CIVICUSéchange avec Monique Clesca, journaliste, défenseuse de la démocratie et membre de la Commission pour la recherche d’une solution haïtienne à la crise (CRSC), à propos de la crise actuelle en Haïti et des appels à l’intervention étrangère.

La CRSC, également connue sous le nom de Groupe Montana, est un groupe d’organisations et de leaders civiques, religieux et politiques qui se sont réunis au début de l’année 2021. Le groupe a promu l’Accord de Montana à la suite de l’assassinat du président Jovenel Moïse en juillet 2021. Cet accord mettait en place un gouvernement provisoire de deux ans pour succéder à Ariel Henry, le Premier ministre par intérim. De plus, il prévoyait l’organisation d’élections dès que possible, ainsi qu’une feuille de route pour réduire l’insécurité, faire face à la crise humanitaire et répondre aux demandes de justice sociale. Le Bureau de suivi de l’Accord de Montana continue d’assurer le suivi de cette feuille de route.

Quelles sont les causes de la crise actuelle en Haïti ?

Les gens semblent associer la crise à l’assassinat du président Moïse, mais elle a commencé bien avant en raison de plusieurs problèmes sous-jacents. Il s'agit certes d'une crise politique, mais plus profondément on fait face à une crise sociale. Depuis de nombreuses décennies, la majorité de la population haïtienne subit les effets de profondes inégalités. Les écarts sont énormes en termes de santé et d’éducation, d’où la nécessité de justice sociale. Le problème va bien au-delà des questions politiques, constitutionnelles et humanitaires les plus visibles.

Au cours de la dernière décennie, différents gouvernements ont tenté de saper les institutions de l’État afin de faire prévaloir un système corrompu : il n’y a pas eu d’élections transparentes ni d’alternance, avec trois gouvernements successifs du même parti politique. L’ancien président Michel Martelly a reporté à deux reprises les élections présidentielles, gouvernant par décret pendant plus d’un an. En 2016, des allégations de fraude ont été soulevées contre Moïse, son successeur, qui a dissous le Parlement pendant son mandat sans jamais organiser des élections. Il a aussi révoqué plusieurs juges de la Cour suprême et a politisé la police.

Il a également proposé un référendum constitutionnel, qui a été reporté à plusieurs reprises et qui est clairement inconstitutionnel. La Constitution de 1987 énonce les modalités du droit d'amendement, donc en tentant de la réécrire, Moïse a choisi la voie anticonstitutionnelle.

Lorsque Moïse a été tué, Haïti faisait déjà face à la faiblesse des institutions, à la corruption massive, et à l’absence d’élections et de renouvellement de la classe politique qu’il avait accentué.À la suite de son assassinat la situation s’est encore aggravée, car à l'absence du Président s'ajoutait le manque d’opérationnalité de l'organe judiciaire et législatif. Nous avons connu, et continuons de connaître, une véritable crise constitutionnelle.

Ariel Henry, l’actuel Premier ministre par intérim, n’a clairement aucun mandat. Moïse l’a nommé Premier ministre successeur deux jours avant son décès, sans même laisser une lettre de nomination signée.

Qu’a proposé le Groupe Montana pour sortir de cette crise ?

En début 2021 le Groupe Montana s’est fondé sur l'idée que la société civile devait s’impliquer car les acteurs politiques ne pouvaient pas trouver de solution aux problèmes d’Haïti. Un forum de la société civile a donc formé une commission qui a travaillé pendant six mois pour créer un dialogue et tenter de dégager un consensus en s’adressant à tous les acteurs politiques, ainsi qu’aux organisations de la société civile. Grâce à toutes ces contributions, nous avons abouti à un projet d’accord qui a été finalisé et signé par près d’un millier d’organisations et de citoyens : l’Accord de Montana.

Nous avons élaboré un plan composé de deux parties : d'une part un plan de gouvernance et d'autre part une feuille de route pour la justice sociale et l’aide humanitaire, qui a été signée dans le cadre de l’accord. Pour obtenir un consensus avec une participation plus large, nous avons proposé la création d’un organe de contrôle qui jouerait le rôle du pouvoir législatif et d’un pouvoir judiciaire intérimaire pendant la transition. Une fois qu’Haïti aura organisé des élections transparentes, il y aura un organe législatif dûment élu et le gouvernement pourra passer par le processus constitutionnel pour nommer le plus haute juridiction, la Cour suprême. Tel est le modèle de gouvernance que nous avons envisagé pour la transition, dans une tentative de rapprochement à l’esprit de la Constitution haïtienne.

Au début de l’année, nous avions rencontré plusieurs fois Henry afin d’entamer des négociations avec lui et ses alliés. À un moment donné, il nous a dit qu’il n’avait pas l’autorité pour négocier. Il a donc fermé la porte aux négociations.

Quels sont les défis à relever pour organiser des élections dans le contexte actuel ?

Le principal défi est l’insécurité généralisée. Les gangs terrorisent la population. Les enlèvements ainsi que les assassinats sont monnaie courante. Les gens ne peuvent pas sortir de chez eux : ils ne peuvent pas aller à la banque, dans les magasins, ni même à l’hôpital. Les enfants ne peuvent pas aller à l’école : la rentrée était prévue pour septembre, puis a été reportée jusqu’à octobre, et maintenant le gouvernement n'annonce même pas quand elle aura lieu. En outre, il y a une situation humanitaire désastreuse en Haïti, qui s’est d'autant plus aggravée avec le blocage du Terminal Varreux, le principal terminal pétrolier de Port-au-Prince. Cet événement a eu un impact sur l’alimentation en électricité et la distribution d’eau, et donc sur l’accès de la population aux biens et services de base. Au milieu d’une épidémie de choléra, les établissements de santé ont été contraints de réduire leurs services ou bien de fermer leurs portes complètement.

Il y a aussi une polarisation politique et une méfiance généralisée. Les gens se méfient non seulement des politiciens, mais aussi les uns des autres.

En raison de la pression politique et de l’activité des gangs, les mobilisations citoyennes ont été inconstantes. Or depuis fin août, des manifestations massives ont été organisées pour demander la démission d’Ariel Henry. Les gens ont également manifesté contre la hausse des prix du carburant, les pénuries et la corruption. Ils ont aussi clairement rejeté toute intervention militaire étrangère.

Quelle est votre position concernant l’appel du Premier ministre à une intervention étrangère ?

Henry n’a aucune légitimité pour demander une intervention militaire. La communauté internationale peut aider, mais ne peut pas prendre la décision d’intervenir ou pas. Nous devons d’abord avoir une transition politique de deux ans avec un gouvernement crédible. Nous avons des idées, mais à ce stade nous avons besoin de voir cette transition.

L’espace civique en Haïti est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

Contactez la Commission pour la recherche d’une solution haïtienne à la crise via sa pageFacebook, et suivez@moniclesca sur Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks about Haiti’s ongoing crisis and calls for foreign intervention with Monique Clesca, a journalist, democracy advocate and member of the Commission to Search for a Haitian Solution to the Crisis (Commission pour la recherche d’une solution haitienne a la crise, CRSC). CRSC, also known as the Montana Group, is a group of civic, religious and political organisations and leaders that got together in early 2021. Following the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021, it promoted theMontana Accord, calling for a two-year provisional government to take over from acting Prime Minister Ariel Henry and hold elections as soon as possible, as well as a road map to reduce insecurity, tackle the humanitarian crisis and respond to social justice demands. The Monitoring Office of the Montana Accord continues to follow up on this roadmap.

What are the causes of Haiti’s current crisis?

People seem to associate the crisis with the assassination of President Moïse, but it started way before that, because there were various underlying issues. It is a political crisis but also a much deeper social crisis. The majority of people in Haiti have suffered the effect of profound inequalities for many decades. There are huge gaps in terms of health and education so there is a need for basic social justice. The problem goes far beyond the more visible political, constitutional and humanitarian issues.

Over the past decade, we have had governments that tried to undermine state institutions so that a corrupt system could prevail: there have not been transparent elections and no alternation of power, with three successive governments of the same political party. Former president Michel Martelly postponed the presidential elections twice. He ruled by decree for more than a year. In 2016, fraud allegations were made against Moïse, his successor. In his time in office, Moïse dissolved parliament and never organised elections. He fired several Supreme Court judges and politicised the police.

He also put forward a constitutional referendum, which has been repeatedly postponed, that is clearly unconstitutional. The 1987 Constitution defines how it should be amended, so by trying to rewrite it, Moïse went the unconstitutional way.

By the time Moïse was killed, Haiti was left with his legacy of weak institutions, massive corruption and the lack of elections and renewal of the political class. After Moïse’s assassination the situation worsened further, because now there was no president and no functioning judiciary and legislative body. We had, and continue to have, a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Ariel Henry, the current acting prime minister, clearly has no mandate. Moïse selected him as the next prime minister two days before he was killed and didn’t even leave a signed nomination letter.

What has the Montana Group proposed as a way out of this crisis?

The Montana Group formed in early 2021 out of the realisation that civil society must get involved because political actors could not find a solution to Haiti’s problems. A forum of civil society then put together a commission that worked for six months creating dialogue and trying to build consensus by speaking to all political actors, as well as to civil society organisations. As a result of all this input, we came up with a draft agreement that was finalised and signed by almost a thousand organisations and citizens: the Montana Accord.

We put together a two-part plan: a governance plan and a social justice and humanitarian roadmap, which was signed as part of the agreement. To get consensus with wider participation, we proposed the creation of a checks and balances body that would carry out the role of the legislative branch and also an interim judiciary during the transition. Once Haiti can have transparent elections, there would be a proper elected legislative body and the government could go through the constitutional process to name the high-level judiciary body, the Supreme Court. That is the governance that we’ve envisioned for the transition, one that is closer to the spirit of the Haitian Constitution.

Earlier this year, we met several times with Henry and tried to start negotiations with him and his allies. At one point, he told us he didn’t have the authority to negotiate. So he closed the door to negotiations.

What are the challenges to holding elections in the current context?

The main challenge is the massive insecurity. Gangs are terrorising the population. Kidnappings are rampant, people are being assassinated. People can’t go out of their homes: they can’t go to the bank, to the stores, to the hospital. Children can’t go to school: classes were supposed to start in September, then in October and now the government is silent on when they will start.

There is also the dire humanitarian situation, only made worse when gangs blocked the main oil terminal of Varreux in Port-au-Prince. This impacted on power supply and water distribution, and therefore on people’s access to basic goods and services. Amid a cholera outbreak, health facilities were forced to reduce their services or shut down.

And there is political polarisation and massive mistrust. People don’t only mistrust politicians; they also mistrust one another.

Because of the political pressure and gang activity, citizen mobilisations have been up and down, but since late August there have been massive demonstrations calling for Henry’s resignation. People have also marched against rising fuel prices, shortages and corruption. They have also clearly rejected any foreign military intervention.

What is your position regarding the prime minister’s call for foreign intervention?

Henry has no legitimacy to call for any military intervention. The international community can help, but it is not up to them to decide whether to intervene or not. We first need to have a two-year political transition with a credible government. We have ideas, but at this point, we need to see a transition.

Civic space in Haiti is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Contact theCommission to Search for a Haitian Solution to the Crisis through itsFacebook page, and follow@moniclesca on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks with Ellie Happel, professor of the Global Justice Clinic and Director of the Haiti Project at New York University School of Law. Ellie lived and worked in Haiti for several years, and her work continues to focus on solidarity with social movements in Haiti and racial and environmental justice.

What have been the key political developments since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021?

As an American, I want to begin by emphasising the role the US government has played in creating the present situation. The history of unproductive and oppressive foreign intervention is long.

To understand the context of the Moïse presidency, however, we have to at least go back to 2010. Following the earthquake that devastated Haiti in January 2010, the USA and other external actors called for elections. People did not have their voting cards; more than two million people had lost their homes. But elections went ahead. The US government intervened in the second round of Haiti’s presidential elections, calling for candidate and founder of the PHTK party, Michel Martelly, to be put into the second round. Martelly was subsequently elected.

During the Martelly presidency we saw a decline in political, economic and social conditions. Corruption was well documented and rampant. Martelly failed to hold elections and ended up ruling by decree. He hand-selected Moïse as his successor. The US government strongly supported both the Martelly and Moïse administrations despite the increasing violence, the destruction of Haitian government institutions, the corruption and the impunity that occurred under their rule.

Moïse’s death is not the biggest problem that Haiti faces. During his tenure, Moïse effectively destroyed Haitian institutions. Haitian people rose up against the PHTK regime in protest, and they were met with violence and repression. There is evidence of government implication in mass killings – massacres – of people in areas that were known to oppose PHTK.

Two weeks prior to Moïse’s assassination, a prominent activist and a widely known journalist were murdered in Haiti. Diego Charles and Antoinette Duclair were calling for accountability. They were active in the movement to build a better Haiti. They were killed with impunity.

It is clear that the present crisis did not originate in Moïse’s assassination. It is the result of failed foreign policies and of the way the Haitian government repressed and halted opposition protests demanding accountability for corruption and violence, and demanding change.

What currently gives me hope is the work of the Commission for Haitian Solution to the Crisis, which was created prior to Moïse’s assassination. The Commission is a broad group of political parties and civil society organisations (CSOs) that came together to work collectively to rebuild the government. This presents an opportunity for a meaningful shift from foreign interference to true leadership of Haitian people.

What is your view on the postponement of elections and the constitutional referendum, and what are the prospects of democratic votes taking place?

In the current climate, elections are not the next step in addressing Haiti’s political crisis. Elections should not occur until the conditions for a fair, free and legitimate vote are met. The elections of the past 11 years demonstrate that they are not an automatic means of achieving representative democracy.

Today, there are many hurdles to holding elections. The first is one of governance: elections must be overseen by a governing body that has legitimacy, and that is respected by the Haitian people. It would be impossible for the de facto government to organise elections. The second is gang violence. It’s estimated that more than half of Port-au-Prince is under the control of gangs.  When the provisional electoral council was preparing for elections a few months back, its staff could not access a number of voting centres due to gang control. Third, eligible Haitian voters should have voter ID cards.

The US government and others should affirm the right of the Haitian people to self-determination. The USA should neither insist on nor support elections without evidence of concrete measures to ensure that they are free, fair, inclusive and perceived as legitimate. Haitian CSOs and the Commission will indicate when the conditions exist for free, fair and legitimate elections.

Is there a migration crisis caused by the situation in Haiti? How can the challenges faced by Haitian migrants be addressed?

What we call the ‘migration crisis’ is a strong example of how US foreign policy and immigration policy towards Haiti have long been affected by anti-Black racism.

Many Haitians who left the country following the earthquake in 2010 first moved to South America. Many have subsequently left. The economies of Brazil and Chile worsened, and Haitian migrants encountered racism and a lack of economic opportunity. Families and individuals have travelled northward by foot, boat and bus towards the Mexico-USA border.

For many years now, the US government has not allowed Haitian migrants and other migrants to enter the USA. They are expelling people without an asylum interview – a ‘credible fear’ interview, which is required under international law – back to Haiti.

The US government must stop using Title 42, a public health provision, as a pretext to expel migrants. The US government should instead offer humanitarian assistance and support Haitian family reunification and relocation in the USA.

It is impossible to justify deportation to Haiti right now, for the same reasons that the US government has advised US citizens not to travel there. There are estimates of nearly 1,000 documented cases of kidnapping in 2021. Friends explain that anyone is at risk. Kidnappings are no longer targeted, but school kids and street merchants and pedestrians are being held hostage to demand money. The US government has not only declared Haiti unsafe for travel, but in May 2021, the US Department of Homeland Security designated Haiti for Temporary Protected Status, allowing eligible Haitian nationals residing in the USA to apply to remain there because Haiti cannot safely repatriate its nationals.

The USA should halt deportations to Haiti. And the USA and other countries in the Americas must begin to recognise, address and repair the anti-Black discrimination that characterises their immigration policies.

What should the international community, and especially the USA, do to improve the situation?

First, the international community should take the lead of Haitian CSOs and engage in a serious and supportive way with the Commission for a Haitian Solution to the Crisis. Daniel Foote, the US special envoy for Haiti, resigned in protest eight weeks into the job; he said that his colleagues at the State Department were not interested in supporting Haitian-led solutions. The USA should play the role of encouraging consensus building and facilitating conversations to move things forward without interfering.

Second, all deportations to Haiti must stop. They are not only in violation of international law. They are also highly immoral and unjust.

Foreigners, myself included, are not best placed to prescribe solutions in Haiti: instead, we must support those created by Haitian people and Haitian organisations. It is time for the Haitian people to decide on the path forward, and we need to actively support, and follow.

Civic space in Haiti is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Follow@elliehappel on Twitter.

English

A fines de 2017, tras lo que muchos en la sociedad civil percibieron como una elección fraudulenta, estalló la protesta en Honduras. CIVICUS conversa con Wilfredo Méndez, Director Ejecutivo del Centro de Investigación y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CIPRODEH), una organización de la sociedad civil hondureña que aboga por cambios orientados a la construcción de un Estado de derecho democrático, justo, inclusivo, participativo y respetuoso de los derechos humanos y las libertades ciudadanas. El CIPRODEH realiza labores de investigación e incidencia política y promueve los derechos humanos de los sectores más vulnerables en alianza con una variedad de actores cívicos y sociales hondureños, latinoamericanos e internacionales.

1. La oposición política y numerosos actores de la sociedad civil hondureña denunciaron fraude en las elecciones del pasado 26 de noviembre. ¿Podría describir cómo fue el proceso electoral, de qué manera se produjo el fraude, y cuáles fueron las consecuencias?

El 26 de noviembre de 2017 enfrentamos un proceso electoral sobre el cual teníamos muchas preocupaciones. Sabíamos que la situación iba a ser compleja no solo en materia electoral sino también en términos de posibles violaciones de los derechos humanos, dados los antecedentes de persecución, criminalización y represión que hemos presenciado desde el golpe de estado de 2009 contra el entonces presidente Manuel Zelaya.

Los grupos que están hoy en el poder son los mismos que protagonizaron el golpe de estado. El actual presidente, Juan Orlando Hernández, viene acumulando poder desde 2010, cuando asumió la presidencia del Congreso. Luego fue electo presidente para el período 2014-2018, y en noviembre de 2017 se presentó a la reelección, para lo cual antes debió manipular a la Corte Suprema de Justicia para que revirtiera la prohibición constitucional de la reelección consecutiva. El mecanismo de revisión constitucional previsto en la Constitución suponía el llamado a una asamblea constituyente, de modo que el procedimiento empleado fue completamente irregular.

Desde 2009 el gobierno se ha militarizado, se ha apartado cada vez más de sus obligaciones de derechos humanos y ha intensificado la represión, con números crecientes de asesinatos y desapariciones forzadas.

Es por eso que el 26 de noviembre la atención de las organizaciones de derechos humanos estuvo enfocada en el monitoreo de los conflictos sociales y la persecución política. Lo que no imaginamos fue que el fraude electoral que muchos habían anunciado se pudiese enfrentar con relativo éxito, pues la Alianza contra la Dictadura, la coalición opositora, implementó una estrategia que complicó la imposición. Ellos crearon mecanismos para combatir el fraude, el cual normalmente se produce no solo en la mesa electoral receptora sino también en el manejo del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE), y esto fue una sorpresa para el partido de gobierno.

En la noche del domingo de elecciones, el TSE no anunció los resultados, pese a que en Honduras es costumbre que a las 7 u 8 de la noche ya se sepa quién es el presidente electo. Horas más tarde, a las 2:45 de la mañana del día lunes y con el 57% de votos escrutados, el TSE anunció una clara ventaja, de unos cinco puntos, para el candidato de la oposición, Salvador Nasralla. Ese día el país entero no habló de otra cosa que de cómo se había logrado enfrentar el tan anunciado fraude. Y luego, el martes, el sistema de cómputos se detuvo y permanecimos durante todo el día a la espera de datos que no llegaban. Finalmente, alrededor del mediodía del miércoles nos encontramos con la sorpresa de que los resultados se habían modificado a favor del candidato oficialista, quien después de varias semanas (el 17 de diciembre) fue declarado ganador con casi 43% de los votos, contra 41,5% para Nasralla.

La Alianza contra la Dictadura denunció el fraude y la población se manifestó pacíficamente en las calles en demanda de transparencia electoral y respeto de los procedimientos democráticos, por lo cual fue duramente reprimida.

2. ¿Cómo reaccionó la comunidad internacional frente a las denuncias de fraude, y cuál fue la respuesta del gobierno?

Los observadores internacionales fueron contundentes, con la sola excepción de un funcionario de la Unión Europea, que dijo que había que tener confianza en los resultados y pronto fue desmentido por la propia Jefa de Misión de Observación. La Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), en particular, desempeñó un rol fundamental. El Jefe de la Misión de Observadores de la OEA declaró que no había certeza sobre los resultados de las elecciones. Según el informe preliminar difundido por la OEA, las numerosas irregularidades, errores y problemas sistémicos restaban confianza a los resultados, y ésta solo podría restablecerse mediante un acuerdo entre los dos candidatos para revisar las actas, volver a contar los votos y resolver las discrepancias. El segundo informe ratificó estos hallazgos, aunque para entonces el propio Secretario General de la OEA, Luis Almagro, decía que ya no bastaría con un recuento de votos y que era recomendable volver a celebrar las elecciones con las garantías necesarias de rectitud y transparencia. El 4 de enero de 2018 Almagro instó al Consejo Permanente de la OEA a aprobar el informe de observación electoral. Puesto que el informe concluye que las numerosas irregularidades no permiten reconocer un ganador, su aprobación sustentaría el pedido de repetición de las elecciones.

Entretanto, la oposición exigió la anulación de los resultados electorales, pero el recurso de nulidad fue rechazado. Esto era previsible, ya que la Corte Suprema, el Ministerio Público y el Tribunal Electoral están, todos ellos, subordinados al presidente.

Por su parte, la reacción del gobierno fue declarar de inmediato y por diez días el estado de excepción, que restringió la libertad de movilización. Impuso también la suspensión de otras garantías constitucionales, no solo para el ejercicio de la libertad de reunión sino también para la libertad de expresión, entre otras. Los medios fueron advertidos de no difundir las acusaciones de fraude de la oposición, y las protestas fueron duramente reprimidas. Esto resultó en más de 30 muertos, decenas de heridos y centenares dedetenciones arbitrarias, además de allanamientos ilegales. Diversos videos filmados por los propios manifestantes mostraron a agentes de seguridad persiguiendo e incluso disparando contra manifestantes. Tres relatores especiales de las Naciones Unidas y de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) condenaron la represión, y el Secretario General de la OEA pidió al gobierno de Honduras que recibiera a un delegado especial de la OEA para relevar la situación de las protestas y la respuesta del Estado.

3. ¿Cuáles son las chances de que el gobierno responda a la presión callejera y a los reclamos internacionales?

Las presiones internacionales motivaron al gobierno a empezar a hablar de un “gran diálogo nacional” para buscar una solución a la situación. Sin embargo, en el discurso gubernamental el foco de atención no estuvo colocado en las irregularidades electorales ni en las violaciones de derechos humanos que se estaban produciendo sino en el hecho de que las manifestaciones inicialmente pacíficas supuestamente se habían vuelto violentas por la acción de maras, pandillas y grupos del crimen organizado. En mi experiencia, estos llamados del gobierno al diálogo están dirigidos a aplacar las aguas, reorientar los esfuerzos y mantener el control. Si no se tocan los temas de fondo, el diálogo no tendrá sentido y, peor aún, solo servirá para legitimar el fraude.

Por otra parte, es importante resaltar que el pueblo hondureño ha cambiado, y tiene hoy una experiencia de movilización que no tenía en el pasado. No mucho tiempo atrás era un pueblo más bien apático e indiferente, pero desde 2009 ha forjado una nueva conciencia al calor de la resistencia contra el golpe de estado. Así, en el 2015, cuando se reveló el desfalco del Instituto Hondureño del Seguro Social – se supo entonces que cantidades millonarias se habían desviado de sus fines, incluso para financiar la campaña del actual presidente, tal como él mismo lo reconoció – el pueblo se movilizó masivamente durante meses, en lo que se llamó la Marcha de las Antorchas. Fue una movilización sin precedentes, y logró que finalmente se instalara la Misión de Apoyo contra la Corrupción y la Impunidad en Honduras (MACCIH) de la OEA.

Cientos de miles de personas se han movilizado en el país contra el fraude electoral, y ni la más cruda represión las ha detenido. Tampoco se desmovilizaron cuando el candidato cuya elección estaban defendiendo los decepcionó, al menos temporariamente, cuando anunció (para luego dar marcha atrás) que se desvinculaba de la Alianza contra la Dictadura para conformar un frente más amplio. Esto por supuesto desmotivó a la ciudadanía movilizada, pero no la llevó a abandonar las calles, porque mucho más que por una candidatura, la gente se había movilizado contra la corrupción. Justamente, si algo representaba para ellos Nasralla era la honestidad.

A principios de enero de 2018, sin embargo, Nasralla anunció que el sábado 6 de reactivarían las movilizaciones y que a partir del 27 de enero, fecha prevista para la asunción presidencial, actuaría como legítimo presidente de Honduras. También se convocó a un paro general del 20 al 27 de enero, para exigir la renuncia del presidente Hernández. De modo que la población ha regresado a las calles: el 6 de enero se realizó una movilización en San Pedro Sula en la que hubo más de 80 mil personas. En suma, pienso que hay buenas posibilidades de ejercer presión a nivel nacional para que se alcance un acuerdo en torno de la revisión del fraude electoral. En conjunción con las presiones de la OEA para que se repitan las elecciones, es posible que la presión de la ciudadanía movilizada tenga un efecto.

4. ¿Piensa que es posible que la represión se intensifique?

Sí, pienso que la situación se está volviendo más complicada cada día, porque la gente está saliendo a las calles, los líderes políticos opositores se mantienen firmes en sus planteos y los líderes sociales no se están echando atrás. Desde las organizaciones de derechos humanos hemos sostenido que la ciudadanía tiene un legítimo derecho a protestar – hemos dicho incluso que la gente tiene que salir a protestar para evitar esta violación de los derechos políticos que sin duda repercutirá sobre la vigencia efectiva de los demás derechos humanos.

Ante esto, la respuesta del gobierno ha sido más militarización. A principios de diciembre la Policía Nacional se rebeló contra el actual presidente con el argumento de que no iba a obedecer órdenes ilegales de reprimir al pueblo movilizado a causa de un problema político que el propio gobierno había creado. Después de un día de huelga y habiendo alcanzado un acuerdo salarial favorable con el gobierno, la Policía Nacional regresó a las calles, supuestamente a cuidar y no a reprimir las manifestaciones. Pero la conducta policial ha sido atroz; además de la cantidad de muertos, hemos visto una estrategia de generar un clima de mucho miedo en las calles, con levantamiento de perfiles, persecución de líderes políticos y sociales y campañas de desprestigio contra defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos.

Sin embargo, el miedo no ha detenido a la gente, y estamos muy preocupados por lo que podría pasar si no se alcanza una salida concertada a esta crisis. En estos días estamos teniendo reuniones a nivel de nuestra organización, con la red de movimientos sociales y con la Mesa Nacional de Derechos Humanos para decidir cómo vamos a enfrentar la amenaza de derechos humanos que se nos viene, porque la reacción represiva que hemos visto hasta ahora no augura nada bueno.

Esperamos también que la CIDH pueda agilizar su visita al país. La presencia de observadores internacionales y de la prensa internacional ha sido hasta ahora muy importante para sacar a relucir la verdad atravesando el cerco mediático interno, y es ahora más necesaria que nunca.

En las próximas semanas será fundamental el rol de la OEA. Si el informe que ha emitido, que desconoce los resultados electorales, no es ratificado por el Consejo Permanente, ya no tendría sentido que la OEA volviera a hacer nunca más una observación electoral. La Carta Democrática Interamericana ya no tendría sentido si la OEA terminara reconociendo a un gobierno cuya elección denunció como fraudulenta. Por su parte, los países miembros de la OEA, incluido Estados Unidos, deberían actuar en la misma dirección. Es inconcebible que un país que se invoca principios y valores democráticos otorgue su reconocimiento a un gobierno surgido del fraude, la violencia y la violación de derechos humanos, y Estados Unidos (junto con otros países de la región) no ha manifestado hasta ahora grandes reparos en reconocer la reelección fraudulenta de Hernández.

Antes del 26 de noviembre, el tiempo parecía dividirse en un antes y un después de la elección; nunca imaginamos que tendríamos un durante tan prolongado sin un presidente electo. Nuestro horizonte luego se desplazó al 27 de enero, fecha de inauguración de un gobierno ilegítimo, y las reacciones populares no se hicieron esperar. El presidente no tomó posesión en un lugar abierto porque se esperaban protestas importantes. Lo hizo en el Estado Nacional, con seguridad militarizada y con la población protestando afuera. Con ello se abrió un período de conflicto político y social que difícilmente permita que el país avance en otros temas importantes.

Con todo, tenemos claro que lo más importante es el hecho de que la población esté consciente y no permita un fraude electoral y de corrupción como este. Podremos perder un año ahora, pero ganaremos diez en el futuro en razón de la lucha contra la corrupción y la impunidad. El pueblo hondureño merece nuestro aplauso, porque ha demostrado que ya no está dispuesto a permitir que políticos de esta naturaleza sigan gobernando a nuestro país.

• El espacio cívico en Honduras es calificado por elCIVICUS Monitor como ‘obstruido’, una categoría indicativa de la existencia de restricciones considerables sobre las libertades de expresión, asociación y reunión pacífica.
• Contáctese con el CIPRODEH a través de supágina web o su perfil deFacebook, o siga a @ciprodeh1 en Twitter

CIVICUS s’entretient avec Patrick Poon, chercheur indépendant sur les droits humains, de la situation des droits humains à Hong Kong à la suite de l’adoption d’une nouvelle loi sur la sécurité nationale (LSN) en juin 2020. Patrick est un chercheur en doctorat à l’Université de Lyon en France,a précédemment travaillé comme chercheur sur la Chine à Amnesty International, et a occupé différents postes au sein du China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, du Independent Chinese PEN Center et du China Labor Bulletin.

L’espace civique à Hong Kong est de plus en plus assiégé depuis le début d’une vague demanifestations de masse pour les libertés démocratiques en juin 2019, déclenchée par l’introduction d’un projet de loi sur l’extradition. LeCIVICUS Monitor a documenté l’usage excessif et mortel de la force contre les manifestants par les forces de sécurité, l’arrestation et la poursuite d’activistes pro-démocratie, ainsi que des attaques contre les médias indépendants.

CIVICUS speaks with Patrick Poon, an independent human rights researcher, on the human rights situation in Hong Kong after a new National Security Law (NSL) was passed in June 2020. Patrick is a PhD researcher at the University of Lyon, France, and has previously worked as a China Researcher at Amnesty International and in various positions at China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Independent Chinese PEN Center and China Labour Bulletin. 

Civic space in Hong Kong is under renewed attack sincemass protests for democratic freedoms, sparked by a proposed Extradition Bill, began in June 2019. TheCIVICUS Monitor has documented excessive and lethal force by the security forces against protesters, arrests and the prosecution of pro-democracy activists as well as a crackdown on independent media.

Why has the NSL been imposed in Hong Kong and what have its impacts been so far?

The NSL, imposed by the Chinese government on 20 June 2020, without any consultation or legislative oversight, empowers China to extend some of its most potent tools of social control from the mainland to Hong Kong. The law includes the creation of specialised secret security agencies, allows for the denial of the right to a fair trial, provides sweeping new powers to the police, increases restraints on civil society and the media and weakens judicial oversight.

The new law undermines Hong Kong’s rule of law and the human rights guarantees enshrined in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law. It contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is incorporated into Hong Kong’s legal framework via the Basic Law and expressed in its Bill of Rights Ordinance.

The Chinese government’s intention is to use the NSL to curb advocacy and support for independence as more people, especially young people, have increasingly embraced Hong Kong’s autonomy and their identity as Hongkongers. Although Hong Kong’s Basic Law enshrines a high degree of autonomy, the Chinese government apparently regards calls for autonomy and self-governance as a ‘danger to national security’.

The NSL has seriously infringed Hong Kong people’s freedom of expression and is intensifying self-censorship in the city. Under the NSL, people who advocate for independence, as well as politicians and prominent figures who support foreign governments’ sanctions on Hong Kong and Chinese officials who are responsible for enacting the NSL, have been the target of the arbitrary arrests. The government is obviously attempting to scare off others not to follow these people’s calls. 

Independent media have also been affected by the crackdown. The arrests of Jimmy Lai, media mogul and founder of popular local paper Apple Daily, and senior executives in his company, signify the government’s attempt to punish news media that are critical of it. Reports about criticism against the NSL and calls for sanctions by foreign government officials become the excuse for the crackdown on independent media. This will have long-term impact on Hong Kong media, even further intensifying self-censorship for some media outlets.

How have civil society and the pro-democracy movement responded?

Civil society has reacted strongly against the law because the process to enact it violated the principle of the rule of law and procedural justice in Hong Kong, and the vague and broad definitions of various provisions of the law exceed the normal understanding of law in the city. Pro-China politicians and government officials have been trying hard to justify the law, but their arguments are preposterous. 

How have the opposition and civil society reacted to the government’s decision to postpone the legislative election due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

The 2020 Hong Kong Legislative Council election was originally scheduled for 6 September 2020, but in July the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, cited an upsurge in COVID-19 infections and used her emergency powers to postpone it for a whole year, so now it’s expected to take place on 5 September 2021. She denied that the change was due to any political speculation, but it was in fact a blow for pro-democracy activists, who were seeking a majority on the Legislative Council. 

In the midst of massive protests, pro-democracy candidates had already won by a landslide in the 2019 District Council election. Along with the new NSL, the postponement of the election was viewed as part of the government’s strategy to neutralise the pro-democracy movement. Just prior to the announcement that the election was being postponed, 12 opposition candidates were disqualified from running, and four young former members of a pro-independence student group were arrested under the NSL for their pro-independence posts on social media.

The postponement of the election created some conflict among the pro-democracy camp, with some calling for keeping up the fight in the Legislative Council and others urging a boycott over the government’s decision to postpone the elections. From the government’s decision to disqualify some pro-democracy candidates for their political views, it is clear that the government doesn’t want to hear any opposition voices in the legislature.

What can the international community and international civil society organisations do to support civil society in Hong Kong?

Civil society in Hong Kong needs to work together to ensure that the Chinese government and the Hong Kong government will not abuse the NSL to curb all dissenting views and closely monitor if the government abides by the principle of the rule of law and international human rights standards.

The international community should continue speaking up against the Chinese and Hong Kong government’s crackdown on  civil society and keep raising concerns about the NSL, which is being forcibly imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese government in the name of national security, but in fact is no more than an attempt to silence dissenting views in the city. The international community should send a clear message that national security should not be used as an excuse to crack down on the freedom of expression.

Civic space in China is rated as ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. 

CIVICUS speaks about the recent Italian election with Oiza Q Obasuyi from the Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights (CILD).

CILD is a national network of civil society organisations (CSOs) working to protect and expand civil rights and freedoms by running public campaigns for policy change, advocating with governments and international bodies and taking cases to court.

What are your main takeaways from the recent Italian election?

The first thing to note is that a significant number of people – one in three – did not vote. One big reason for this is the increasing lack of trust in political institutions. This is important to consider in the face of Giorgia Meloni’s claim that she won thanks to the vote of all Italian citizens – which is not true.

I personally think that left-wing parties have become increasingly distant from the masses, and especially the working class, which is now significantly underrepresented. The left should be working not only on civil rights but on social rights too: if the far right manages to convince even part of the working class to vote for it by using racist and anti-immigration propaganda, this means the left is not doing what it is supposed to do: campaigning for the social and civil rights of the worse-off, including working class people, low-wage earners, students, women and LGBTQI+ people.

We are experiencing an economic crisis that is affecting the lower classes deeply. Inequalities have become unbearable and political institutions keep ignoring protest demands, be they from the Insorgiamo (‘We are rising up’) movement for workers’ rights or Fridays For Future Italia,which continues to call out the government for its inaction on climate change.

In a context where there is no political force on the left reacting to these demands and promoting policies to protect and promote these basic rights, the fact that people have voted for a far-right candidate such as Giorgia Meloni shouldn’t surprise us.

How did civic space conditions evolve in the run-up to the election?

Hate speech and disinformation played a significant role during the campaign. Meloni’s entire propaganda is based on ultraconservative beliefs that she pushes by instrumentalising half-truths, a distortion of the facts and outright lies.

Even though she has said she would not repeal Law 194, which protects the right to abortion, Meloni has repeatedly joined so-called ‘pro-life’ conferences organised by ultra-catholic and conservative associations, along with her League party colleague Matteo Salvini. She has often stated that children need a father and a mother and that’s the only type of family that has the right to exist, to the detriment of LGBTQI+ couples who continue to fight to have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

To back her claims, Meloni often passes off prejudice as scientific fact and brings up conspiracy theories about ‘gay lobbies’ trying to indoctrinate children with their so-called ‘gender agenda’.

In addition, during her campaign Meloni referred to drugs and alcohol as ‘youth deviations’. I think she will use these issues as yet another way to curb citizens’ civil rights. This can be expected in the light of her framing of drug-related issues as criminal rather than, say, health issues, particularly when the people concerned are of foreign descent.

How significant is it that Giorgia Meloni downplayed her fascist heritage?

I don’t think that makes her less of a threat. She has strong links with Hungarian far-right president Viktor Orbán, who is well known for his racist and illegal anti-migrant policies that systematically push migrants back at the border and his hostility towards LGBTQI+ people and more generally, towards any CSO working for the protection of human rights.

Meloni’s entire propaganda was based on similar grounds, with a strong sense of nationalism and conservatism that derives from her party’s fascist past – not to mention her belief in the so-called ‘great replacement’ theory, a conspiracy theory that believes there is an ongoing plan to bring in more and more immigrants until white Europeans disappear from the continent. That is why, according to her, immigration must be stopped.

How do you think the advances made by the far right will impact on the rights of excluded groups?

I think we will face a situation in which it will be extremely hard to push for positive laws and policies that protect everybody’s social and civil rights.

Italy is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not have a law that specifically protects LGBTQI+ rights. A proposed bill against homophobia, transphobia, biphobia and lesbophobia, popularly known as DDL Zan, was not passed.

There is also a possibility that migrants’ right to request asylum could be further restricted, given Meloni’s hostility towards immigration and the current situation with the decreti sicurezza – decrees on security and immigration – issued by Matteo Salvini when he was Minister of the Interior between 2018 and 2019.

Even though the current Minister of the Interior introduced ‘special protection’ for migrants, humanitarian protection was abolished and access to accommodation was extremely restricted by Salvini. His successor made some revisions to his policies, but various elements continue to raise concerns. The decision to allow the revocation of Italian citizenship of foreign-born Italians deemed a threat to national security was not questioned, although the process was amended.

For 30 years, civil society has demanded citizenship law reform to guarantee access to Italian citizenship for people of foreign descent who were born or raised in Italy. There are over 800,000 such people, many of them children. They are de facto Italian citizens, but they’re not legally recognised as such. Although there have been left-wing governments that could have pushed toward reform, we still have an obsolete law based on jus sanguinis, or citizenship by blood, and it is very unlikely that a Meloni-led government would change that.

As for our work, we anticipate hostility towards CSOs working on human rights, if the government goes down the same road as her ally Viktor Orbán did in Hungary.

What kind of domestic and international support does Italian civil society need to continue doing its work?

We need active support from European and international civil society as external observers, especially when international institutions are involved and called to scrutinise potential human rights violations and civic space restrictions.

Economic support is also important: during their previous government, right-wing parties proposed to economically support police forces through 5x1000 funds, which is one of the fundamental ways in which CSOs fund their work, thanks to part of the money citizens voluntarily donate when filing their tax declarations. If this proposal becomes reality, then many CSOs will suffer budget cuts.

Civil society must also stay vigilant on women’s reproductive rights, under the constant threat of new patriarchal and sexist laws to either make access to abortion more difficult or ban it completely. We must also ensure that civil rights protection goes hand in hand with social rights protection: poverty, unemployment and low wages are major problems that affect many vulnerable communities.

Civic space in Italy is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@Cild2014 and @OizaQueensday on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks about the recent presidential election in Kenya with Ken Ogembo, programme manager of Siasa Place.

Siasa Place is a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 2015 with the aim of promoting youth participation in politics. It educates people about the importance of voting and how the government can be held accountable.

Did you observe an increase in civic space restrictions around the 9 August election?

We observed several civic space restrictions during the election. The media did not provide fair coverage to all candidates, and the most popular candidates had a clear advantage because everything they did was widely covered and they got a lot of propaganda. Media are powerful tools that can be used to influence the views of people and in this case were used to promote some parties and bring down others. Social media was also used to spread misinformation that influenced many people’s voting decisions.

Further, there was violence in some counties, which we believe was organised to spark fear. As a result, people no longer felt comfortable attending campaigns for some candidates because of fear they could be attacked. 

There were also cases of candidates being attacked. Some female politicians were attacked and assaulted; unfortunately not much was done to protect them or follow up on their cases. William Ruto, announced as the winner of the election, was also attacked in Kisumu. His vehicles were destroyed but fortunately he was not hurt. 

There was also a situation in Kakamega county between the two main coalitions, Kenya Kwanza and Azimio la Umoja: they were fighting over access to a stadium and a number of people got hurt in the process.

However, I do not believe violence was serious or widespread to the point that we could say it was what marked the electoral process.

Why was there such low voter turnout?

There are a number of factors that could have possibly contributed to it, but I think it is first and foremost about people being demotivated from voting because they do not see any change happening as a result of elections. Government corruption is pervasive no matter who is in the government, and economic performance is consistently poor. Public services are of very low quality: there are not enough healthcare facilities, doctors are often going on strike, markets are dirty. Youth unemployment continues to be very high, and most people don’t think this will change, so many do not see any reason for voting.

We also need to look at how candidates are nominated. Presidential candidate Raila Odinga’s party, Azimio la Umoja, did not conduct democratic internal processes in most of its strongholds and often nominated people who had long been in power and had performed dismally. People are discouraged from voting when they think their voices do not matter.

I would also say it is also ignorance that drives young people away from the polls. They should understand that regardless of whether they get out to vote, a government will get elected and will rule over them. The fact that they did not vote takes away their moral authority to question those in power. Of course they still have a constitutional right to do so, but their questioning will lack substance and they will not have any alternative to offer.

Through our engagement with young people, we have noticed they lack confidence in the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IBEC), the institution that manages elections, which many consider unable to deliver free and fair elections. They view it as pointless to go out and vote if the IBEC can’t ensure their votes will count.

This is probably a mistake, because there have been improvements in the electoral process, including by making it clear that the results received from voting stations are final. However, the IBEC still has a lot of work to do make people trust the electoral process.

Finally, I think the government played a huge role by not providing any civic education. It only started doing the basics when it was already too late, as most people who didn’t vote had already made up their minds not to. And when the government did, the content was not of the right kind, in the sense that would make people understand why voting is important and how to play their role as citizens.

Has civil society been able to play its role in the electoral process?

Civil society’s role has been somewhat restricted. Many CSOs would need more support and resources to play their full range of roles during elections. During this election we saw many CSOs unable to provide civic education programmes because of lack of funding and government support.

Our job as civil society is to advocate on people’s behalf, inform them about the process and raise awareness of their rights. But most of us were denied the right to do our work due to lack of resources. My organisation, Siasa Place, played a key role in the previous election because it received the required resources in time. But this year the support we needed came about two months before the elections, which is rather late for us to start doing our work at the community level. This affected our role, but we hope things will improve in the coming years. We need government and civil society to work together to inform people around elections so they know what they are doing.

There were also cases of CSOs being instrumentalised by political parties to influence voters. That defeats the whole purpose of having an active civil society. We urge the concerned CSOs to remember their original goals and mission and refocus on them. We should be the voice of marginalised people and communities, not of political parties. It is our duty to hold political parties accountable, not root for them at elections.

Given the very close result, do you think there could be a recount or even an election re-run?

If the defeated candidate can convince the court that there have been irregularities so gross that they have affected the outcome, then the court could nullify the results. But if votes are recounted and the result comes out the same, there won’t be a need for a rerun.

Civic space in Kenya is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Siasa Place through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@siasaplace on Twitter. 

CIVICUS speaks about the upcoming elections in Kenya with Paul Okumu, head of the Secretariat of the Africa Platform (AP). AP is a pan-African civil society platform based in Nairobi, Kenya, that works to strengthen state-society relations to achieve more effective and inclusive development.

With elections still a few months away, is it clear who the contenders will be?

Many are unaware that Kenya has only one election day in which all political positions are filled. But although the focus is on the presidential race, the forthcoming elections will bring in 349 members of the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, including 290 elected from the constituencies, 47 women elected from the counties and 12 nominated representatives, plus 69 members of the Senate, 47 of whom are elected directly while the rest are elected to represent women, young people and other excluded groups.

In addition, Kenyans will be electing 47 governors, the regional leaders directly responsible to county assemblies, that is, their respective regional parliaments. Kenyans will elect a further 1,450 county assembly members. So the election is a complex one.

For the presidential race, some likely frontrunners are already emerging. The current president, Uhuru Kenyatta, is ineligible to stand for re-election after completing his second term; his deputy, William Ruto, is among the leading candidates alongside former prime minister Raila Odinga. It is worth noting that this is the fifth time Odinga is running for president, having lost his previous attempts and withdrawn once in 2017.

By law candidacies for the presidency will be made official in mid-May, and there are currently almost 45 people who have submitted their names as possible candidates. The election body, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, will have the final word on which candidates fulfil the legal criteria to run.

The question many are likely to ask is why there are only two leading contenders. The answer is as complex as the country’s elections.

In a bid to exercise a divide-and-rule strategy, the British colonial government divided Kenya into regional ethnic units, with people from one unit not allowed to travel to other units without the authority of the colonial government under a system known as Kipande (Identity) system. In addition, people in regions closest to where white people lived were given access to education much earlier so they could work for whites. As a result, these regions (mainly central, Rift Valley and Western) progressed much faster and became dominant in the period leading to and after independence. It helped that these regions are also the most agriculturally productive, which is part of the reason the whites chose them as their residence.

There are about 43 ethnic groups in Kenya, but just five of them constitute over half of its population of about 50 million. Due to the combined effects of colonial boundaries, which the 2010 Constitution kept intact – a story for another day – and the numeric dominance of these few ethnic groups, the country’s politics, in a quite similar fashion to that in South Sudan, continue to revolve around five ethnic groups. Leading presidential candidates always emerge from these five. Currently, the two leading candidates represent a coalition of three and two of these largest ethnic groups.

What will be at stake in the upcoming elections?

The current president is seen to have spent his time investing in sections of the economy that benefited his vast family businesses. From infrastructure to hospitals to the dairy and transport sectors, most of the investments have been in areas that are perceived directly to add value or make it easy for the president’s family businesses to thrive. As a result, there is a perception that what is at stake is the protection of these investments, hence the current complex coalition supported by the president that has brought together people seen to be those who will preserve the status quo.

But at a deeper level, the country is in a serious crisis. The economy has been in recession for over eight months now. Half of its recurrent budget is used on civil service salaries. The latest economic report by the government shows that for the first time in the country’s history, debt costs will surpass the recurrent expenditure, projected at Sh1.34 trillion (US$1.3 billion) for the coming year. The debt binge is mainly from Eurobond offerings, a package of Chinese loans and syndicated commercial loans taken in recent years. Distress levels are so high that the Central Bank has begun to ration foreign reserves, especially US dollars. Fuel prices have risen by nearly 53 per cent in the past one year, largely due to the fact that fuel has always been an easy target for taxation.

And that is not all: European countries have always used Kenya as a trade gateway to the continent and have largely made it a multinational headquarters for European companies working across Africa. This has led to massive losses through tax evasion and avoidance and skewed double taxation agreements, and has killed countless small businesses that could not manage the massive resources and subsidies given by European development finance institutions or donor agencies (such as the CDC Group of the UK) to European corporations so they can win contracts and set up businesses in the country.

But there is a bigger underlying fear among citizens. In 2017 the Supreme Court was forced to overturn the results of the presidential elections after it emerged that the government, through Ot Morpho, a French company fronted by the French government, had manipulated the vote counting and tallying, handing victory to the incumbent president. The subsequent repeat elections were boycotted by the opposition at the last minute on the grounds that the government had refused to make the changes demanded by the Supreme Court to ensure transparent vote counting. This massive collusion and rejection of changes proposed by the judiciary severely eroded confidence in the electoral system. It is believed to be the part of reason for the current low voter registration.

What are the civic space conditions like in the run-up to the election?

The executive and the political class had made attempts to water down the constitution significantly through a process known as Building Bridges Initiative, but they were stopped in their tracks by the courts, including the Supreme Court. This has preserved citizens’ freedoms and has strengthened confidence in the judiciary. Because of this there is still considerable freedom of assembly and expression.

But the government has also tried to limit the work of civil society around the election. In July 2021, the Kenyan Foreign Affairs Ministry sent a confidential memo to all foreign missions and international civil society organisations (CSOs) that usually support civic education, instructing them not to put any resources, either directly or through local CSOs, into civic education and civic advocacy without the express authorisation of the government. To date, such authorisation has not been granted, and it’s not clear if partners have even requested it.

Interestingly, foreign missions kept quiet and refused to divulge this information to local CSOs. It is not clear why the government took this drastic measure, but it is even more baffling why foreign missions have been so quick to obey it when a few years ago they defied a similar directive by the Russian government and funded civic education in that country. A possible reason lies in Kenya’s centrality, alongside Rwanda, for the politics of Africa and the economies of Europe, which these foreign countries are keen to preserve. 

As a result of this decision, this year Kenya has had the lowest voter registration in its history and levels of civic awareness have plummeted. The denial of resources for civic education has been a massive blow for civil society, and with the elections under 90 days away, it is not yet clear what role civil society will play around them.

The window for registration as election observers, usually played by the African Union, the Carter Foundation, the European Union and a coalition of civil society groups, is still open, and it is still possible that with alternative sources of funding, CSOs may still engage in some way.

What is the potential for electoral violence?

Violence is highly unlikely. Despite ethnic politics rooted in the colonial regionalisation arrangement, Kenyans are largely peaceful. Most of the post-election violence that Kenya has experienced has been mostly confined to power struggles among the five dominant ethnic groups and has never been about the entire country. Over the past five months, these five ethnic groups have formed two large coalitions, making violence unlikely.

Of course, conflict between these two coalitions cannot be ruled out if one of them loses the elections, but if it occurs, this violence is unlikely to have an impact on the rest of the communities.

Civic space in Kenya is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Africa Platform through itswebsite.

• Excessive force used against protesters
• Twitter accounts shut down over calls to lower prices of food & basic commodities
• Attacks on freedom of speech & political interference with media and judiciary

As Kenyans head to the polls on 9 August to elect a new president, a new report by global civil society alliance, CIVICUS and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) highlights the decline in civic rights in the country and urges the authorities to respect fundamental freedoms during this crucial period. Protest restrictions, attacks on journalists and the misuse of laws are of particular concern. 

According to the new research brief, Kenyan authorities have used excessive force to clamp down on protests and suppress dissent in the run-up to the election. Recent demonstrations to protest the rising cost of food under the hashtag #Njaa-Revolution (‘Hunger Revolution’) have been met with unlawful arrests, detention and brutal force; in April, human rights defender Julius Kamau was violently assaulted outside the National Treasury after protesting rising food prices.  Lethal and crowd control weapons such as live ammunition, teargas and rubber bullets are commonly used by police to disperse gatherings. 

CIVICUS and the KHRC are also concerned about the misuse of laws to undermine peaceful protest. The Public Order Act, a law from the British colonial period, requires activists to notify authorities of protests at least 3 days in advance. However, there have been cases of authorities tearing up notification letters and refusing to receive them. 

Also, police have mistakenly understood the provision as a requirement for protests to be approved or denied, using it as an excuse to deem protests ‘unpermitted’, as was seen on 28 June 2022 when a letter notifying police about an intended protest by the Social Justice Centre, a Nairobi-based grassroots group, was rejected without explanation. Although the right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed in Kenya’s constitution, it is continually undermined.
 
“The right to peacefully protest is fundamental in any functioning democracy. Authorities and law enforcement bodies must respect and ensure citizens can exercise their civic rights, this is critical in ensuring inclusive participation in the electoral process,” said Sylvia Mbataru, East Africa Researcher, CIVICUS.
 
As the space for street protests becomes more closed and restricted, activists have turned to social media to air their grievances. The #NjaaRevolution attracted a huge online following with its calls to control soaring prices and other basic commodities. In May, the movement was silenced by Twitter with over 20 accounts being suspended for ‘violating Twitter Rules’ and acting ‘suspiciously’ - no further justification was given. Suspending the online accounts of major activists in the run-up to elections is tantamount to censorship.
 
Attacks on freedom of speech extend to journalists. Incidents and violations against the press are on the rise ahead of elections, including the assault of two journalists covering an event at Raila Odinga’s party headquarters in March 2022. In a separate incident a Citizen TV journalist, Martin Kosgey, was threatened via text after airing a story implicating a governor's bodyguard in a murder case. Kosgey also reported that he had received intelligence that there was a plan to harm him over the story.  
 
The apparent political capture of the country’s media regulatory body has also contributed to a decline in press freedom. In November 2021, President Uhuru Kenyatta appointed a new head of the Communications Authority, seemingly consolidating the ruling party's power over a strategically important body that is supposed to be non-partisan.  
 
The possibility of political interference undermines the body's mandate to serve as a watchdog for public media and to monitor the operations of the state news agency. In theory, the authority is responsible for ensuring fair and impartial reporting for the upcoming elections, but there is a risk that it will be used to limit the space for independent media.
 
Political interference in Kenya’s democratic institutions also extends to the judiciary. Most notably, in 2021 when the president defied the constitution by refusing to swear in six judges nominated by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Judicial Officers have also been subjected to numerous attacks from the political elite and the executive.
 
Kenya was placed on the CIVICUS Monitor’s human rights ‘Watchlist’ in June 2022. The Watchlisthighlights countries where there has been a recent and steady decline in civic freedoms, including the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly.

Kenya is currently rated Obstructed by the CIVICUS Monitor. There are 42 countries in the world with this rating (see all). This rating is typically given to countries where power holders heavily contest civic space and impose a combination of legal and practical constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights (see the full description of ratings).

More information

Download the Kenya research brief here. 

Interviews

CIVICUS:

On 26 October 2017, Kenya returns to the polls after the Supreme Court declared the election held on 8 August 2017 null and void. CIVICUS speaks to governance specialist Paul Okumu on the coming election re-run, the announcement by the main opposition that it will not contest the poll and what this means for Kenya’s democracy

Q: What is the mood in the country after the Supreme Court judgement ordering for a fresh election to be held this October?

On the whole, this has been the most exciting moment for Kenyans — both here at home and abroad.

But beyond Kenya, we have received several messages of solidarity and excitement from across Africa, with many African citizens and civil society telling us that this is a victory for the continent and not just for Kenya.

Never in their existence have the courts overruled the executive in the manner that the Kenya judiciary did. The judiciary has always shied away from challenging orders seen or perceived to touch the executive, and this ruling was totally unexpected, considering that the incumbent President is for all purposes the final appointing authority of members of the judiciary (based on recommendations from the Judiciary Service Commission and Parliamentary approval).

But the most ecstatic part is that citizens, as well as all arms of government, respected the judiciary and agreed to follow the orders. It has given citizens a renewed breath of fresh air and confidence in the judiciary.

It also reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the power of citizens, something that is seen as new in Kenya, considering that the Constitution is less than ten years old.

There is however some slight apprehension that being the first time, perhaps the excitement is temporary and it is not clear if indeed this is a reflection of a new activist and accountability nature of the judiciary, or this is limited just to the Supreme Court. Many of you may have also heard that the ruling party is using its new majority in both house of Parliament to push through two new laws that will dramatically weaken the Supreme Court and the electoral oversight body, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

One must recall, however, that the groundwork that led to the nullification of this case was in fact another ruling by a lower court. In May this year, human rights activist Maina Kiai, who is the former Special UN Rapporteur on the Rights to Peaceful Assembly, went with others to court to challenge the Elections Act. He asked that the law be changed to ensure that the counting of votes is done at the polling station so that they cannot not be altered by the electoral body.The court ruled in his favour and the electoral body took the matter to the Court of Appeal, where the ruling was upheld.

At least 70% of the ruling by the Supreme Court was based on the ruling made in favour of Maina Kiai.

 Q: There are concerns that there are many issues that the Electoral body must first rectify and will not be able to do this in the given time before the election. What are your views on this?

This is Kenya's greatest fear, and right now the opposition is already holding demonstrations to demand that some of these matters be rectified as conditions for participating in the fresh election. But the hands of the Supreme Court were tied here. The Constitution allows for only the electoral body, (Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), to conduct elections. The Constitution also requires for those elections to be held within 60 days of the nullification of a previous one.

The concerns are  therefore justified when one considers that the electoral body has decided to retain the three companies accused by the opposition of complicity in delivering a result that was not the will of the people — Al Ghurai, a Dubai based Company, Safaricom, Kenya’s largest Mobile company, and OT Morpho, a French company. Part of this is the lengthy procurement rules.

Kenyans are waiting with bated breath to see how the electoral body will address what the Supreme Court described as "systemic" and "institutional" failures within the IEBC. These failures were not just a failure of equipment, but a failure of oversight and accountability.

But remember that the main thrust of the judgement was not the manner in which the elections was conducted. The majority ruling of the Supreme Court accused the IEBC of redefining democracy and ignoring that democracy is a process that ends with elections. It rejected the view that democracy begins with elections.

In doing so the IEBC was accused of not following the entire democratic process that leads to elections — from public confidence-building to ensuring transparency in the entire process in the period leading to and the period after the elections.

So the challenges facing the IEBC are much bigger and it’s not clear if they will address these systemic and institutional challenges in the few days remaining to elections.

Q: The President has said he is disappointed by the Supreme Court Ruling. Why is this and what may it mean for the independence of the judiciary?

The President’s disappointment is understandable, and to an extent it appears justified since one of the dissenting judges insists that he had won the last election by 54%.

But unlike 2013 where the Supreme Court based its judgement on numbers, this time the court departed from this and refused to be drawn into recounting of votes. In their view, the court argued that if the process was flawed, and if there is proof that the Constitution was violated in the process leading to and after the elections, then the numbers do not matter.

This was a departure, not just from previous rulings, but other rulings within the Commonwealth jurisdiction and even the United States of America. But it is this kind of ruling that set the Supreme Court of Kenya apart from other courts.

While the judiciary around the world has refrained from helping advance society in its democratic agenda, the Kenya Supreme Court decided that Kenya should move forward and define democracy in a much broader way than just elections.

This is a game changer for other Supreme Courts around the world. For Africa, the judiciary has stamped its authority as the guardian of democracy, not just an arbiter in electoral disputes.

It means that Kenya's Supreme Court is not just asserting its role as pace-setters for society, but it is exercising its independence and the right to disagree with broader society. For a long time many Kenyans have had a very narrow definition of democracy. The Supreme Court offered a more superior definition.

Q: The opposition has just pulled out of the elections, claiming that the electoral body has refused to meet its demands and the demands required by the Supreme Court ruling. What does this mean for the credibility of the election?

The Supreme Court termed this a FRESH election, not a repeat poll. Under Kenya's Constitution, if there is only one candidate in a fresh election, the election is cancelled and the candidate is declared the winner. It is silent on what to do if a party boycotts. But the same Constitution states that fresh elections needs to be preceded by party nominations, which obviously cannot be done under the short period of 60 days allowed by law.

In pulling out of the elections, the main opposition cited a statement by the Supreme Court in the 2013 electoral dispute where the Court considered what options are left if a candidate pulls out. The court at that time interpreted the scenario to mean a candidate had died and so fresh nominations must be held and another election held within 90 days. It’s not clear because there are arguments that the court was merely discussing scenarios and was in no way giving directions.

In my opinion, this is the kind of crisis that hits societies that want to lead themselves purely by law. Laws alone cannot legislate morality, and in fact there is nowhere where society is managed by laws alone. An element of trust and compromise among its members is always needed - - which is what a proper social contract achieves in society.

Kenya has opted to let laws define its democracy, and hence its social contract.

There is a price to pay for that, and right now there will certainly be a price to pay because the law did not envisage the situation that we are in. The IEBC wanted to rectify that by bringing on board previous presidential candidates to run in this elections, but they quickly realised that that the law is not clear on this either.

Since the political players have chosen the path of legality rather than political compromise, my fear is that over the next few days we are going to see Kenya’s elections not as a democracy, but a battle between the judiciary and the executive.

It is never a good battle, and often one side ends up losing – its known who is the weaker of the two.

Q: One of the IEBC Commissioners resigned on 18 October 2017, citing threats over her life. In an interview in the media she admitted that the electoral body is not prepared and that the body has been hijacked by a section of its members aligned to the ruling government. What does this mean for the elections and for the credibility of the elections?

The situation is actually more delicate than that. You may be aware that on 12 October 2017, both Houses (Senate and Parliament) rushed through a new law that takes away considerable powers from the head of the IEBC and makes it difficult for the commission to reach decisions by compromise. The proposed law also seeks to return the country back to the manual system which was the cause of the problems in past elections, and which is blamed for the violence witnessed in 2007/2008. There are concerns that her resignation, added to the new proposed law, which by the way is only awaiting Presidential signature to become effective, may have dealt a big credibility blow to the electoral body, and in effect it short circuits the reforms that had been demanded by the Supreme Court. It certainly will have a huge impact on turnout because there is perception that the laws and the resignation have not just taken away the remaining teeth of the electoral body, but has effectively taken it back to the state it was that led to the crisis in the first place.

But once again the issue must be seen from a broader perspective, and here are the lessons that those of us who promote democracy should know. It is impossible to have democracy without a proper social contract. Democracy is about managing diversity within society to deliver on a collective aspirations using the resources at the disposal of that society. Instead we have made democracy about power plays and about the strongest or the richest or the largest ruling over everybody else. You can see where it has led the United States. We must realise that unless we work with society to learn how to negotiate, manage its diversity and develop a culture of regular compromise, anything we do in the name of democracy is merely buying time. Kenya’s crisis is very simple to manage, but we appear to have resorted to using the law, rather than the friendships, to manage it. It will not end well.

Q:   What role can civil society play now before the fresh election?

There are three roles that civil society can play now and in the few days to come.

First is to celebrate the power of activism —  whether in courts as did the Supreme Court, in each other as did Maina Kiai when he took the electoral body to court, or in other civil society who stood with the opposition and in fact provided the bulk of evidence that was used in court.

Secondly civil society needs to use this opportunity to connect more with citizens and explain to them what the Supreme Court just did.Never in the history of democracy anywhere in the world has the judiciary come out to teach the society what constitutes democracy! If civil society can use this case to educate citizens on why the court opted to define elections as a process and NOT an event, they will have advanced democracy in ways they would never do with all the donor money used in governance programmes.

Finally civil society need to come together. Currently there is great polarisation based on the ruling. A section of civil society, under the Elections Observer Group, had actually endorsed the elections and agreed with donors and observers that it was a free, transparent and fair election. They even agreed with the reported win of 54%, insisting it was based on their own scientific polling. They were left looking very foolish and seen as agents of donors and the government. They have not come out to explain themselves fully. The result is that they are now not seen as part of a neutral civil society.

But the rest of civil society, especially those engaged in human rights, are not seen in good light either. This was the second time in as many elections that they were directly challenging the elections alongside the opposition. And so they are also seen as partisan, even though they were vindicated this time by the Supreme Court ruling.

In a fractured and polarised society, civil society is not just about being on the right side or the legally correct path. It’s about understanding the dynamics of society and taking positions that rebuild that society. It is important that these two groups, whether they see their positions as superior or not, to come together and agree on how best to shepherd the nation and citizens at this time. Kenya is at a point where it does not need right or wrong, but truth. And that truth will only be found in taking a position that allows the society to build trust in a civil society that is removed from the emotions of politics, yet engaged in the ideals of democracy that leads to well understood social contract.

Q:       Any other additional analysis you would like to share?

The elections in Kenya have shown just how perceptions vary between Africa and Europe.

In many of the European countries, the ruling by the Supreme Court has been treated with apprehension, fear and doom! They feel that Kenya is headed for another chaos and that the ruling should have at least balanced what they call "nascent democracy" and avoided a hard landing that this appears to be. Many of our colleagues that I have met and spoken to begin their conversation with: "So are you going to have war again?"

On the contrary there has been jubilation and excitement across all of Africa and most of Asia. Citizens as far as Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Botswana and South Africa, and even India, have come out to rally behind Kenya. They see this as a renewed hope for a continent that has been defined by the West as unable to manage its democracy. For many of these citizens, this is a point of triumph and victory-on our terms as Africa. And the fact that it embarrassed the international community who had all but endorsed the elections, has given many Africans even more pride.

Both sides may be right, and democracy is always muddy. But we need to be careful that we do not push a sliding car down the valley simply because that is what we have been conditioned to think and believe about Africa. It’s much harder to get people out of negativity than it is to encourage them on the positive progress they are making.

Africa needs more messages of hope, not doom and constant suspicion. The negative descriptions we give to the continent — fragile, conflict-affected, war-torn, corrupt — appear to be what is keeping the citizens disillusioned.

One act of hope and the entire continent lights up!

• Civic space in Kenya is rated as‘Obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
• Follow Paul Okumi on Twitter @paulokumu3. Read two other analytical articles he wrote on the ruling of the Supreme Courthere andhere.

CIVICUS et l’International Partnership for Human Rights (Partenariat international pour les droits de l'homme) s’entretiennent avec Ulugbek Azimov, expert juridique à la Legal Prosperity Foundation, au sujet des manifestations qui ont eu lieu au Kirghizistan en octobre 2020 et des évolutions politiques qui s’en sont suivies. La Legal Prosperity Foundation (anciennement Youth Human Rights Group) est une organisation indépendante de la société civile qui œuvre à la promotion des droits humains et des principes démocratiques au Kirghizstan depuis 1995. L’organisation mène des programmes éducatifs, assure le suivi des droits humains, interagit avec les mécanismes internationaux des droits humains et promeut le respect des droits humains dans le cadre de réformes juridiques.

Le Kirghizistan est souvent considéré comme la seule démocratie d’Asie centrale. Dans quelle mesure cette description est-elle proche de la vérité ?

Il est vrai qu’au début des années 1990, c’est-à-dire dans les premières années de l’indépendance, la démocratie a émergé et a commencé à se développer au Kirghizistan. Par rapport aux autres pays de la région, le Kirghizistan se caractérisait par un niveau plus élevé de participation des citoyens, une société civile plus développée et des conditions plus favorables au fonctionnement et à la participation des partis politiques au processus politique. Pour cette raison, le Kirghizstan a été qualifié d’« île de la démocratie » en Asie centrale.

Toutefois, au cours des 30 années qui ont suivi l’indépendance, le Kirghizistan a été confronté à de graves difficultés. Les tentatives des anciens présidents pour préserver et renforcer leur emprise sur le pouvoir, en faisant pression sur l’opposition, en persécutant les médias et les journalistes indépendants, en restreignant la liberté d’expression, en utilisant les ressources publiques en leur faveur, en soudoyant les électeurs et en falsifiant les résultats des élections, ont entraîné des bouleversements politiques majeurs à plusieurs reprises. Au cours des 15 dernières années, le gouvernement a été renversé à trois reprises lors des révolutions dites des tulipes, d’avril et d’octobre, respectivement en 2005, 2010 et 2020, deux anciens présidents ayant été contraints de fuir le pays et le troisième de démissionner avant le terme de son mandat.

Chaque bouleversement a hélas été accompagné d'évolutions mettant à mal les acquis démocratiques antérieurs. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que Freedom House ait toujours classé le Kirghizistan comme étant seulement « partiellement libre » dans son enquête annuelle sur la liberté dans le monde. En outre, dans l’enquête la plus récente, publiée cette année, la note du Kirghizistan s’est détériorée pour devenir « non libre » en raison des retombées des élections législatives d’octobre 2020, qui ont été entachées de graves violations. Ainsi, le Kirghizistan se trouve désormais dans la même catégorie que celle dans laquelle se trouvent les autres pays d’Asie centrale depuis de nombreuses années. 

Des restrictions liées à la pandémie ont-elles été imposées à l’approche des élections de 2020 ?

En réponse à l’augmentation rapide des cas de COVID-19 au printemps 2020, les autorités kirghizes ont adopté des mesures d’urgence et instauré un confinement dans la capitale, Bichkek, et dans plusieurs autres régions du pays, ce qui a entraîné des restrictions du droit à la liberté de mouvement et d’autres droits connexes. Tous les événements publics, y compris les rassemblements, ont été interdits.

Les mesures prises dans le contexte de la pandémie ont également suscité des inquiétudes quant aux restrictions de la liberté d’expression et de l’accès à l’information. Les autorités ont sérieusement resserré la vis contre les voix critiques, en réponse aux nombreuses critiques formulées à l’encontre des personnes au pouvoir, notamment le président de l’époque Sooronbai Jeenbekov, pour leur incapacité à lutter efficacement contre la pandémie. Les forces de l’ordre ont traqué les blogueurs et les commentateurs des médias sociaux gênants, leur ont rendu visite à leur domicile et ont engagé des discussions « préventives » avec eux. Dans certains cas, des utilisateurs de médias sociaux ont été placés en détention pour avoir soi-disant diffusé de fausses informations sur la pandémie, et ont été contraints de présenter des excuses publiques sous la menace de poursuites.

La loi sur la « manipulation de l’information », adoptée par le Parlement en juin 2020, est particulièrement préoccupante. Bien que les initiateurs de la loi aient prétendu qu'elle avait pour seul but de résoudre le problème des faux comptes en ligne, il était clair dès le départ qu’il s’agissait d’une tentative de la part des autorités d’introduire la censure sur Internet et de fermer les sites indésirables à la veille des élections. Après une avalanche de critiques de la part de la communauté des médias et des défenseurs des droits humains, le président de l’époque, M. Jeenbekov, a refusé de signer la loi et l’a renvoyée au Parlement pour révision en août 2020. Depuis lors, la loi est restée au niveau du Parlement. 

Qu’est-ce qui a déclenché les manifestations post-électorales d’octobre 2020 ? Qui a protesté, et pourquoi ?

La principale raison des manifestations d’octobre 2020, qui ont à nouveau conduit à un changement de pouvoir, était le mécontentement de la population à l’égard des résultats officiels des élections législatives du 4 octobre. 

Sur les 16 partis en lice pour un siège au Parlement, seuls cinq ont franchi le seuil des sept pour cent requis pour entrer au Parlement. Bien que le président de l’époque, M. Jeenbekov, ait déclaré publiquement qu’il ne soutenait aucun parti, celui qui a obtenu le plus de voix - Birimdik (Unité) – lui était lié puisque son propre frère et d’autres membres de l’élite dirigeante se présentaient sous sa bannière. Le parti arrivé en deuxième position, Mekenim Kyrgyzstan (Mère patrie du Kirghizistan), était également considéré comme pro-gouvernemental et associé à la famille de l’ancien haut fonctionnaire des services douaniers Raiymbek Matraimov, qui a été impliqué dans une enquête très médiatisée sur la corruption, publiée en novembre 2019. Le gouvernement de Jeenbekov a ignoré les conclusions de cette enquête et n’a pas engagé d’action pénale contre Matraimov, malgré les appels publics en ce sens.

Il était prévisible que Birimdik et Mekenim Kyrgyzstan obtiennent de nombreux votes, compte tenu de l’utilisation de ressources publiques et des cas signalés d'achat de votes en faveur de leurs candidats. Ces deux partis, qui participaient pour la première fois à des élections législatives, ont obtenu près de la moitié des voix et donc la majorité absolue des sièges au Parlement. Les méthodes utilisées par les deux partis vainqueurs pour s’assurer le contrôle du Parlement ont suscité l’indignation des autres partis politiques ayant participé aux élections, de leurs électeurs et même des personnes apolitiques.

Les élections se sont déroulées dans un contexte de mécontentement croissant face aux difficultés sociales et économiques causées par la pandémie, ainsi que de sentiments antigouvernementaux grandissants au sein de la population.

Les élections « entachées », caractérisées par un nombre sans précédent de violations, ont servi de catalyseur aux événements qui ont suivi. Les manifestations ont commencé immédiatement après l’annonce des résultats préliminaires, le soir du jour de l’élection, le 4 octobre, et se sont poursuivies tout au long de la journée suivante. Les jeunes y ont joué un rôle décisif : la plupart de ceux qui sont descendus dans la rue pour protester et se sont rassemblés sur la place centrale de la capitale étaient des personnes jeunes. Malheureusement, la plupart de ceux qui ont été blessés, ainsi que le manifestant qui est décédé pendant les événements d’octobre, étaient également des jeunes.

Quelle a été la réaction du gouvernement face aux manifestations ?

Les autorités avaient la possibilité de prendre le contrôle de la situation et de la résoudre pacifiquement, mais elles ne l’ont pas saisie. Ce n’est que dans la soirée du 5 octobre que le président de l’époque, M. Jeenbekov, a annoncé qu’il rencontrerait les dirigeants des différents partis en lice pour les élections. Il a fixé une réunion pour le matin du 6 octobre, mais il était trop tard, car dans la nuit du 5 octobre, les manifestations pacifiques ont dégénéré en affrontements entre les manifestants et les forces de l’ordre à Bichkek, qui se sont terminés par la prise de la Maison Blanche (siège de la présidence et du Parlement) et d’autres bâtiments publics par les manifestants. Au cours de ces affrontements, les forces de l’ordre ont utilisé des balles en caoutchouc, des grenades assourdissantes et des gaz lacrymogènes contre les manifestants. À la suite de ces affrontements, un jeune homme de 19 ans a été tué et plus de 1 000 personnes ont dû recevoir des soins médicaux, dont des manifestants et des membres des forces de l’ordre, et plus de 600 policiers ont été blessés. Au cours des troubles, des voitures de police, des ambulances, des caméras de surveillance et d’autres biens ont également été endommagés, pour une valeur estimée à plus de 17 millions de soms (environ 200 000 USD).

Les élections présidentielles anticipées organisées en janvier 2021 ont-elles permis de résoudre les problèmes soulevés par les manifestations ?

La principale revendication des manifestants était d’annuler les résultats des élections législatives d’octobre 2020 et d’organiser de nouvelles élections équitables. Cette demande a été partiellement satisfaite le 6 octobre 2020, lorsque la Commission électorale centrale (CEC) a déclaré les résultats des élections invalides. Cependant, jusqu’à présent, aucune date n’a été fixée pour les nouvelles élections législatives. La CEC les avait initialement prévues pour le 20 décembre 2020, mais le Parlement a réagi en adoptant rapidement une loi qui suspendait les élections durant le temps de révision de la Constitution, et prolongeait le mandat des membres du Parlement sortant jusqu’au 1er juin 2021.

La Commission de Venise - un organe consultatif du Conseil de l’Europe, composé d’experts indépendants en droit constitutionnel - a évalué cette loi et conclu que, pendant la période de transition actuelle, le Parlement devrait exercer des fonctions limitées et s’abstenir d’approuver des mesures extraordinaires, telles que des réformes constitutionnelles. Toutefois, le Parlement sortant a poursuivi ses travaux de manière habituelle et a approuvé la tenue d’un référendum constitutionnel en avril 2021. Le président nouvellement élu, Sadyr Japarov, a proposé d’organiser de nouvelles élections parlementaires à l’automne 2021, ce qui signifierait que les membres du Parlement sortant resteraient en poste même après le 1er juin 2021.

Conformément à d’autres revendications des manifestants, la législation électorale du pays a été modifiée en octobre 2020 afin de réduire le seuil électoral de sept à trois pour cent, permettant aux partis d'être représentés au Parlement et de réduire le fonds électoral de 5 à 1 million de soms (environ 12 000 USD). Ces modifications ont été apportées pour faciliter la participation d’un plus grand nombre de partis, y compris les plus récents, et pour promouvoir le pluralisme et la concurrence.

Les manifestants ont également exprimé leur mécontentement face à l’insuffisance des mesures prises pour lutter contre la corruption. Ils ont exigé que les autorités traduisent en justice les fonctionnaires corrompus, en particulier Matraimov, et restituent à l’État les biens volés. S’exprimant devant les manifestants avant de devenir président, M. Japarov a promis que M. Matraimov serait arrêté et puni.

Il faut reconnaître que Japarov a tenu parole. Après son arrivée au pouvoir en octobre 2020, Matraimov a été arrêté dans le cadre d’une enquête sur des mécanismes de corruption au sein du service des douanes, a plaidé coupable et a accepté de réparer les dommages en remboursant plus de 2 milliards de soms (environ 24 millions de USD). Un tribunal local l’a ensuite condamné, mais lui a appliqué une peine réduite, sous la forme d’une amende de 260 000 soms (environ 3 000 USD) et a levé les mesures de gel de ses biens, car il avait coopéré à l’enquête. Cette sentence extrêmement clémente a provoqué l’indignation générale. Le 18 février 2021, Matraimov a de nouveau été arrêté pour de nouvelles accusations de blanchiment d’argent, mais quelques jours plus tard, il a été transféré du centre de détention provisoire où il était détenu vers une clinique privée pour y être soigné pour des problèmes de santé. Après cela, beaucoup ont qualifié de « populistes » les mesures anticorruption prises par les autorités actuelles.

En janvier 2021, les citoyens kirghizes ont également voté lors d’un référendum constitutionnel. Quels ont été ses résultats, et quelles conséquences auront-ils sur la qualité de la démocratie ?

Selon les résultats du référendum, qui s’est déroulé le même jour que l’élection présidentielle de janvier 2021, 84 % des électeurs ont soutenu le changement d'un système de gouvernement parlementaire à un système présidentiel.

Sur la base d’une expérience comparative, de nombreux avocats et activistes de la société civile ne considèrent pas ce changement comme négatif en soi, à condition qu’un système de contrôle et d’équilibre des pouvoirs efficace soit mis en place. Cependant, ils sont sérieusement préoccupés par le fait que les autorités tentent de mener cette transition à un rythme anormalement rapide, en utilisant des approches et des méthodes discutables qui ne correspondent pas aux principes généralement acceptés et aux règles et procédures juridiques établies.

Le premier projet de Constitution prévoyant un système de gouvernance présidentiel, présenté en novembre 2020, a été surnommé « khanstitution » en référence aux dirigeants autocratiques historiques d’Asie centrale. Ses détracteurs ont accusé M. Japarov, qui a plaidé en faveur de ce changement depuis son entrée en fonction en octobre 2020, de vouloir usurper le pouvoir.

Le projet de Constitution accordait au président des pouvoirs pratiquement illimités, tout en réduisant au minimum le statut et les pouvoirs du Parlement, ce qui compromettait l’équilibre des pouvoirs et créait un risque d’abus de pouvoir présidentiel. Il prévoyait également une procédure d’impeachment compliquée, impossible à mettre en œuvre dans la pratique. En outre, alors qu’il ne mentionne pas une seule fois le principe de l’État de droit, le texte fait référence à plusieurs reprises à des valeurs et principes moraux. De nombreuses dispositions de la Constitution actuelle qui garantissent les droits humains et les libertés ont été exclues.

En raison de critiques sévères, les autorités ont été contraintes d’abandonner leur projet initial de soumettre le projet de Constitution à un référendum le même jour que l’élection présidentielle de janvier 2021, et ont accepté d’organiser une discussion plus large. À cette fin, une conférence dite constitutionnelle a été convoquée et ses membres ont travaillé pendant deux mois et demi, malgré les accusations d’illégitimité de leurs activités. Au début du mois de février 2021, la conférence constitutionnelle a soumis ses suggestions au Parlement.

Il faut reconnaître qu’à la suite de la discussion et des propositions soumises par la conférence constitutionnelle, certaines parties du projet de Constitution ont été améliorées. Par exemple, la référence au principe de l’État de droit a été rétablie et des modifications importantes ont été apportées aux sections relatives aux droits humains et aux libertés, notamment en ce qui concerne la protection de la liberté d’expression, le rôle des médias indépendants et le droit d’accès à l’information. Mais le projet est resté pratiquement inchangé en ce qui concerne les dispositions qui prévoient des pouvoirs illimités pour le président.

En mars 2021, le Parlement a adopté une loi sur l’organisation d’un référendum sur le projet de Constitution révisé, fixant la date au 11 avril 2021. Cela a suscité une nouvelle vague d’indignation parmi les politiciens, les juristes et les activistes de la société civile, qui ont souligné que cela allait à l’encontre de la procédure établie pour les changements constitutionnels et ont de nouveau averti que la concentration du pouvoir entre les mains du président pourrait aboutir à un régime autoritaire. Leurs préoccupations ont été reprises dans un avis conjoint de la Commission de Venise et du Bureau des institutions démocratiques et des droits de l'homme au sein de l’Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe, émis en mars 2021 à la demande du médiateur du Kirghizistan.

Le projet de Constitution comporte deux autres dispositions problématiques. L’une d’elles permet d’imposer des restrictions à tout événement qui contredit les « valeurs morales et éthiques » ou « la conscience publique du peuple de la République kirghize ». Ces concepts ne sont pas définis ou réglementés, ils peuvent donc être interprétés différemment selon les cas, ce qui crée un risque d’interprétation trop large et subjective et d’application arbitraire. Cela pourrait à son tour entraîner des restrictions excessives des droits et libertés humains, notamment des droits aux libertés d’expression et de réunion pacifique.

L’autre disposition impose aux partis politiques, aux syndicats et aux autres associations publiques de garantir la transparence de leurs activités financières et économiques. Dans le contexte des récentes tentatives de renforcement du contrôle des organisations de la société civile (OSC), on craint que cette disposition ne soit utilisée pour faire pression sur celles-ci. Le jour même où le Parlement a voté en faveur de l’organisation d’un référendum sur le projet de Constitution, certains législateurs ont accusé les OSC de porter atteinte aux « valeurs traditionnelles » et de constituer une menace pour l’État. 

Les activistes de la société civile continuent de demander la dissolution du Parlement actuel, qui a perdu sa légitimité à leurs yeux, et exhortent le président à convoquer rapidement de nouvelles élections. Les activistes organisent un rassemblement permanent à cette fin et, si leurs demandes ne sont pas satisfaites, ils prévoient de se tourner vers les tribunaux en invoquant l'usurpation du pouvoir.

Le président a toutefois rejeté toutes les préoccupations exprimées au sujet de la réforme constitutionnelle. Il a assuré que le Kirghizistan resterait un pays démocratique, que la liberté d’expression et la sécurité personnelle des journalistes seraient respectées et qu’il n’y aurait plus de persécution politique.

Les citoyens du Kirghizistan doivent faire leur choix. Le référendum à venir sur l’actuel projet de Constitution pourrait devenir un autre tournant dans l’histoire du Kirghizistan, et le choix des citoyens sera décisif pour l’évolution future vers la stabilité et la prospérité.

L’espace civique au Kirghizistan est classé « obstrué » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
Entrez en contact avec la Legal Prosperity Foundation via sa pageFacebook et suivezlpf_kg sur Instagram. 

CIVICUS and the International Partnership for Human Rights speak to Ulugbek Azimov, legal expert at the Legal Prosperity Foundation, about the protests that took place in Kyrgyzstan in October 2020 and subsequent political developments. The Legal Prosperity Foundation (previously the Youth Human Rights Group) is an independent civil society organisation that has worked to promote human rights and democratic principles in Kyrgyzstan since 1995. The organisation carries out educational programmes, conducts human rights monitoring, interacts with international human rights mechanisms and promotes respect for human rights in the context of legal reforms.

Kyrgyzstan is often referred to as Central Asia’s only democracy. How close to truth is this depiction?

It is true that in the early 1990s, that is, in the first years of independence, democracy sprouted and began developing in Kyrgyzstan. Compared to other countries in the region, Kyrgyzstan was characterised by a higher level of citizen participation, a more developed civil society and more favourable conditions for the functioning and participation of political parties in the political process. For this reason, Kyrgyzstan was called an ‘island of democracy’ in Central Asia.

However, during the 30 years since independence, Kyrgyzstan has faced serious challenges. Attempts by former presidents to preserve and strengthen their hold on power by putting pressure on the opposition, persecuting independent media and journalists, restricting the freedom of expression, using public resources in their favour, bribing voters and falsifying the results of elections have resulted in major political upheavals on several occasions. In the past 15 years, the government has been overthrown three times during the so-called Tulip, April and October revolutions, in 2005, 2010 and 2020, respectively, with two former presidents being forced to flee the country, and the third forced to resign ahead of time.

Each upheaval has, unfortunately, been followed by developments undermining previous democratic gains. It is therefore not surprising that Freedom House has consistently rated Kyrgyzstan as only ‘partially free’ in its annual Freedom in the World survey. Moreover, in the most recent survey published this year, Kyrgyzstan’s rating deteriorated to that of ‘not free’ because of the fall-out of the October 2020 parliamentary elections, which were marred by serious violations. Thus, Kyrgyzstan is now in the same category in which other Central Asian countries have been for many years. 

Were pandemic-related restrictions imposed in the run-up to the 2020 elections?

In response to the rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in the spring of 2020, the Kyrgyzstani authorities adopted emergency measures and introduced a lockdown in the capital, Bishkek, and in several other regions of the country, which led to restrictions on the right to the freedom of movement and other, related rights. All public events, including rallies, were banned.

Measures taken in the context of the pandemic also gave rise to concerns about restrictions on the freedom of expression and access to information. The authorities seriously tightened the screws on critical voices in response to widespread criticism of those in power, including then-President Sooronbai Jeenbekov, for their failure to fight the pandemic effectively. Law enforcement authorities tracked down inconvenient bloggers and social media commentators, visited them in their homes and held ‘prophylactic’ discussions with them. In some cases, social media users were detained for allegedly posting false information about the pandemic and forced to apologise publicly under threat of prosecution.

The law on ‘manipulation of information’, which parliament passed in June 2020, is of particular concern. Although the initiators of the law claimed that it was solely intended to address the problem of fake online accounts, it was clear from the start that this was an attempt by the authorities to introduce internet censorship and close down objectionable sites on the eve of the elections. Following an avalanche of criticism from the media community and human rights defenders, then-President Jeenbekov declined to sign the law and returned it to parliament for revision in August 2020. Since then, the law has remained with parliament. 

What triggered the post-election demonstrations in October 2020? Who protested, and why?

The main reason for the October 2020 protests, which again led to a change in power, was people’s dissatisfaction with the official results of the parliamentary elections held on 4 October. 

Out of the 16 parties running for seats in parliament, only five passed the seven per cent electoral threshold required to get into parliament. Although then-President Jeenbekov publicly stated that he did not support any party, the one that received most votes – Birimdik (Unity) – was associated with him since his brother and other people from the ruling elite were running on its ticket. The party that ended up second, Mekenim Kyrgyzstan (Motherland Kyrgyzstan), was also viewed as pro-government and was associated with the family of former high-ranking customs service official Raiymbek Matraimov, who was implicated in a high-profile media investigation into corruption published in November 2019. Jeenbekov’s government ignored the findings of this investigation and failed to initiate a criminal case against Matraimov, despite public calls to this end.

It was predictable that Birimdik and Mekenim Kyrgyzstan would fare well in the elections given the use of public resources and reported vote-buying in favour of their candidates. These two parties, which took part in parliamentary elections for the first time, received almost half of the votes and therefore an absolute majority of the seats in parliament. The methods used by the two winning parties to secure control over parliament caused indignation among other political parties that participated in the elections, their voters and even apolitical people.

The elections took place against the backdrop of growing discontent with the social and economic difficulties caused by the pandemic, as well as growing anti-government sentiments among the population.

The ‘dirty’ elections, characterised by an unprecedented scale of violations, became a catalyst for subsequent events. Protests began immediately after the announcement of the preliminary results on the evening of election day, 4 October, and continued throughout the next day. Young people played a decisive role in them: most of those who took to the streets to protest and gathered in the central square of the capital were young people. Unfortunately, most of those who were injured, as well as the protester who died during the October events, were young people too.

What was the government’s reaction to the protests?

The authorities had the opportunity to take control of the situation and resolve it peacefully, but they did not take it. Only in the evening of 5 October did then-President Jeenbekov announce that he would meet with the leaders of the different parties that competed in the elections. He set up a meeting for the morning of 6 October, but this turned out to be too late, as in the night of 5 October the peaceful protests devolved into clashes between protesters and law enforcement officials in Bishkek, ending with the seizure of the White House (the seat of the president and parliament) and other public buildings by protesters. During the clashes, law enforcement authorities used rubber bullets, stun grenades and teargas against the protesters. As a result of the clashes, a 19-year-old young man was killed and more than 1,000 people needed medical attention, including protesters and law enforcement officials, with over 600 police officers injured. During the unrest, police cars, ambulances, surveillance cameras and other property were also damaged, to an estimated value of over 17 million Som (approx. US$200,000).

Did the snap presidential elections held in January 2021 solve the problems raised by the protests?

The main demand of the protesters was to cancel the results of the October 2020 parliamentary elections and hold new, fair elections. This demand was partly satisfied on 6 October 2020, when the Central Election Commission (CEC) declared the election results invalid. However, up to now, no date has been fixed for the new parliamentary elections. The CEC initially scheduled them for 20 December 2020 but parliament responded by promptly adopting a law that suspended the elections pending a revision of the constitution and extended the terms in office of the members of the outgoing parliament until 1 June 2021.

In its assessment of this law, the Venice Commission – an advisory body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent constitutional law experts – concluded that during the current transitional period parliament should exercise limited functions and refrain from approving extraordinary measures, such as constitutional reforms. However, the outgoing parliament has continued its work as usual and approved the holding of a constitutional referendum in April 2021. Newly elected President Sadyr Japarov has suggested holding new parliamentary elections in the autumn of 2021, which would mean that members of the outgoing parliament would continue in their positions even after 1 June 2021.

In accordance with other demands of the protesters, the country’s electoral legislation was amended in October 2020 to reduce the electoral threshold from seven to three percentage points for parties to gain representation in parliament and to reduce the electoral fee from 5 to 1 million Som (approx. US$12,000). These amendments were made to facilitate the participation of a larger number of parties, including newer ones, and to promote pluralism and competition.

The protesters also expressed resentment about the inadequate measures taken to fight corruption. They demanded that the authorities bring to justice corrupt officials, particularly Matraimov, and return stolen property to the state. Speaking in front of the protesters before he became president, Japarov promised that Matraimov would be arrested and punished.

To be fair, Japarov kept his word. After Japarov rose to power in October 2020, Matraimov was arrested in connection with an investigation into corruption schemes within the customs service, pleaded guilty and agreed to compensate the damage by paying back more than 2 billion Som (approx. US$24 million). A local court subsequently convicted him, but handed him a mitigated sentence in the form of a fine of 260,000 Som (approx. US$3,000) and lifted freezing orders on his property, since he had cooperated with the investigation. This extremely lenient sentence caused public outrage. On 18 February 2021, Matraimov was arrested again on new charges of money laundering, but after a few days he was transferred from the pre-trial detention facility where he was being held to a private clinic to undergo treatment for health problems. After that, many labelled the anti-corruption measures of the current authorities as ‘populist’.

In January 2021 Kyrgyz citizens also voted in a constitutional referendum. What were its results, and what consequences will they have for the quality of democracy?

According to the results of the referendum, which took place on the same day as the presidential election in January 2021, 84 per cent of voters supported a transition from a parliamentary to a presidential system of government.

Based on comparative experience, many lawyers and civil society activists do not view this change as negative per se, provided that a well-functioning system of checks and balances is put in place. However, they are seriously concerned that the authorities are attempting to push through the transition at an unjustifiably quick pace using questionable approaches and methods that do not correspond to generally accepted principles and established legal rules and procedures.

The first draft constitution providing for a presidential system of governance, put forward in November 2020, was dubbed a ‘khanstitution’ in reference to the historic autocratic rulers of Central Asia. Critics accused Japarov, who has advocated for this change since taking office in October 2020, of trying to usurp power.

The draft constitution granted the president practically unlimited powers, while reducing the status and powers of parliament to a minimum, thereby jeopardising checks and balances and creating the risk of presidential abuse of power. It also provided for a complicated impeachment procedure that would be impossible to implement in practice. Moreover, while it did not mention the principle of the rule of law even once, the text repeatedly referred to moral values and principles. Many provisions of the current constitution that guarantee human rights and freedoms were excluded.

Because of harsh criticism, the authorities were forced to abandon their initial plans to submit the draft constitution to referendum on the same day as the presidential election in January 2021 and agreed to organise a broader discussion. To this end, a so-called constitutional conference was convened and its members worked for two and a half months, in spite of facing accusations that their activities were illegitimate. At the beginning of February 2021, the constitutional conference submitted its suggestions to parliament.

It should be acknowledged that as a result of the discussion and proposals submitted by the constitutional conference, parts of the draft constitution were improved. For example, the reference to the principle of the rule of law was restored, and significant amendments were made to the sections on human rights and freedoms, including with respect to protecting the freedom of expression, the role of independent media and the right to access information. But it remained practically unchanged with respect to the provisions that set out unlimited powers for the president.

In March 2021, parliament adopted a law on holding a referendum on the revised draft constitution, setting the date for 11 April 2021. This sparked a new wave of indignation among politicians, lawyers and civil society activists, who pointed out that this was against the established procedure for constitutional change and warned again that the concentration of power in the hands of the president might result in authoritarian rule. Their concerns were echoed in a joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, issued in March 2021 at the request of the Ombudsman of Kyrgyzstan.

The draft constitution has two other problematic provisions. One allows for restrictions to be imposed on any events that contradict ‘moral and ethical values’ or ‘the public consciousness of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic’. These concepts are not defined or regulated, so they might be interpreted differently in different cases, creating the risk of overly broad and subjective interpretation and arbitrary application. This, in turn, might lead to excessive restrictions on human rights and freedoms, including the rights to the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression.

The other provision requires political parties, trade unions and other public associations to ensure the transparency of their financial and economic activities. Against the background of recent attempts to step up control over civil society organisations (CSOs), there are concerns that it might be used to put pressure on them. On the same day that parliament voted in favour of holding a referendum on the draft constitution, some legislators accused CSOs of allegedly undermining ‘traditional values’ and posing a threat to the state. 

Civil society activists continue to call on the current parliament, which in their eyes has lost its legitimacy, to dissolve and on the president to call new elections promptly. Activists are holding an ongoing rally to this end and, if their demands are not met, they plan to turn to the courts on the grounds of the usurpation of power.

The president, however, has rejected all concerns voiced about the constitutional reform. He has assured that Kyrgyzstan will remain a democratic country, that the freedom of expression and the personal safety of journalists will be respected, and that there will be no further political persecution. 

The citizens of Kyrgyzstan must make their choice. The upcoming referendum on the current draft constitution may become another turning point in the history of Kyrgyzstan, and the choice made by citizens will be decisive for the future development towards stability and prosperity.

Civic space in Kyrgyzstan is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Legal Prosperity Foundation through itsFacebook page and followlpf_kg on Instagram.

Por Teldah Mawarire, responsable de campañas y de incidencia política e Ine van Severen, responsable de investigación del espacio cívico

Para las naciones en crisis, las elecciones libres y justas pueden traer un alivio muy necesario. Votar ofrece esperanza y la oportunidad de poner fin a los conflictos. Hemos visto esto en los últimos tiempos en países como Gambia, Maldivas y Malasia, donde presidentes cada vez más autocráticos fueron expulsados de sus cargos en las urnas por el hartazgo de los votantes.

Lea el artículo en inglés en: The Government and Business Journal

CIVICUS speaks about the recent general election in Lebanon with Marwan Issa, research assistant with the Asfari Institute for Civil Society and Citizenship at the American University of Beirut.

The Asfari Institute seeks to bridge academia and civil society activism. It does so through knowledge production, convenings and the creation of safe spaces for learning, dialogue and exchange. Located at the heart of the American University in Beirut, it functions as a regional hub for civil society working for diversity, inclusion, equality, accountability and sustainability.

What was the political and economic context of Lebanon’s 15 May general election?

The election was held while Lebanon faced one of its worst economic crises in recent history. People were experiencing severe hardship due to lack of essential items, including medicines. On election day, the currency exchange rate skyrocketed, with the US dollar going from 1,515 to around 30,000 Lebanese pounds. Not surprisingly, the majority held deep-seated anger against traditional ruling parties. This led many voters, and especially those in the diaspora, to elect new independent opposition parties and candidates.

However, the intensity of the crisis also led many people to despair and crippled their desire or motivation for action. As a result, the revolutionary feelings stirred by the protests of 17 October 2019 largely died down, and many people felt their vote would not make any difference, which explains the low turnout.

But this did not mean that people were not searching for alternatives: in fact, a solution-focused, rational debate has also emerged that is clearly different from the tribal methods of traditional political parties, which instrumentalise sectarianism, clientelism and fearmongering. New opposition groups have developed that criticise the traditional division between those who blame all the country’s problems on the presence of Hezbollah as an armed militia, and those who believe the presence of resistance against a potential threat from Israel is necessary. Both are viewed as serving the interests of the current political elite.

In the face of this, the new opposition offers an alternative discourse focused on both sovereignty and economic justice. This debate about alternative economic and social solutions is very promising for the years ahead.

How did youth-led groups engage with the election process?

There are plenty of youth-led political groups in Lebanon, but the main one is Mada, the Network of Secular Clubs. The first secular clubs were formed in universities as an alternative to the domination of ruling class parties on campus and started to take part in university student council elections. Over the past few years, these secular clubs won more than two-thirds of the seats in student council elections, breaking the hegemony of traditional political parties. As a result, they have paved the way for a new type of discourse on and outside campuses. Now the Network has 21 clubs throughout the country – not just in universities but also in unions and regions – and continues to have a clear youth-led political discourse.

In preparation for the election, Mada engaged in negotiations with other groups to form coalitions. In Beirut, Mada members were active in the creation of Beirut Tuqawem (Beirut Resists), a grassroots participatory campaign that included individuals and groups from various progressive circles. Those volunteering in these campaigns were mostly university students working alongside other Mada members who were a bit older – but still young, around 25 on average.

Mada members were also active in launching campaigns in other parts of Lebanon, including al Janoub Youwajeh (The South Confronts), Jil al Teghyir (The Generation of Change), and the 17 October Coalition.

So-called apolitical young people – young people not active in any political group – also mostly leaned towards voting for new independent opposition groups. They also encouraged those around them to do the same, which boosted the opposition movement. Had the voting age been 18 instead of 21, we could confidently say that the elections would have brought many more new faces to parliament.

How free and fair was the election?

The electoral process was plagued with violations that made the competition unfair. For instance, although there are strict caps on campaign spending, ruling class candidates violated the law and poured millions of dollars into their campaigns. This huge financial advantage allowed them to reach vast audiences, while opposition campaigns had much more limited resources.

Bribery and clientelism were also rampant. In addition, smear campaigns and direct threats on opposition candidates were widely noticed. One of them, Ali Khalife, received direct threats following a smear campaign by pro-Hezbollah electronic armies. A few days before the election there were attacks by Tashnag party supporters on opposition groups in Metn and the beating of volunteers.

On election day many violations were recorded, but they were highly dependent on the context. In the southern region, for example, violations included brawls, fights, and politically affiliated electoral assistants going inside voting booths alongside voters. In areas controlled by armed or powerful parties, such as Hezbollah and the Amal movement in the south, many people did not dare turn up to vote.

How do you assess the election results?

All the above combined, plus the fact that the ruling class also very carefully crafted the electoral law to suit its sectarian and partisan quota system, made for a tilted playing field. Under the circumstances, the results were promising and can be built upon.

The election resulted in around 12 or 13 new opposition faces in parliament, plus a couple more who could be counted as part of the opposition but were in parliament already. The presence of 15 opposition, mostly new, legislators is great news. They have clear views regarding both the presence of an armed militia and the responsibility of banks and bank owners in the economic crisis. For instance, newly elected member of parliament Ibrahim Mneimneh, of Beirut Tuqawem, who got the most preferential votes among all new opposition candidates, has a progressive economic and social discourse and took a clear stand on issues related to security and arms.

In contrast, candidates traditionally linked with the Syrian regime lost their seats, including Assaad Herdan in the south, Weeam Wahhab and Talal Erslan in Mount Lebanon, and Elie Ferzli in Bekaa. This was a huge victory against people who were puppets in the hands of the Syrian regime during the period in which Syria maintained a military presence in Lebanon, between the 1990s and 2005.

Following the election, pro-change political forces must continue pushing for change in and outside parliament, supporting the newly elected members of parliament and holding them accountable for the implementation of their programme.

What kind of international support does Lebanese civil society need?

Youth-led groups have been at a significant financial disadvantage, and I believe they are the ones that need the most support. It only makes sense that the new generation be supported since waves of emigration keep rising as students and young people more generally lose hope in Lebanon. Financial support, however, should be conditional on the credibility of the opposition group receiving it; it must be directed towards groups with a proven commitment to democracy, social justice, and non-sectarian values.

International organisations, embassies, and other entities could also express their support by including the perspectives of opposition groups in designing policies and humanitarian aid mechanisms because Lebanon’s ruling class has proven highly skilled at transforming aid into clientelism and perpetuating the cycle of violence and poverty for political gain.

Civic space in Lebanon is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS monitor.
Get in touch with the Asfari Institute through itswebsite and follow@AsfariInstitute on Twitter. 

CIVICUS speaks about the recent general elections in Lebanon with Lina Abou Habib, director of the Asfari Institute for Civil Society and Citizenship at the American University of Beirut.

The Asfari Institute seeks to bridge academia and civil society activism. It does so through knowledge production, convenings and the creation of safe spaces for learning, dialogue and exchange. Located at the heart of the American University in Beirut, it functions as a regional hub for civil society working for diversity, inclusion, equality, accountability and sustainability.

What change resulted from the 15 May general election?

Despite taking place in an extremely complicated, uncertain and turbulent political and economic context, the process resulted in the election of many new independent candidates coming from civil society and calling for change. These new voices have political agendas that are very different from those of traditional ruling parties: they call for a new, more accountable governance system and for women’s rights, among other issues. These agendas include road maps for overcoming the ongoing deep economic crisis. And most importantly, they focus on how to stop the political race to the bottom that’s been happening in Lebanon.

Most of the independent candidates who were elected are linked to the 17 October protests, the uprisings that took place in 2019, when people clearly said that they had enough of the political elite that had become – and continues to be – outrageously corrupt. The 17 October Revolution was a unique moment because protesters had such diverse, inclusive and feminist voices – feminist demands became an integral part of the political demands of the revolution. For instance, sexual harassment became a political issue because the voices of the LGBTQI+ community and migrant women domestic workers were also represented. No demand was compromised or put aside.

By that time, it became clear to us what system of governance we aspired to. It must be based on equality, inclusion, diversity and respect for human rights. The revolution also gained momentum because the same thing was happening in Chile and other countries where people were rising up. Hence, I do not exaggerate when I say that the feminist voices of the 17 October Revolution inspired political participation in the 2022 election.

It is important to note, however, that some independent members of the new parliament do not share the agenda of the 17 October Revolution and have quite regressive rhetoric. For instance, newly elected member of parliament Cynthia Zarazir called for the death of Syrian refugees on social media. Having people like her in parliament represents a new challenge. Aside from that, I would say that this election has brought to the forefront new voices speaking about rights and pointing the way forward out of the current crisis.

How did the feminist movement work collectively in preparation for the election?

There was rallying behind feminist candidates such as Zoya Jureidini Rouhana, who pushes for an compulsory egalitarian family law, a top priority for Lebanon’s feminist movement. Rouhana is the founder of KAFA (‘enough’) Violence and Exploitation, a feminist civil society organisation that was behind several legal reforms in Lebanon. Moreover, it champions political discourse on gender-based violence. Her electoral campaign was in line with that. It is a rare moment when you have a feminist candidate running on a feminist agenda in a general election – and this was partly possible thanks to the voices that became heard in October 2019. The political movement took shape and gained more feminist voices during those uprisings.

Feminists mobilising around the elections forced candidates to state their position on gender equality, including the rights of the queer community. In return, independent candidates who sided with gender equality were attacked by the regime and conservative forces. One way for government officials and supporters to disparage and attack somebody is to say they are going to endanger the family. This is very unfortunate, but at the same time, it is fantastic that this important conversation is taking place in the public sphere and these issues are being discussed as part of the overall social and political dialogue.

In sum, the inclusive and intersectional feminist movement of Lebanon has succeeded in elevating feminist discourse to the public and political arena. But there is still a long way to go: the new parliament includes only two additional female members compared to the previous one, as only eight women were elected, out of 115 candidates nominated by traditional parties, opposition groups, and civil society. These results are still lacking in terms of reaching a critical mass to exercise feminist influence in parliament.

What’s next for the civil society movement following the election?

The real battle is just about to begin. The election showed that change is possible, but it is still not enough. The next step for us is to figure out how we will hold independent members of parliament accountable. They must be accountable because they won as a result of our collective movement.

We will still be facing a corrupt and oppressive regime and serious issues such as illegal arms and a heavily militarised society, economic downfall, destroyed livelihoods, broken public institutions and irresponsible and unaccountable policymaking. As such, civil society in its diversity, and especially the intersectional feminist movement, should remain vigilant.

The conversation we started must continue, and we need our international allies to help keep it going, and certainly not be complicit with the regime. We have a collective responsibility to monitor human rights violations, talk to feminist activists and help amplify the voices of Lebanon’s intersectional young feminists.

Civic space in Lebanon is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS monitor.
Get in touch with the Asfari Institute through itswebsite and follow@AsfariInstitute on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks about the 7 October election in Lesotho with Libakiso Matlho, executive director of Women and Law in Southern Africa Research and Education Trust-Lesotho (WLSA). 

WLSA is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in Southern Africa and working to promote women’s leadership and eradicate gender-based violence. It contributed to the recent election process by providing voter education. 

How would you assess the recent election   in  Lesotho in terms of its   transparency   and fairness?

Looking at the overall proceedings I would say they were transparent and fair. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) did a good job. All candidates were given a  platform to share their manifestos as well as their campaigning approaches at different  levels, including through the media  and public gatherings. Independent candidates did not face any threats. Nobody experienced any restrictions in terms of the exercise of their right to reach out to members of the community and potential voters. Voters were free to attend candidates’ forums and political party rallies.

There were two major challenges, however. One concerned voter civic education, which started a bit later than normal and therefore lasted only about three or four weeks, so it was not as broad as should have been.

 The other challenge had to do with the dynamics of the campaign, which was affected by conflict among candidates during public forums. Some participants invited to take part in the discussions also caused chaos. This  unfortunately led to a few discussions being cancelled before all the candidates could present their manifestos in some areas, especially those that were marked as hotspots.

Do you foresee any election-related conflict?

It is hard to predict, but this election seems to have been a bit different from others in the past, which makes me wonder.

Around 65 political parties and 2,560 candidates competed in the 7 October election. For a small country with a population of two million, that is a huge number of people. And many might find it difficult to accept the outcome if things do not happen according to their expectations. 

The election itself was peaceful, but political tension mounted as votes were counted over the following days. The results were announced on 11 October: the opposition Revolution for Prosperity party came first but was short of a majority, with 56 of 120 seats, while the incumbent All Basotho Convention party (ABC) came second. It is not clear whether ABC will contest the results and its supporters will take to the streets in protest. If this happens, clashes with rival parties might occur and security force repression could follow.

I would not rule conflict out but rather consider it as likely to happen as not.

Do you think the failure to pass constitutional reforms had an impact on the election results?

I think the failure to pass the Omnibus Constitutional Bill, which had been years in the making, probably had a strong impact on the electoral process, and will definitely have an impact on what happens next.

The bill sought to amend key provisions regarding political parties, candidate selection, floor-crossing in parliament, the appointment of senior officials and the role of the prime minister, whose removal would require a two-thirds majority. In May, all major parties in parliament committed to pass the bill by the end of June, but disagreements held it up much longer.

One of the key issues of contention concerned the electoral law, which only allows party leaders to submit a proportional representation party list. With the current system, 80 members of parliament are elected in constituencies and 40 are elected through a proportional division of votes. Small parties are negatively affected because to get some proportional representation seats, they are forced to come together into a list with larger parties, and if they are unable to merge with other parties they are left out.

Another key issue wasthe politicisation of the security sector, which contributes to political instability. The reforms proposed a way to deal with this.

The reforms were eventually passed as parliament was reconvened for an urgent session but, following a series of legal challenges, the Constitutional Court declared them null and void at the last minute before the election.

The failure to pass the reforms will also contribute to continuing difficulties in maintaining coalition governments. Lesotho has had coalition governments since 2012 that have never served a full five-year term due to conflicts that led to their dissolution. In 2017 ABC formed a six-party coalition government, but because of internal conflict Prime Minister Tom Thabane was forced to resign in 2020 and was replaced by Moeketsi Majoro.

Coalitions have not made for stable and effective governments. The coalition-forming process also confuses voters because ideologies are not a big factor when putting them together. This makes voters a bit sceptical that their parties will remain faithful to their mandate.

These were some of the issues the reform was meant to address, but unfortunately they remain unaddressed to this day.

What did voters expect from the election?

One of the expectations voters place on political parties is that they will work on improving service delivery. This includes fixing infrastructure and providing access to water and electricity, among other things. Lesotho also has high rates of unemployment and widespread problems of gender-based violence and femicides, as well as high crime rates that people hope will be addressed by the new government.

Basotho people are not happy with the way the public sector has been managed over the years. Employment is mostly driven by nepotism and political affinities. People are uneasy because political parties on the campaign trail are quick to promise they will fix these things but once in power they fail to deliver.

We have also seen a lot of instability in a key industry, the textile industry, with COVID-19 only making things worse. People were already dealing with bad working conditions and when the pandemic hit many were fired unfairly. This led to worker strikes and has negatively affected foreign investment. Elected leaders need to find means of retaining foreign investment while ensuring good work conditions.

How can the international community support civil society’s work to strengthen democracy in Lesotho?

During the election, civil society faced the challenge that almost all funding for civic education came from the IEC, that is, from the government budget. This could potentially compromise civil society’s watchdog role. Additionally, these funds are never sufficient to allow civil society to conduct its work thoroughly.

The international community should support capacity building so that civil society can conduct robust advocacy during and after the election period. Collaboration between international and local CSOs is also important. For the recent election local CSOs took on voter education alone, without any involvement by international CSOs. We must work hand in hand to promote democracy in our countries and hold our leaders accountable.

Civic space in Lesotho is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with WLSA through itswebsite orFacebook page.

CIVICUS s’entretient avec Michael Kaiyatsa, directeur exécutif par intérim du Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), au sujet des récentes élections présidentielles au Malawi, qui se sont déroulées dans le contexte de la pandémie de COVID-19 et ont abouti à un changement de gouvernement. Le CHRR est une organisation de la société civile (OSC) qui soutient et promeut la démocratie et les droits humains au Malawi. Sa mission est de contribuer à la protection, la promotion et la consolidation de la bonne gouvernance en donnant aux communautés rurales et urbaines les moyens d’exercer leurs droits. Fondée en 1995 par d’anciens étudiants exilés qui sont rentrés dans le pays, attirés par la promesse d’une nouvelle démocratie, elle opère à travers deux programmes principaux : la mobilisation et l’autonomisation des communautés et la surveillance et la formation en matière de droits humains.

L’élection présidentielle a eu lieu au Malawi en juin 2020, en pleine pandémie de COVID-19 et en pleine crise politique. Quels rôles ont joué la société civile et le système judiciaire dans la réalisation de l’élection ?

Je pense qu’il est juste de dire que les manifestations menées par les avocats et la société civile ont ouvert la voie à la tenue d’une nouvelle élection présidentielle. L’élection qui s’est tenue le 23 juin 2020 était un nouveau scrutin ordonné par la Cour constitutionnelle du Malawi le 3 février 2020, lorsqu’elle a décidé d’annuler l’élection présidentielle du 21 mai 2019, en invoquant des irrégularités massives.

Lors de la présidentielle de mai 2019, le président sortant Peter Mutharika a été déclaré vainqueur au scrutin majoritaire à un tour, avec 38,57 % des voix. Cependant, l’opposition a affirmé que l’élection était frauduleuse. Elle a cité, entre autres, l’utilisation présumée de liquide correcteur Tippex pour modifier les chiffres sur les bulletins de vote. Le Dr Lazarus Chakwera, du Malawi Congress Party (MCP), et le Dr Saulos Chilima, du United Transformation Movement, ont demandé à la Cour constitutionnelle d’annuler les résultats de l’élection présidentielle. Tous deux ont invoqué des irrégularités généralisées, notamment l’utilisation de Tippex et des signatures manquantes sur certaines listes de résultats.

L’arrêt historique de la Cour constitutionnelle, validé ensuite par la Cour suprême, constitue une illustration remarquable de l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire dans la démocratie naissante du Malawi. Cependant, la clé de cet arrêt n’est pas seulement l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire, mais aussi les mois de manifestations de masse menées par la société civile. Les protestations étaient si soutenues et vigoureuses qu'elles ne pouvaient être ignorées par les institutions démocratiques majeures comme le pouvoir judiciaire. La Human Rights Defenders Coalition, un groupement influent de la société civile, a courageusement conduit des milliers de personnes dans les rues à maintes reprises pour protester contre les résultats erronés des élections de mai 2019. Cette action a été particulièrement importante car elle a considérablement augmenté la pression sur le pouvoir judiciaire et d'autres institutions démocratiques incontournables pour qu'ils agissent comme il se doit. Il ne s’agit pas de sous-estimer le rôle joué par le pouvoir judiciaire. Les juges se sont vraiment levés pour défendre la démocratie. Avant l'arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle, il y a eu plusieurs tentatives de corruption des juges pour que l'arrêt soit favorable à l’ancien président Mutharika ; un banquier de premier plan a d’ailleurs été arrêté dans le cadre de cette affaire de corruption. De nombreuses menaces ont également pesé sur l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire avant la tenue de la nouvelle élection, notamment une tentative du gouvernement de mettre à la retraite anticipée des juges de haut rang de la Cour suprême quelques jours avant l’élection. Les juges auraient pu facilement succomber à cette intimidation et statuer en faveur de Mutharika, mais ils ne l’ont pas fait. Au contraire, ils ont tenu bon et ont rendu un jugement qui a radicalement changé la façon dont le Malawi est gouverné.

La société civile a contesté avec succès la décision du gouvernement précédent d’imposer un confinement. Pourquoi l’a-t-elle fait, alors que d’autres pays dans le monde mettaient en œuvre des mesures similaires ?

La société civile voulait que le confinement soit suspendu jusqu’à ce que le gouvernement trouve un moyen de protéger les personnes les plus pauvres et les plus vulnérables. Les groupes de la société civile étaient mécontents que le gouvernement n’ait pas mis en place un filet de sécurité sociale pour les personnes les plus vulnérables pendant le confinement, ce qui a conduit la Human Rights Defenders Coalition et d’autres OSC à demander une décision de justice pour la suspendre. Il s’agit d’un instantané de la réalité que vivent de nombreuses personnes au Malawi au quotidien.

Il est également important de noter que la demande de la société civile est intervenue après que des milliers de commerçants informels dans les villes de Blantyre et de Mzuzu et dans des districts tels que Thyolo soient descendus dans la rue pour protester contre le confinement avec des banderoles sur lesquelles était écrit « nous préférons mourir du coronavirus plutôt que de mourir de faim ». Beaucoup de ces vendeurs sont des gens qui gagnent leur vie au jour le jour et un confinement aurait pu les affecter gravement. La société civile et les citoyens soupçonnaient de plus en plus le gouvernement d’essayer d’utiliser le confinement pour justifier l’annulation ou le report des élections.

Quel a été le taux de participation aux élections ? A-t-on craint que les citoyens ne se déplacent pas pour voter par peur de contracter le virus ?

On craignait que les gens ne se rendent pas aux urnes en grand nombre par peur de la contagion dans le contexte de la pandémie. On craignait, par exemple, qu’étant donné la nécessité de ne pas se réunir en grands groupes et de maintenir une distance sociale, les citoyens préfèrent ne pas quitter leur domicile pour voter, par souci de leur propre santé et de celle de leur famille. Il y avait également un risque important que les personnes dissuadées de voter appartiennent de manière disproportionnée aux groupes d’âge plus élevés ou aux personnes souffrant de maladies préexistantes. Ainsi, la légitimité de l’élection pouvait être sapée par des restrictions injustes imposées à certains segments de la société et donc par leur participation inégale.

Ces craintes se sont en partie concrétisées. La participation des électeurs a été plus faible que lors des élections précédentes. Sur les 6 859 570 Malawites inscrits pour voter en 2020, 64,8 % ont voté. Ce chiffre est inférieur à celui de mai 2019, lorsque 74,4 % des électeurs inscrits avaient participé. Mais le faible taux de participation pourrait également être attribué à l’insuffisance des campagnes d’éducation civique et électorale. Contrairement aux élections précédentes, la plupart des OSC n’ont pas été en mesure de mener à bien ces campagnes en raison d’un manque de ressources. L’incertitude quant à la date des élections a rendu difficile la mobilisation des ressources par les OSC. La précédente Commission électorale du Malawi (MEC) n’a pas donné suffisamment confiance à la population pour que les élections aient lieu dans le délai imparti de 150 jours. La date officielle de l’élection a été fixée à peine deux semaines à l’avance, et il n’a pas été facile de mobiliser des ressources pour mener une éducation civique et électorale dans un délai aussi court.

Cependant, il est également possible que certains Malawites aient évité de se rendre aux urnes à cause de la pandémie de COVID-19. Le jour de l’élection, on comptait déjà 803 cas documentés et 11 décès dus au COVID-19 au Malawi. Il est donc possible que certaines personnes - en particulier les personnes âgées ou celles ayant des problèmes de santé préexistants - se soient abstenues de se rendre aux urnes.

Quels ont été les défis de l’organisation d’élections pendant une pandémie ?

L’expérience du Malawi a montré que l’organisation d’élections pendant une pandémie peut être très difficile. Les mesures de précaution émises par le gouvernement n’autorisent pas les rassemblements de plus de 100 personnes. Cependant, la plupart des partis politiques ont ignoré cette restriction et ont organisé des événements de campagne qui dépassaient ce nombre.

L’un des principaux défis auxquels la MEC a été confrontée lors de ces nouvelles élections était la nécessité de donner la priorité à la santé et à la sécurité des électeurs tout en garantissant l’intégrité des élections. La MEC dispose généralement d’un budget pour l’éducation des électeurs qui est utilisé avant chaque élection. Cependant, comme cette nouvelle élection n’a pas été budgétisée à l’avance, la MEC a dû faire face à des difficultés financières, qui ont été aggravées par la pandémie de COVID-19, car elle a nécessité l’achat d’équipements de protection individuelle, ajoutant des contraintes budgétaires supplémentaires.

La MEC a également rencontré des difficultés importantes en ce qui concerne la production et la distribution du matériel de vote. Le Malawi importe beaucoup de matériel électoral d’autres pays. Alors que le Malawi se préparait aux nouvelles élections, de nombreux pays étaient en confinement total ou partiel en raison de la pandémie. Cela a eu des répercussions sur les préparatifs des élections, car certains fournisseurs ont eu des difficultés à transporter des matériaux au-delà des frontières internationales. En conséquence, l’impression des bulletins de vote, qui a eu lieu à Dubaï, a connu des retards importants.

Un autre défi a été que les partis politiques n’ont pas pu surveiller le processus d’impression des bulletins de vote, comme cela a toujours été le cas, en raison des restrictions de voyage liées à la COVID-19. Une autre conséquence importante de la pandémie a été l’absence d’observateurs électoraux internationaux. Compte tenu des restrictions de voyage imposées dans le monde entier, la capacité des observateurs internationaux à contrôler les élections a été considérablement réduite. Et comme mentionné ci-dessus, la pandémie a également affecté la participation électorale.

Maintenant que l’élection a abouti à la nomination d’un nouveau président, qu’attend la société civile du nouveau gouvernement ?

La société civile attend beaucoup du nouveau gouvernement. Principalement, elle attend que le programme du nouveau gouvernement donne la priorité aux droits humains et renforce les libertés fondamentales de tous les Malawites, conformément aux normes internationales en la matière. On attend également du gouvernement qu’il agisse pour protéger l’espace de la société civile. La nouvelle élection présidentielle s’est déroulée dans un contexte d’attaques concertées du gouvernement contre la société civile et le pouvoir judiciaire. Nous attendons du nouveau gouvernement qu’il tienne sa promesse électorale de protéger l’espace civique et de permettre aux OSC de fonctionner librement.

Dans son manifeste électoral de 2019, le MCP, qui dirige l’Alliance Tonse (un mot qui signifie « nous tous »), une coalition de neuf partis politiques formée quelques semaines avant la nouvelle élection pour déloger Mutharika, a promis de soutenir le fonctionnement des OSC locales et internationales de défense des droits humains grâce à un cadre politique, institutionnel et législatif permissif et habilitant, et de faciliter le développement progressif d’une société civile pleinement capable de demander des comptes au gouvernement et de faire respecter les droits des citoyens. Nous espérons que le nouveau gouvernement donnera suite à cette promesse et retirera le projet de loi oppressif sur les ONG de 2018, qui contient un certain nombre de dispositions susceptibles de constituer une menace pour la capacité des OSC à fonctionner. Le projet de loi augmenterait le montant de la pénalité imposée à une OSC en infraction avec la loi, qui passerait de 70 dollars US actuellement à 20 000 dollars US. Il prévoit également une peine de sept ans de prison pour les dirigeants d’OSC reconnus coupables de violation de la loi. Ainsi, par exemple, si vous tardez à envoyer un rapport à l’Autorité des ONG, vous risquez une amende de 20 000 dollars US. En outre, les directeurs de l’organisation pourraient être envoyés en prison pour sept ans. Il s'agit d'une disposition ridicule. C’est le genre de disposition que l’on ne trouve que dans les États autoritaires. Nous espérons également que le nouveau gouvernement supprimera le nouveau régime de cotisation, qui est répressif et impose une lourde charge aux OSC, et rétablira l’ancien système de cotisation. Les nouveaux frais que les OSC doivent payer au Conseil des ONG ont été augmentés en janvier 2018, passant de 70 dollars US à 1 400 dollars US.

De quel soutien la société civile malawite aura-t-elle besoin de la part des partenaires internationaux pour aider à soutenir la démocratie au Malawi ?

Maintenant que les élections sont terminées, il est urgent que la société civile se réunisse et élabore une feuille de route et des plans d’action comprenant un mécanisme solide de contrôle des actions du gouvernement. Pour ce faire, et en particulier pour développer leurs capacités à demander au nouveau gouvernement de rendre compte de ses engagements, les OSC ont besoin du soutien des OSC internationales. Les OSC ont également besoin d’un soutien financier pour renforcer leur rôle en tant qu’acteurs de la gouvernance et de la responsabilité locales. La viabilité financière est essentielle pour que les OSC locales deviennent des organisations résilientes et efficaces. Les OSC et les donateurs internationaux ont un rôle clé à jouer pour contribuer à la durabilité des OSC locales. Enfin, les OSC ont besoin du soutien moral des OSC internationales pour être plus efficaces. Pendant la campagne pour l’intégrité des élections, les OSC locales ont reçu un soutien massif de la société civile internationale par le biais de déclarations dans les médias et de lettres aux autorités. Nous espérons que ce soutien se poursuivra tandis que nous nous lançons dans la tâche ardue de surveiller les actions du nouveau gouvernement, notamment en ce qui concerne la lutte contre la corruption et la fin de la culture d’impunité qui prévaut depuis longtemps en ce qui concerne les violations des droits humains.

L’espace civique au Malawi est classé « obstrué » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

Contactez le Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation via sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook, et suivez@CHRRMalawi sur Twitter. 

CIVICUS speaks with Michael Kaiyatsa, acting Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR),about the recent presidential election in Malawi, which were held in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and led to a change of government. The CHRR is civil society organisation (CSO) aimed at supporting and promoting democracy and human rights in Malawi. Its mission is to contribute towards the protection, promotion and consolidation of good governance by empowering rural and urban communities to exercise their rights. Founded in 1995 by former student exiles who returned home to the promise of a new democracy, it operates through two core programmes: Community Mobilisation and Empowerment and Human Rights Monitoring and Training.

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and a political crisis, the presidential election was held in Malawi in June 2020. What was the role of civil society and the judiciary in ensuring that the election took place?

I think it is fair to say that judges and civil society-led protests paved the way for the fresh presidential election to be held. The election that was held on 23 June 2020 was a rerun ordered by Malawi’s Constitutional Court, which ruled on 3 February 2020 to overturn the 21 May 2019 presidential election, citing massive irregularities.

In the May 2019 presidential contest, the incumbent, Peter Mutharika, was declared winner, in the first-past-the-post system, with 38.57 per cent of the vote. However, the opposition claimed the poll had been fraudulent. They cited, among other things, the alleged use of Tippex correction fluid to change vote tallies. Dr Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party and Dr Saulos Chilima of the United Transformation Movement petitioned the Constitutional Court, seeking to overturn the presidential election results. The two cited widespread irregularities, including the use of Tippex and missing signatures on some result sheets.

The Constitutional Court’s historic ruling, later validated by the country’s Supreme Court, represents a noteworthy illustration of the independence of the judiciary in Malawi’s maturing democracy. However, key to the ruling was not only the independence of Malawi’s judiciary but also months of civil society-led mass demonstrations. The protests were so sustained and vigorous that they could not be ignored by key democratic institutions like the judiciary. The Human Rights Defenders Coalition, an influential civil society grouping, courageously brought thousands of people to the streets on a regular basis to campaign against the botched outcome of the May 2019 election. This was particularly important because it significantly increased the pressure on the judiciary and other key democratic institutions to do the right thing.

This is not to underrate the role played by the judiciary. The judges really stood up to defend democracy. Prior to the Constitutional Court ruling there had been several attempts to bribe the judges to ensure that the ruling went in former President Mutharika’s favour: one prominent banker was arrested in connection with the bribery case. There were also numerous threats to the independence of the judiciary prior to the rerun, including a government attempt to force out senior Supreme Court judges through early retirement just days before the rerun. The judges could have easily succumbed to such intimidation and ruled in favour of Mutharika, but they did not. Instead, they stood firm and delivered a radical judgement that has changed the way Malawi is governed.

Civil society successfully challenged a decision by the former government to impose a lockdown. Why did civil society object to it when other countries around the world were implementing similar measures?

Civil society wanted the lockdown to be put on hold until the government could come up with some way to protect the country’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Civil society groups were unhappy that the government did not outline a social safety net for vulnerable people during the lockdown, which prompted the Human Rights Defenders Coalition and other CSOs to seek a stop order from the court. It is a fact that many people in Malawi operate on a hand-to-mouth basis.

It is also important to note that the civil society challenge came after thousands of informal traders in the cities of Blantyre and Mzuzu and in districts like Thyolo had taken to the streets to protest against the lockdown with placards that read, ‘We’d rather die of corona than die of hunger’. Many of these vendors are daily wage earners and a lockdown could have badly affected them. There was also growing suspicion among civil society and the citizenry that the government was trying to use the lockdown to justify the cancellation or postponement of the elections.

How was the election turnout? Were there worries that Malawians would not come out to vote for fear of contagion?

There were worries that Malawians would not come out in their numbers to vote because of health concerns caused by the pandemic. It was feared, for example, that with the need for limited exposure to large groups and social distancing, citizens might be less likely to leave their homes to vote because of concerns for their own health and that of their family members. There was also a major risk that those deterred from voting would be disproportionately from older age groups or people with underlying health conditions. The legitimacy of the contest might therefore be undermined by unfair restrictions placed on certain segments of society and thus by their uneven participation. 

These fears were partly realised. The voter turnout was lower than in the previous election. Of the 6,859,570 Malawians registered to vote in 2020, 64.8 per cent voted. This was down from May 2019, when 74.4 per cent of registered voters participated. But the low turnout could also be attributed to inadequate voter and civic education campaigns. Unlike in previous elections, most CSOs were unable to conduct civic and voter education due to resource challenges. The uncertainty of polling dates made it difficult for CSOs to mobilise resources. The previous Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) did not give people confidence that the elections would take place within the stipulated 150 days. The official date for the polls was fixed only around two weeks before the elections, so mobilising resources to conduct civic and voter education at such short notice was not easy.

However, it is also true that some Malawians may have avoided the polls because of the growing COVID-19 pandemic. By election day, there were 803 documented cases and 11 recorded COVID-19 deaths in Malawi so some people – possibly older people and those with pre-existing health conditions – may have stayed away.

What were the challenges of organising elections during a pandemic?

The experience in Malawi has shown that organising elections during a pandemic can be very challenging. The prevention measures outlined by the government do not allow gatherings of more than 100 people. However, most political parties ignored this restriction and held campaign meetings exceeding this number.

A key challenge faced by the MEC during this fresh election was the need to put the health and safety of voters first while ensuring the integrity of elections. The MEC usually has a voter education budget that is utilised ahead of each election. However, given that this fresh election was not budgeted for earlier, the MEC faced financial challenges, which deepened as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which required the procurement of personal protective equipment, adding further budgetary constraints.

The MEC also experienced significant challenges with the production and distribution of voting materials. Malawi imports many election materials from other countries. As Malawi was gearing up for the fresh election, many countries were on full or partial lockdown in the wake of the pandemic. This impacted on election preparations, as some suppliers found it difficult to transport goods internationally. Because of all this, there were significant delays in the printing of ballot papers, which was done in Dubai.

Another challenge was that political parties were not able to monitor the ballot printing process, as has always been the case, due to COVID-19 related travel restrictions. A further important consequence of the pandemic was the absence of international election observers. With international travel restrictions imposed worldwide, the ability of international observers to observe the election was dramatically restricted. And as already mentioned, the pandemic affected voter turnout.

Now that the rerun election has led to the ousting of the incumbent and a new president, what does civil society expect from the new government?

Civil society has many expectations of the new government. One of the key expectations is that the new government will place the promotion and protection of human rights at the top of its agenda and strengthen the fundamental freedoms of all Malawians in line with international human rights standards. It is also hoped that the government will move to protect the space for civil society. The fresh presidential election took place amidst concerted government attacks on civil society and the judiciary. It is our expectation that the new government will fulfil its election promise to protect civic space and allow CSOs to operate freely.

In its 2019 election manifesto, the Malawi Congress Party, which leads the Tonse Alliance (‘Tonse’ meaning ‘all of us’), a grouping of nine political parties formed weeks before the fresh poll to unseat Mutharika, promised to support the operations of local and international human rights CSOs through a permissive and enabling policy and institutional and legislative framework and to facilitate the progressive development of a civil society that is fully capable of holding the government accountable and defending citizens’ rights. It is our hope that the new administration will walk the talk on this promise and withdraw the oppressive NGO Act (Amendment Bill) of 2018, which contains a number of provisions that could pose a threat to CSOs’ ability to operate. The proposed legislation would raise the penalty fee imposed on a CSO in breach of the law from the current US$70 to US$20,000. It would also impose a seven-year jail term on CSO leaders found in breach of the law. So, for example, if you delay submitting a report to the NGO Authority, you could be fined US$20,000 and the directors of the organisation could be sent to prison for seven years. This is a ridiculous provision. It is a provision that can only be found in authoritarian states. We also hope the new administration will scrap the new fee regime, which is repressive and quite high for CSOs, and revert to the old fees. The new fees that CSOs have to pay to the NGO Board were increased in January 2018 from US$70 to US$1,400.

What support will civil society in Malawi need from international civil society to help sustain Malawi’s democracy?

One thing that is urgent now that elections are out of the way is for civil society to sit down and develop an action plan and roadmap, which can include a robust mechanism to check on the government's actions. In this regard, CSOs need the support of international CSOs, particularly to develop their capacities to hold the new government to account on its commitments. CSOs also need financial support to reinforce their role in local governance and accountability. Financial sustainability is crucial for local CSOs if they are to become resilient, effective organisations. International CSOs and donors have a key role to play in helping local CSOs become more sustainable. Finally, CSOs need moral support from international CSOs to be more effective. During the campaign for electoral integrity, local CSOs received overwhelming support from international CSOs through media statements and letters to authorities. It is our hope that this support will continue as we embark on the arduous task of checking the new government’s actions, especially in addressing corruption and the longstanding culture of impunity for human rights violations.

Civic space in Malawi is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@CHRRMalawi on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks with Tharma Pillai, co-founder and Advocacy Director of Undi18.

A youth civil society organisation (CSO) born out of the student movement, Undi18 successfully advocated for the amendment of article 119(1) of Malaysia’s Constitution to reduce the minimum voting age, allowing people over 18 to vote in the 19 November 2022 election.

How did Undi18 start and what was your objective?

In 2016, my co-founder and I were both studying in the USA and that year’s election inspired us. I came from a sciences and technology background, where most people don’t really care about these things. But seeing democracy in action and our US classmates engage with the electoral process made us reflect on our inability to vote in our home country, Malaysia. It was quite interesting that because they had the right to vote, they felt the responsibility of helping choose the best possible leader for their country.

We started thinking of ways to replicate these practices and bring this kind of energy into Malaysian university campuses. It was only natural for us to focus on the right to vote because voting age in Malaysia was 21, which meant that a high proportion of college students were ineligible to vote. This did not happen in the USA, where the minimum voting age is 18. By 2016, some of our US classmates were voting for the second time in their lives, while I had never yet had the chance. We thought that would have to change 

When we did our research, we realised that our demand was not radical at all, and in fact it was long overdue. We were one of only eight countries in the entire world with a minimum voting age as high as 21. We launched Undi18 – which means ‘Vote18’ – as soon as we came back to Malaysia. Our single focus was on the amendment of article 119(1) of the Federal Constitution to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.

What tactics did you use to campaign for change?

To make sure we had a stronger voice, in the first year we ran a digital advocacy campaign, something unheard of in Malaysia, where most civil society work and campaigning take place very much on the ground. We came into existence as a hashtag movement in February 2017.

At the time we were not registered as a CSO. We didn’t have funding. Our team was very small. The campaign was our passion project. But due to effective digital mobilisation, it looked like we had so many supporters. That prompted the media to pick up on our story. We were always willing to work with people of all political leanings.

Many Malaysian CSOs tend to side squarely with the opposition because for a long time our country had one-party rule. We of course worked with the opposition, but we also engaged with other parties. That also made us open to engaging with whoever criticised our movement and addressing any grievances directly.

In addition to the digital campaign, we started off a petition and a memorandum to the prime minister. Unfortunately, we didn’t get too far with the government. We knocked on many doors and talked to many people, but the government viewed young people as inclined to vote for the opposition, so they disliked the idea of lowering the voting age for reasons of political calculation. But we gained traction with the opposition, which raised the issue in their manifesto. This gave us a lot of leverage when the opposition eventually came to power in 2018. They had promised to deliver change on this issue.

How did you engage with the parliamentary process?

As soon as the new government was inaugurated, we tried to convince them to introduce an amendment bill, but there were challenges. No constitutional amendment had ever been passed in Malaysia by a government without a parliamentary supermajority of two thirds, and this new government only had a simple majority. It took a year for the government to finally greenlight the
initiative.

But not having a supermajority, the government needed to negotiate with the opposition. We did our best to engage with political parties across the spectrum, especially those in the opposition, to convince them that this was not a partisan initiative and all could benefit, them included. We pleaded with them to support the bill for the sake of young people, democracy and Malaysia’s future. Luckily, the then-Minister of Youth and Sports was a very strong ally of ours and helped us navigate these obstacles.

Thanks to these efforts, in July 2019 this became the first constitutional amendment in Malaysia’s history to pass with 100 per cent of the votes in the lower and upper houses of parliament.

Were there any implementation challenges?

There were postponements and delays. The agreement with the opposition was that the law would be implemented within two years. The two-year timeline was unusual, but necessary due to the technical difficulties entailed by the new automatic voter registration system.

Repeated promises were made that this would be done by July 2021.But another change of government slowed things down, as the new government thought young voters would vote against it. In March 2021, it announced implementation would be postponed until September 2022 at the earliest, but it didn’t provide a clear date.

We campaigned against this postponement and held protests across Malaysia, which grew to include larger issues fuelling public anger, including the economic situation, the shutdown of parliament and the poor management of the COVID-19 health crisis. We also sued the government. We filed a judicial review against the prime minister, the Election Commission and the government of Malaysia for postponing the implementation of the UNDI18 Bill beyond the due date. The High Court decided in our favour and ordered the federal government to implement the bill by 31 December 2021. Due to public pressure that was sustained thanks to the protests, the government decided against appealing the verdict and complied. As a result, the bill was finally implemented on 15 December 2021, and when the updated voter rolls were published one month later an additional 5.8 million voters had been included in the system and 18-year-olds could officially vote in the next election.

What were the main elements of the amendment?

The amendment had three components. First, it lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Second, it also lowered the minimum running age to 18, meaning you could become an elected member of parliament at that age. And third, it established automatic voter registration for anyone turning 18.

The 2022 elections were the first in which people between 18 and 21 cast their ballots. An additional 5.8 million new voters were added to the electoral roll issued in January 2022. Malaysia being a country of 33 million, this was quite a number.

In Malaysia, ‘young voters’ are defined as those between 18 to 40 years old. After the changes, they account for 51 per cent of the electoral roll, up from 40 per cent. This means young people could make change happen. Malaysian politics are dominated by old people. At one point we had the oldest prime minister in the world – a 93-year-old man. Now for the first time, young voters could be Malaysia’s kingmakers. This is why youth turnout is a key element to watch when analysing the results of this election.

Change started happening even before the polls opened. In the run-up to the election, many senior leaders were replaced with younger candidates in order to appeal to young voters. Overall, the number of young and new candidates increased. And all parties had more youth-centric manifestos, addressing some of the concerns expressed by young people, such as corruption, climate change, the state of the economy and healthcare.

What more needs to be done to make policymaking more inclusive of younger people?

I think Malaysia needs political rejuvenation, and that can be done through education. Our society gives too much power to older people, who of course don’t want to let go of it, whether it’s in government, civil society, politics, or business. To change things, you must train young leaders – but nobody is doing this kind of work. At Undi18 we are doing our best to fill that gap so that young people can take up the space, gain power and get ready to be the country’s next leaders.

We strongly believe that informed voters are integral to democratic success, so we have been working with the Ministries of Education and Higher Education to advance educational programmes to address this issue systemically. We want educational curricula to emphasise democracy so the democratisation process beginsin schools. Some topics such as constitutional rights, human rights and the functions of the parliament are already in the syllabus, but they’re not emphasised enough.

We also have our own programmes. We run outreach campaigns on social media platforms. We are quite active there as most of our target audience is there. We also run outreach programmes in schools and universities to educate students about their rights. And we have corporate, civil society, government and international partners to ensure we reach as many people as possible.