From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Sat Apr 10 2010 - 20:21:14 EDT
When is an election boycott not an election boycott?
Apr 10, 2010 04:37 EDT
When it takes place in Sudan.
Preparations for Sudan's general elections - due to start tomorrow - were
thrown into confusion over the past two weeks as opposition parties issued
contradictory statements over whether they were boycotting the polls.
Some announced a total withdrawal, protesting against fraud and unrest in
Darfur, only to change their minds days later. Others pulled out from parts
of the elections - presidential, parliamentary and gubernatorial votes are
taking place at the same time - then changed their minds days later. Others
left it up to individual candidates to decide.
Even a day ahead of voting in the divided oil-producing state, serious
questions remain.
These confusions are more than mere technicalities.
They will hinder the ability of Sudanese voters to make clear choices when
they start queuing up for their first multi-party elections in 24 years.
They could also fuel legal challenges to the results when they are finally
announced later this month, stoking tensions in a country already weighed
down by ethnic divisions and conflict.
Take two examples:
1) The boycotts were announced after ballot papers were printed. That means
the names of all the boycotting candidates are still there on the forms,
with a big fat box next to their party symbols ready for a voter's tick.
So should people vote for them or not? Few parties have issued any
instructions about what their supporters should do, or publicly endorsed
other candidates.
And what happens if one of the boycotting candidates goes on to win an
election? Observers say votes for boycotting candidates will still be
counted as legal. One official, who asked not to be named, said it would
still be possible for Sudan's incumbent president Omar Hassan al-Bashir to
be forced into a second round of voting by support for other candidates who
have pulled out of the race.
Would boycotting parties really refuse to accept a victory if it was handed
to them? Or would they jump in, saying they were competing all the time? One
for the constitutional lawyers to argue over for years.
2) Is south Sudan's dominant Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) in or
out of the race in northern Sudan?
It seemed so clear when party secretary general Pagan Amum told reporters on
Tuesday: "We announce the SPLM boycott of all the elections in the north on
all levels . in 13 states of the north."
Days later, the party's overall leader Salva Kiir announced the SPLM would
be running in the north after all, with the exception of the presidential
race and Darfur. "A clear contradiction, a signs of a split?" asked
reporters. "Not at all", Kiir answered. The SPLM had voted to run in the
north, but left the decision on whether to follow through with that vote to
the party's northern sector, which decided to pull out.
So the SPLM is taking part in elections in northern Sudan, with the
exception of its northern candidates. I hope that clears things up.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----