ABSTRACT

Democratic governance and the electoral system in the Africa continent have different views on the future of democracy in the region. The reason for this is as a result of the manner in which elections are being handled which has arguably made it difficult to ascertain or describe an election to be free, fair or credible. However, despite the fact that no official or binding documents that could be pointed to as the approved international convention for free and fair election, there are some measures and conditions set for an election to be regarded as free, fair and credible this study seek to investigate the challenges of organizing free and fair elections in a multiparty system; case study ELECAM Buea-Cameroon.

The study used the quantitatice (survey) research design whereby the researcher went to the field to collect her data. The main research instrument used to collect data is the questionnaire which was randomly administered to 100 respondents of the Buea municipality to obtain quantitative data. The study found out that, Cameroon, face a lot of problems, challenges, abuses and gross violation of its rules and regulation. For any election to be credible it requires high level of impartiality, awareness, and assurance of security agents to control the situation, and to ensure safety of the electorates, election materials and aspirants. Elections respecting the free and fair principles will serve as a stabilizer for the democratic system, ensuring repeatable mechanism of recruitment and selection of candidates for elective positions in the political institutions.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Democratic governance and the electoral system in the Africa continent have different views on the future of democracy in the region. The reason for this is as a result of the manner in which elections are being handled which has arguably made it difficult to ascertain or describe an election to be free, fair or credible. As argued by Samuel P. Huntington in one of his works titled “the third wave”, having studied the democratically changed of governments in Southern Europe, Latin American and Eastern Europe where there was significant improvement in the democratic transition in those places compare to the pace at which the transition is being handled in sub-Sahara Africa, he urged African leaders to take necessary caution in handling election matters in the zone (Huntington, 1991 citation in Dauda, 2019). Apart from the aforementioned challenges facing the democratic system in Africa, its leaders are also found of contributing to the hindrances that prevent rapid democratic transition through the abuse of state machinery for their favour (Geisler, 1993). This attitude is in no small measure, has arguably made it difficult for election observers to declare an election as free and fair. As argued by Geisler (1993), there is no internationally approved guidelines or norms that stipulates how an election could be described as free and fair. However, despite the fact that no official or binding documents that could be pointed to as the approved international convention for free and fair election, there are some measures and conditions set for an election to be regarded as free, fair and credible (Fukuyama, 2015). These conditions include: right to participate (that is, right to vote and be voted for), freedom of association and expression, right of voter to cast the vote in secret, right for the winner to assume office, right for the loser to challenge the election at the law court among others (Dauda, 2019).

Free and democratic elections constitute a fundamental criterion for democracy, at least in its thriving liberal acceptance since the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, this is a basic criterion which is often lacking in Cameroon political regimes, even if they claim to be democratic. As a matter of fact, the political development of Cameroon reveals that attainment of democracy has been arduous. Democratic deficits were first experienced in form of political authoritarianism, regimes which were established quickly and were characterized mostly by their totalitarian tendencies, i.e. their attempts to govern almost all aspect of citizen’s lives while not tolerating any serious form of opposition. Often, under the pretence of the need to build up fledging Nations or achieve economic and social development, governments in power displayed little respect for civil liberties and right of objection (Hounkpe, 2011). When it is not a clamp down on the political opposition, then it is an election without choice or a semblance of election which is organized with results known well in advance and a huge majority of votes in favour of those in power. The official bodies (ELECAM) in charge of the organization of elections, no longer inspired confidence in the transparent and equitable management of electoral contest. The democratic opening of the 1990s was therefore characterized by the establishment of bodies expected to organize the electoral processes with a degree of independence (Hounkpe, 2011).

The legal framework governing Presidential Elections in Cameroon consists of various laws including the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon and subsequent amendments which relate to the vacancy and election to the Presidency. Law N°. 2006/11 of 29 December 2006 (as amended in 2008 and 2010) governs the establishment, organization and functioning of Elections Cameroon (ELECAM). The law provides that ELECAM be an independent body charged with the responsibility of organizing, managing and supervising all electoral operations and referendums. ELECAM was established to replace all the institutions that previously managed elections in Cameroon, notably, the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization (MINATD) and the National Elections Observatory (NEO) (Commonwealth report 2011, 6). ELECAM was established following the recommendation made by the Commonwealth Observer Group for the Cameroon Presidential Election in 2004 that Cameroon should have an independent election management body (Commonwealth report 2011, 6). ELECAM functions through the Electoral Board (EB) and the General Directorate of Elections (GDE).

In most countries such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, the ELECTION MANAGEMENT BOARDS (EMB) is a permanent, specialized agency. As compare to ELECAM to the EMB in Kenya and Zimbabwe elections are not a one-off affair. A formal declaration of a winner does not mark the end of a presidential election. Dissatisfied parties can challenge the results. In addition to the winning candidate, As compare to ELECAM, in Kenya and Zimbabwe, an effective petition joins the EMB in court proceedings of the election after the voting process have been completed. Failure to do this could give rise to a legal challenge, as the EMB implements any order a court may issue. Thus, the EMB is been given an opportunity to be heard. Secondly, the task of managing an election is quite involved. Significant time and resources are usually dedicated to the success of an election. In both Kenya and Zimbabwe, the EMB handles key pre-election tasks such as managing the voter roll and conducting voter education. For these reasons, it is not ideal to have a temporary board, thus there is a fundamental institution in the electoral process. The fact that it is charged with implementing the right to vote, which people often exercise in highly competitive circumstances, makes it susceptible to interference by, among others, presidential candidates and political parties. To guard against external influence, the constitutions of Kenya and Zimbabwe placed considerable emphasis on the independence of the EMB. In both of these countries this independence was strengthened by the fact that its commissioners had five-year tenures. Based on these constitutional guarantees, one would expect the EMBs and the individual commissioners to be guided exclusively by the law in the discharge of their mandate (Abuya, 2010).

The Republic of Cameroon is one of the most intriguing countries in Africa. In 19^th April 2012, the National Assembly deliberated and adopted Law No 2012/001 relating to the Electoral Code which give powers to all Cameroonian fulfilling the rules and regulation to be illegible to a free and fair election. In any state, the authority of the government can only derive from the will of the people as expressed in genuine, free and fair elections held at regular intervals on the basic of universal, equal and secret suffrage. Electoral period in Buea just like any other place in Cameroon involve an impressive mobilization of human, material and financial resources. Campaigning is marked by rallies, speeches and door-to-door solicitations (ELECAM annual report, 2013).

1.2 Statement of the problem

There have been criticisms from within and outside the country on how the ELECAM has been conducting general elections in Cameroon since its creation in 2006 as an independent electoral management body. The criticisms came from individuals, organizations and international community about the conduct of a free, fair and credible election in the country as compare to other nations. Cameroon is faced with many challenges before, during and after the election. The justification for Cameroon and ELECAM is that looking at the economic position of Cameroon in Africa, its educational background, its population, the size of the country, and how the nation is blessed with both human and materials resources. Yet it cannot organize and conduct free fair and credible election in the country. It is on this note that the study tried to identify and examine the factors or the challenges in organizing free, fair and credible election in Cameroon.

1.3 Research Questions

In an attempt to mitigate the challenges associated in organizing a free and fair election in a multiparty setup, we answer the following questions:

1. What are the challenges of organizing free and fair elections?
2. To what extent has the failure of organizing free and fair election impacted multipartism?
3. What are the recommendation to a free and fair election in a multiparty system?

1.4 Research Objectives

The objectives to achieve this research goal are:

1.4.1 General Objective

The major objective of the study is to investigate the challenges of organizing free and fair elections in a multiparty setup.

1.4.2 Specific Objective

The specific objectives of the study is to;

1. To identify the challenges of organizing free and fair elections.
2. To examine the impact of the failure in organizing free and fair elections in a multiparty system.
3. To assess the recommendations in organizing free and fair elections in a multiparty system