Allegations of corruption, even if unfounded, undermine the confidence of voters in the lead-up to elections and can affect the outcome of even those elections declared "free and fair". As evidenced by the charges of corruption after the recent Lesotho elections, the issue must be recognised and preventive steps taken in the run-up to South Africa’s 1999 national poll.

"The abuse of public power for private or sectoral gain" is one interpretation of corruption. However within the framework of this article, corruption is not about material advantage being gained by individuals in their private capacity but political advantage that can be gained by the abuse of the existing laws and regulations where controls and checks on the activity of public servants are tenuous and where the constitutions and legislative framework for elections, for example, are not rigorously implemented.

The focus is thus on the relationship between elections and corruption. In the context of this issue there seems to be a trend that corruption increases along with the costs of political representation. This is especially relevant where political parties acquire votes through personal interaction and engagement with the electorate.

The article is premised on the view that for elections to be declared free and fair, or relatively so, certain fundamental principles have to be evident during all stages of the electoral process. If these principles are not present, the election is not only generally not accepted as legitimate but also lends itself to being manipulated and exploited by parties, administrators or the electorate. Some of the fundamental principles include:

Transparency — where there is consensus among all stakeholders about the legislative and regulatory framework of the elections and their implementation;



Inclusivity — all stakeholders are able to participate in the process regardless of any inhibitory factors. This refers to the inclusion of women, youth, rural voters and other historically marginalised groups;



Accessibility — the electorate, and its representatives, have full access to the process during all its stages — campaigning, registration, voting and counting — and have the ability to reach all the voters by having sufficient means (funding) and access;



Legitimacy — where the electoral authority has sufficient credibility to ensure that the process is conducted according to the legislative framework that has been agreed upon by the stakeholders and shows the willingness to deal in a non-partisan manner with any disputes or conflicts that may emerge during the elections process.

For J Elklit and R Svenson in their article What makes elections free and fair?, freedom contrasts with coercion: it "entails the right and opportunity to choose one thing over another". Coercion on the other hand implies the absence of choice, either formally or in reality. In relation to elections, freedom refers to the voters’ opportunity to participate. It deals with the ‘rules of the game’. If these rules are consciously and wittingly disregarded or manipulated, the process is corrupted and the results questionable.

Elklit and Svenson further equate fairness with impartiality. Its opposite is the unequal treatment of individuals by providing some people with unreasonable advantages. Fairness encompasses two elements: regularity and the unprejudiced application of rules. In this context regularity refers to the unbiased application of electoral laws. According to the authors this element must be present in a high degree before an election can be accepted or be seen to be acceptable. Similarly, the perception of the electoral authority as impartial and unbiased by the electorate is fundamental to the success of the election. The entire election can be jeopardised and viewed as corrupt if the electoral authority is perceived to be affiliated too closely with a particular political party, especially the ruling party. It is therefore imperative that the constitutional and legislative provisions be drafted in such a manner that the autonomy of the electoral authority is paramount and not compromised by its structural location in government. Perception of bias or impartiality is determined not only by the overt conduct of the electoral authority but also by the mechanisms used to appoint and terminate the services of its governing body or commissioners.

When determining the result of any election, general principles for freeness and fairness should be sought that reflect the political, social and economic conditions against which the pre-, during and post-electoral processes will be tested.

These principles include those general democratic freedoms which are the preconditions for a sustainable democracy and which should be regarded as taking priority over the concept of fairness. Fairness generally becomes irrelevant in the absence of rules which grant formal political freedoms.

The freedoms that are essential for the conduct of legitimate elections include:

universal suffrage;



freedom of movement, speech, assembly, or association;



freedom from fear during the pre-, during and post-election periods and during political party campaigns;



the freedom to stand for office;



the freedom from intimidation; and



the ability and willingness of the independent electoral authority to address complaints and conflicts that emerge during elections.

If the freedoms and principles outlined above do not, to a lesser or greater extent, exist or do not form part of the conduct of the election, the election itself will not be perceived as free and fair. More importantly, the abuse and disregard of the process will provide scope for manipulation which will undermine the final results and has the potential to cast the society into crisis.

In addition to the imperative for an independent, impartial and non-partisan electoral authority, other areas of the electoral process are also vulnerable to corruption. These include the process of demarcation of outer and inner boundaries and municipalities. This is generally an area where political party interest is high as the process determines how constituencies and political party interests are grouped together. It has the potential to advantage or disadvantage political players. It is therefore essential that the demarcating authority is independent of political interests and has the ability to determine the rules without undue influence from any party.

The siting of voting stations is another area of contention, especially in developing countries, where geographic location is an issue for negotiation between democratic and traditional authorities. Traditional leadership can be influenced to agree to placing voter stations in areas that are not politically accessible to certain parties.

Political party behaviour is also an area of great concern when assessing how elections can be corrupted. Parties have the ability to undermine the process in order to meet their own ends by either instituting legal proceedings at crucial moments in the process, thereby either preventing or delaying the conduct of the poll or by creating unnecessary conflict in their opponents’ geographic regions which prevent the election continuing. Other more identifiable areas of corruption in the electoral process include the illegal printing of additional ballot forms for distribution, the adding of fictitious (or of deceased persons’) names to the voters roll and corrupt administrative and polling officials in charge of the voting and counting processes. In regard to political parties the process of nomination, voting and ranking candidates on lists can also be corrupt, through promises being made to candidates for favours and the manipulation of the lists to represent the interests of the party rather than the voters.

These are only some of the areas where the process of elections can be corrupted. Some issues have a greater determining effect on the freeness and fairness of elections and when analysing the level of corruption of the process, the value of each of the variables in the electoral process must be assessed. In preparation for next year, however, South Africa should be paying close attention to each of these areas to prevent any allegations of corruption from occurring before, during and after the national election.

Dren Nupen,
Electoral Institute of South Africa