Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Elections are an integral part of any democracy. They serve as a mechanism for legitimising a political system – its succession of government and leaders – for linking political institutions with voters, and for holding the elected government and leaders accountable to the electorate. Yet, due to the combative nature of competition for political power in high-stake contexts, elections may lead to violence. Usually this happens if key stakeholders anticipate the proceedings will not be free and fair, while those seeking to retain or gain political power show no qualms about resorting to extraordinary measures such as using force in order to win. Sometimes there exist underlying causes of electoral violence such as exclusion, inequality, or a history of ethnic tensions. Zanzibar, a semi-autonomous group of islands off the mainland coast of the United Republic of Tanzania, exhibits such a case whereby almost every one of its general elections has been marred with violence. Today, as the concern escalates over threats of immanent physical combat related to elections in so-called 'advanced' democracies, it is illuminating to revisit the drivers of electoral violence in Zanzibar, and to reconsider the efficacy of its early warning mechanisms, since the inception of Zanzibar's multiparty politics in 1992.

ABSTRACTThe unfolding of the Third Wave of democracy cast a mounting weight on election observation in transition countries, partly due to the inability of regimes in power to conduct free and fair elections. However, observation is not always neutral. Sometimes observers distance themselves from the data they collect, leading to controversial certification of elections. In this case stakeholders may view them as partial, hence downsizing their credibility and trust. Yet observers' reports have rarely been reviewed. This article evaluates three reports by the leading election observer in Tanzania, the Tanzania Election Monitoring Committee (TEMCO) for the 1995, 2000 and 2005 general elections. It notes that despite the prevalence of the same factors that TEMCO considered as irregularities in the 1995 and 2000 general elections when it certified those elections as 'free but not fair', it issued a 'clean, free and fair' verdict on the 2005 general elections. This conclusion, at variance from the data, reveals problems in assuring observer neutrality.