary Nomination Court only finished at 9.30 pm. It appears to have taken long because it also had to process Senatorial candidates. In the future please consider staggering the dates for Parliamentary and Senatorial nominations. There does not appear to be any compelling reason why they should be held on the same day. Your staff looked worn out at the end of the day. We are sure they would welcome a staggering of these two.
5.2 We understand a passport is not acceptable as a form of identification. Surely that is a valid identity document which is even more difficult to get than an ordinary identity card. Why is a passport not acceptable?
5.3 What safeguards are there against candidates forging nominators signatures? The checkers in the Nomination Courts do not have signatures of all voters, so how do they check them ?
5.4 We understand some political parties began their primaries before publication of Statutory Instrument 11/2008. How did they know the constituencies before this Statutory Instrument was published? Was there an alternative source of this information?
5.5 To access the constituency maps at Cecil House, one had to find one’s way through a warren of rooms. This inconvenience could be avoided if the maps were put on an official ZEC website. To access those maps one had to complete a register which recorded a lot of personal details, stopping little short of asking for one’s grandmother’s shoe size! What was the point of all that? What is the worst that could happen if those details of people consulting maps were not taken down?
6. Polling Day 29 March 2008
6.1 The rate determining step (bottleneck) in the polling process was finding the voter’s name on the voters’ roll. We suggest you consider deploying two or more voters’ rolls per poling station.
You may also want to consider giving the officers manning this step more training and selection effort than others. Addressing this limiting factor should directly translate to improved throughput for the entire polling station.
6.2 Colour differences between ballot papers for different elections were not vivid enough. This resulted in some ballots going in the wrong boxes, which in turn wasted time. We recommend bolder colours for ballot papers in the future.
6.3 The ball point pens provided in the polling booths were not bold enough considering the ballot papers had to be sorted and counted at night, sometimes in poor light. We suggest you consider supplying bold black markers in the future.
6.4 Ballot boxes in some polling stations were nearly full after only a few hours. It was just as well that voter turnout was less than 50% otherwise there could have been problems. Bigger ballot boxes or more polling stations may be required in the future.
6.5 Some polling stations took too long to complete their work. Please consider allowing appointment of alternate election agents to maintain coverage even in emergencies.
6.6 The lighting in some polling stations was unsatisfactory, sometimes with only a couple of lights working in the entire hall. Poor lighting increases the risk of error. Please inspect and address any deficiencies in polling venue amenities.
6.7 We could not find published standardized housekeeping regulations for polling stations. The presiding officers announced the regulations verbally but we were never too sure whether they were standard regulations or the officers were improvising. The first prize would be to publish such regulations as a schedule to the Electoral Act.
6.8 We were invited to witness sealing of postal ballot boxes on less than 24hours’ notice. Furthermore it was not practical to station election agents at the polling stations for a week to observe the postal ballot boxes. Even if we could, it would have provided little assurance because we were not adequately briefed on the processes and safeguards applicable to postal ballots before they arrive at the polling station. This appears to be a risk area which needs more clarification in the future.
We trust you will find some of these suggestions useful as you streamline your systems for the future.
Yours faithfully,
For : CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
William Gwata
CHAIRMAN
