BLOG

Like many others, Refugees International has been watching the Sudanese elections process closely, eagerly awaiting feedback from the various electoral observer missions. Preliminary statements coming out of some of the missions are fairly disappointing. The focus seems to be less on providing an objective assessment of how the process measures up to international standards, and more on excusing certain actions because of low expectations and a political desire for the elections to be seen as a success.

Take as an example, this excerpt from statement of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD):

"Taking into account that the Sudan is undertaking a massive exercise for the first time in 24 years, the vast size of the country and the challenges of infrastructure, our preliminary assessment is that the election process was credible. This is in view of promoting a peaceful and democratic transformation of the country."

No doubt that Sudan faces many challenges and nobody reasonably expects a perfect election. But there is a difference between an objectively credible process and a process declared credible in the interest of a wider agenda in support of systemic change. The suggestion that the elections should be declared credible as a way of “promoting a peaceful and democratic transformation of the country” makes me wonder if IGAD is observing the elections that actually took place or the ones they wish would take place some day. In any case, declaring flawed elections credible will not promote peaceful and democratic transformation. Quite the opposite – it will promote anger, frustration and alienation among the very people needed to make democracy work: the electorate.

The African Union statement included remarks along similar lines to IGAD’s:

A country emerging out of a long period of repression, civil war, contending as Sudan does, with underdevelopment, manifesting in part, in high levels of illiteracy, an on-going crisis of the magnitude of Darfur cannot, justly, be compared to one or others that have enjoyed peace, steady and incremental economic development and political stability 24 years previously and before.

Again, this is objectively true. But it also seems to imply that the long period of repression, civil war and underdevelopment, etc., were examples of rather unfortunate bad luck that happened to the country, rather than the result of deliberate decisions made by individuals in power. This is an especially worrying oversight when those individuals are still in power and were overseeing these elections.

The Russian Special Envoy to Sudan was quoted in the Sudan Tribune on April 19 as saying that the elections should be judged by “African standards” as if, because it’s Africa, people should be willing to accept levels of transparency and accountability that are lower than elsewhere. If the story is true, it is offensive and it’s hard to see how it helps the thousands of Sudanese domestic observers and civil society representatives who have been diligently struggling, often at great personal risk, to fight for a more democratic process. Overall, the Carter Center’s statement was the least equivocal, stating clearly that “the process fell short of Sudan’s obligations and related international standards in a number of respects.”

The main observer missions say they are following the UN Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation (2005) as a guide. However, the UN Declaration says that election observation is “process oriented, not concerned with any particular electoral result…” Ironically, many observer missions and others seem to be less concerned with process and more concerned with results that, in their eyes, will hopefully enhance stability. The April 19 “Troika” statement from the U.S., the UK and Norway, although expressing “deep concern” about aspects of the electoral process, nevertheless remained solidly focused on ensuring the election results do not interfere with the successful implementation of the rest of the provisions of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The U.S. and others are right to focus on the implementation of the CPA, but this needs to be done via a credible process, not a box-ticking exercise that ends up leaving significant parts of the Sudanese population disengaged and disenfranchised.

That said, these were all preliminary statements, so we will need to await the final reports in order to make our ultimate judgment on the performance of the electoral observers.