Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN)

Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN) Statistical Based Monitoring Analysis Report

2009 Malawi Parliamentary and Presidential Elections.

BACKGROUND:

About MESN

Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN) is a grouping of all accredited service providers for 2009 elections geared towards ensuring that national elections in Malawi are held in a credible, legitimate, free, fair, transparent, non-violent and professional manner. It was formed in 2003 and coordinated civic and voter education and election monitoring in 2004 parliamentary and presidential elections. MESN comprises Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs) community based organizations (CBOs) and other service providers working on electoral issues in Malawi. The network works closely with Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) and other interest groups in ensuring that national elections in Malawi are held competently. The network was formed as a realization that civil society plays a significant role in ensuring that national elections are held successfully.

About 2009 Elections

Malawi held its fourth Parliamentary and Presidential Elections on 19 May 2009. The previous elections in 2004 were marred by problems with the voters’ list n of the presidential election results. Following the

1 announcement of the presidential election results, opposition parties accused the Malawi Election Commission (MEC) of rigging the election results in favor of the ruling party which reduced public confidence in the electoral process. Prior to the 2009 elections, opposition parties casted doubt on the independence of the MEC which threatened to further undermine public confidence in the electoral process and democracy in Malawi as a whole.

The previous three elections in 1994, 1999 and 2004 exposed challenges to democratic consolidation. The 2004 presidential and parliamentary elections were marred by irregularities in the voters’ roll and a lack of transparency in the vote tabulation process.

Although voting on election day in 2004 was orderly, a lengthy delay and concerns over a lack of transparency in the tabulation of the presidential ballots fuelled suspicion that the results were being manipulated. During this lengthy delay, the presidential candidate of the opposition Mgwirizano coalition, Gwanda Chakuamba, unilaterally declared himself the winner and took his supporters to the streets. The Malawi Election Commission (MEC) released the official results five days after election day, indicating that the ruling United Democratic Front (UDF) candidate Bingu wa Mutharika had won the presidency with opposition Malawi Congress Party (MCP) candidate John Tembo second and Chakuamba third. Following the announcement of the results, the opposition publicly accused the MEC of altering the results in favor of UDF, prompting violence and rioting in Blantyre and surrounding cities. Although the violence subsided, lingering doubts remained over the integrity of the presidential election results due to the lack of transparency in the counting and tabulation process.

2 Prior to the May 2009 elections, the MEC was re-constituted to include respected members who oversaw the first multiparty polls in 1994. However, opposition leaders criticized President Mutharika for not consulting with political parties before making the appointments and had raised questions about the commission’s independence. In the run-up to the 2009 elections, parties question the MEC over a series of problems that have hampered the voter registration process, which aimed at creating and computerizing a new voters’ list. A nationwide registration drive, which began in August 2008, was due to end in November to allow ample time for computerization of registrants before the public verification of the new voters’ list in late March. However, the MEC has had to extend and/or re-open the voter registration period in several areas to correct human error and technological problems.

Lingering doubts among opposition political parties and citizens from previous elections, questions regarding the independence of the election commission, and problems with voter registration all threaten to undermine public confidence in the May 2009 polls. President Mutharika contested for a second term as the nominee of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which he formed in 2005 after separating from the UDF. Tembo run on the MCP ticket and former President Bakili Muluzi attempted to stand for a third term as the UDF candidate but MEC rejected his candidature. Dr. Muluzi challenged MEC’s decision to bar him from contesting in the High Court. Since Muluzi was not be allowed to stand, UDF entered into an electoral alliance with Malawi Congress Party (MCP) which posed as a big challenge to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

3 About the Project

As an umbrella coalition of all civil society organizations accredited to monitor the May 2009 elections, MESN embarked on a monitoring project known as Statistical Based Monitoring (SBM). With financial support from National Democratic Institute (NDI), MESN managed to successfully implement the project despite a few challenges experienced on the way. MESN planned to deploy 800 Election Day monitors and 193 constituency supervisors across the country through the SBM strategy. Constituency supervisors represented all the 193 constituencies in the country. MESN established a Programme Management Unit to coordinate the exercise and collect information on the management of the May 19 polls. MESN monitors were instructed to observe elections in only one stream per polling station and collected information from that polling stream and reported to the PMU using specially designed reporting forms on the presidential vote and incidents around the specific allocated polling streams only.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

- Objectives

To improve public confidence in the electoral process to the degree warranted, MESN planned to conduct an SBM exercise to verify the accuracy of the presidential election results. The goal of MESN was to ensure adequate and competent participation of domestic election monitors in contributing to public confidence to the degree warranted in the electoral process during the May 2009 elections. MESN strived to achieve this goal through:

4  Building the capacity of domestic monitors to implement a statistical based monitoring of the electoral process  Establishing a Program Management Unit to collect and analyze SBM findings from monitors.

- Project activities

In implementing the SBO, MESN carried out eight activities. The activities are as follows:-

a. Strategic Planning and briefing Session: as a preparatory activity, MESN board representatives and regional coordinators held a one day planning meeting with assistance from NDI. This was held in Lilongwe at Capital Hotel, on 13 April, 2009. The session was meant to brief regional coordinators on the SBM, strategies on the monitoring process and review the budget. All plans pertaining to recruitment, training and deployment of monitors were agreed upon during this session. Work plan and time lines were also adequately developed. b. Training of Regional Coordinators (TOTs): MESN leadership with assistance from NDI conducted training of trainers training workshop at Kalikuti Hotel in Lilongwe. These trainers were to train constituency supervisors and monitors. Originally, constituency supervisors were supposed to train monitors but due to logistical challenges the TOTs or best known as ‘master trainers’ did the job instead. Regional coordinators were drawn from the three regions and key organizations were tasked with the role of steering the monitoring process at regional level. In the Northern region, CCJP and Livingstonia Synod of the CCAP took up the task with CCJP in the lead. In the Centre it was PAC, CCJP and CHRR with CHRR in the lead and the south was coordinated by CCJP, PACENET and YONECO.

5 c. Training of Constituency Supervisors: constituency supervisors were carefully identified and recruited by MESN members from constituencies where they work as their catchment areas. As per reports available, 193 constituency supervisors were trained country wide. The trainings were clustered regionally for easy administration and management. The trainings were in themselves deployment exercises for the CS. The CSs were provided with logistical support in terms of airtime and travel allowances to enable them coordinate with their monitors. d. Training of monitors: originally this activity was supposed to be conducted by CSs but due to logistical challenges the master trainers conducted the training with CS participating as trainees. MESN membership in the districts with assistance from constituency supervisors identified and recruited these monitors following laid down criteria by MESN. The training clusters were designed regionally by regional coordinators. According to the reports available, out of expected 800 monitors to be trained, 879 were recruited and trained. In Nkhotakota, at Lupachi school, a monitor was not deployed due difficulties in reaching the centre. e. Establishment of Program Management Unit: (PMU) the PMU was central location for the collection and analysis of SBM findings from the 879 monitors deployed on the Election Day. MESN with NDI assistance identified a conference space at Malawi Sun Hotel. The PMU was equipped with computers (which were programmed by an IT specialist from NDI), cell phones (for both Zain and TNM lines), MTL land lines for both faxes and phones and printers. These were all hot lines, thanks to NDI. The PMU was a data entry and analysis centre. To this end, a Monitor/field manager was recruited to manage it assisted by the PMU manager on the logistics side. 14 phone operators and 8 computer operators were recruited at PMU to capture information from the monitors in the field on the Election Day. The computer and phone operators worked around the clock in

6 shifts. From the data collected and analyzed at PMU, MESN was able to make timely and authentic press statements in relation to the conduct of 2009 elections. f. Training of Computer and Phone Operators and Simulation Exercise: before engagement into the PMU, the operators were trained on how to handle information from field monitors using specially designed forms similar to those with monitors in the field. After the training there was a simulation exercise where a scene similar to that of E-Day was experienced. Monitors, who were also made aware of the exercise during their trainings, started calling the PMU and operators had to record the information. The exercise was fruitful as it exposed some challenges with phone gadgets and lines and this was fixed with service providers. The logistical oversights were also sorted out during this time and everything was made ready for the Election Day. g. Election Day Observation and Data Capturing: MESN monitors were under instructions to observe presidential election results in only one chosen stream per polling station. As such, results from monitors started coming in the PMU as early as 9 p.m. on the Election Day. Additionally, electoral related incidences were reported throughout the E-Day. Some of MESN monitors had difficulties with being accepted by their polling station supervisors due absence of IDs. However, with the intervention of MESN PMU, all was settled and monitors were allowed into the streams. h. Statements produced: with timely and speedy transfer of information from monitors to PMU, MESN was also able to make timely and speedy statements on the conduct of elections. The first interim statement was produced on the afternoon of 20th May. This was the first statement country wide on election conduct and management from any election observer. On the evening of 22 May 2009, MESN was ready with the final statement on the conduct and management of the 2009 elections.

7 - Strategies Employed

MESN employed a Statistical Based Observation in monitoring the conduct of the May 2009 Parliamentary and Presidential Elections. Statistical Based Observation (SBO) is an election-monitoring excercise whereby statistical principles are applied to evaluate the integrity of key elements in the election process.

Originally MESN had plans in place to observe elections in all the 4,000 polling stations in the country. This meant that a budget of USD 900,000 was required to implement this. However, with only NDI coming forward with a USD 240,000 support, MESN had to adjust its budget and strategize on new activities. This meant that MESN could not be able to cover all the 4,000 polling stations with monitors and instead a scientific sample based observation that is representative was designed and employed. This meant that only 800 monitors were deployed and 193 constituency supervisors were recruited to supervise them. All these were managed and coordinated through the PMU based in Blantyre.

SBM Goals

 Deterring fraud

 Detecting fraud

 Encouraging citizen participation

 Reporting on the quality of the process

 Offering timely forecast of the results

8  Instilling confidence in the electoral process and official results

 Extending organisational reach and skills building

 Setting stage for future activities

Benefits of SBO

 Smaller number of observers = less resources = easier fundraising

 Strategic deployment

 Top quality observers

 Rapid reporting

 More reliable data (Science vs. anecdotes)

 Raised profile

 Smaller number of observers = less resources = easier fundraising

 Strategic deployment

 Top quality observers

 Rapid reporting

 More reliable data (Science vs. anecdotes)

 Raised profile

Sampling Design and size:

9  Data collected from a representative sample of polling streams using a single stage cluster sampling

 Sample size:

o 800 polling streams of 6,674 polling streams across the country

 Margin of error +/- 1.8% for SBO with confidence level 95%

FINDINGS

Facts about the 2009 Malawi Elections 1. Type of elections Presidential Election (SBM) and Parliamentary Election 2. Election Day 19 May, 2009 3. Total number of polling 3897 stations 4. Total number of polling 6774 streams

The MESN SBO 1. Organization (type) Malawi Election Support Network (Coalition of 75 organizations) 2. Sampling method Single Stage Cluster Sampling 3. Sample size 800 polling districts 4. Polling Station 793 polling 99.1% of sample Processed streams designed 5. Voters Processed 458 009 voters (for SBO candidate results) 6. Communication Monitors called into the Program methods Management Unit (PMU). The phone operators fielded calls and called out for data recovery. Computer operators entered the forms entered to the

10 database. 7. Reporting times 1. Incident To report any critical Report incidents throughout the day. 2. Monitoring Reported at the end of Form the Election-day Process. 8. Reporting period 19 May at 5:00 am until 22 May at 8:00 am.

11 Opening Process

What time did the polling station open?

6:01 - 6:30 am , 35%

6:31 - 8:00 am , 4% After 8:00 am , By 6:00 am , 1% 60%

Were the ballot boxes shown to be empty, sealed and placed in public view?

Yes, 100% No, 0%

12 Was the polling stream set up so that voters could mark their ballot in secret?

Yes, 98% No, 2%

Overall, how would you describe any problems that may have occurred during the opening process?

Minor, 33%

None, 65%

Major, 2%

- The opening had minor challenges but this did not substantially affect voting.

- Challenges were more of logistics

- The setting up of the polling booth was highly transparent

Voting Process

13 Did the polling stream run out of ballot papers at any time during the day?

Yes, 9% No, 91%

Did the polling stream run out of indelible ink at any time during the day?

No, 90% Yes, 10%

14 Was voting suspended at any time?

No, 98% Yes, 2%

How many people's fingers were not marked with indelible ink?

Few, 2% Som e, 0% Many, 1%

None, 96%

15 How many people were permitted to vote without their names checked on the voters' register or their names did not appear on the voters' register?

Few, 30% Som e, 8%

Many, 3% None, 59%

How many people were unable to find their names on the voters register?

Few, 50%

Som e, 13%

Many, 8%

None, 29%

16 Of those unable to find their names on the voters register, how many were permitted to vote by showing a Voter Register Certificate (VRC)?

Som e, 15%

Many, 10% Few, 49%

None, 27%

Overall, how would you describe any problems that may have occurred during the voting process?

Minor, 38%

None, 60%

Major, 2%

Materials :–

- Overall materials were available. In some cases, the ink was either dry or run out.

Voters Register:-

- Verification was poorly patronized. People did not go to verify their names during the period of verification and even after extension of the period.

- Poor training of Polling Station staff which resulted handling cases on the polling day differently.

17 - A number of people who had their voter registration certificates were allowed to vote even though their names were missing names from the voters register

- Misunderstandings between personnel and MEC instructions

- A number of people were allowed o vote without their names on voters register because of the above challenges.

- Overall, the voters register was a major challenge; however when MEC announced that people with VRC but their names do not appear in the voter s register should be allowed to vote, the situation was addressed. Nevertheless few people were turned away by some polling staff who did not hear the announcement in time.

Closing and Counting Process

Were votes counted in a way that allowed party agents and monitors to verify for whom the ballot was cast?

No, 2% Yes, 98%

18 Did any party agent lodge an official complaint at any point during the day?

No, 86%

Yes, 14%

Did the election officials properly reconcile the ballots?

No, 2% Yes, 98%

19 Do you agree with the vote count for the presidential election?

Yes, 99% No, 1%

Were all agents present given a copy of the polling station results form?

Yes, 90%

No, 11%

20 Was the Results Form posted outside the polling station?

Yes, 82% No, 18%

Which party monitors were present?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

None 11%

DPP 86%

MCP / UDF 82%

RP 24%

NRC 24%

AFORD 22%

PETRA 21%

Nyondo 25%

21 Did all of the polling agents present sign the polling station results form?

No, 2% Yes, 98%

- 14% of party agent lodged official complaint at some point during the day mainly because they did not agree with the way some polling station staff were assisting the aged, the illiterate and the visually impaired people.

- Some party monitors were incompetent.

- Campaign materials were still visible within 100 metres in some polling stations.

- 2% of the election officials did not properly reconcile the ballots because they were tired and slow. In some cases, monitors were being used as polling staff during counting of votes.

- Due to lack of proper and timely training of election polling staff, there were some mistakes in writing results form. As a result tippex was used and this raised suspicions of rigging.

- Overall, 98% of Party monitors present agreed and signed the polling station results form while 2% did not agree.

22 Results: Nationwide

Margin of Votes Candidate Party Vote % Error (95% c.i.) - ME Votes +ME Bingu wa Mutharika DPP 66.50% 1.80% 64.70% 68.30% Kamuzu Chibambo PETRA 0.80% 0.10% 0.70% 0.90% Loveness Gondwe NRC 0.80% 0.10% 0.70% 0.90% Stanley Masauli RP 0.70% 0.10% 0.60% 0.80% Dindi Gowa Nyasulu AFORD 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% James Nyondo Independent 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% John Tembo MCP 30.30% 1.80% 28.50% 32.10%

MESN SBO Candidate Results (Margin of error +/-1.8%)

7 0 % 66.50%

4 0 % 30.30% 3 0 %

1 0 % 0.80% 0.80% 0.70% 0.40% 0.50% 0 % Bingu wa Kamuzu Loveness Stanley Dindi Gowa James John Mutharika Chibambo Gondwe Masauli Nyasulu Nyondo Tembo

Map of Results at District Level:

23 24 Results: Northern Region

Northern Region Votes Votes Candidate Vote % Margin of Error - ME + ME Bingu wa Mutharika 94.40% 0.90% 93.50% 95.30% Kamuzu Chibambo 0.30% 0.00% 0.30% 0.30% Loveness Gondwe 0.60% 0.20% 0.40% 0.80% Stanley Masauli 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% Dindi Gowa Nyasulu 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% James Nyondo 0.30% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% John Tembo 3.60% 0.80% 2.80% 4.40%

Northern Region: MESN SBO Candidate Results (Margin of error +/-0.9%)

1 0 0 % 94.40%

1 0 % 0.30% 0.60% 0.40% 0.40% 0.30% 3.60% 0 % Bingu wa Kamuzu Loveness Stanley Dindi Gowa James John Mutharika Chibambo Gondwe Masauli Nyasulu Nyondo Tembo

25 26 Results: Central Region

Central Region Votes Votes Candidate Vote % MoE - ME + ME Bingu wa Mutharika 51.90% 2.40% 49.50% 54.30% Kamuzu Chibambo 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00% Loveness Gondwe 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00% Stanley Masauli 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00% Dindi Gowa Nyasulu 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% James Nyondo 0.70% 0.10% 0.60% 0.80% John Tembo 44.50% 2.30% 42.20% 46.80%

Central Region: MESN SBO Candidate Results (Margin of error +/-2.4%)

6 0 % 51.90%

5 0 % 44.50%

27 28 Results: Southern Region

Southern Region Margin of Votes Votes Candidate Vote % Error - ME + ME Bingu wa Mutharika 69.60% 2.60% 67.00% 72.20% Kamuzu Chibambo 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00% Loveness Gondwe 0.70% 0.10% 0.60% 0.80% Stanley Masauli 0.80% 0.10% 0.70% 0.90% Dindi Gowa Nyasulu 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% James Nyondo 0.50% 0.10% 0.40% 0.60% John Tembo 27.00% 2.50% 24.50% 29.50%

Southern Region: MESN SBO Candidate Results (Margin of error +/-2.6%)

8 0 % 69.60% 7 0 %

3 0 % 27.00%

29 ACHIEVEMENTS

 With the limited resources from NDI, MESN managed to successfully run a project using new observation strategy. All planned activities were conducted and accomplished successfully.

 The project was a learning point for MESN and the organization’s capacity has been greatly enhanced in terms of election observation using SBM.

 Key to the success was MESN’s ability to listen and take in technical advice from NDI because this meant that the project could still go ahead despite few resources available.

 MESN contributed towards free, fair, credible and acceptable 2009 elections.

 MESN PMU managed to operate smoothly despite working on a tight budget. Logistical support at PMU was superb and this alone motivated PMU team.

 The MESN Board was commitment for a noble cause which has bore sweet fruits of violence free 2009 elections.

CHALLENGES

IMPLEMENTING SBM

 Lack of understanding of the whole concept. There was strong opposition by the government side to allow MESN conduct SBM which was dubbed parallel tally centre.

30  There was deliberate distortion of the whole issue especially by the public media which acts as mouthpiece for the ruling elites.

 Threats of arrests as the proponents for the SBM who were labelled as “confusionists” trying to bring chaos in the country.

 Most people who supported the idea at first started to pull back after government stand.

 Lack of enough funds and timely funds to implement planned activities as most donors who had shown interest to support in the initial stage failed to live up to their word.

 SBM was a new concept and it was not easy for MESN to adopt the idea.

POLLING DAY

 Monitors were refused access to polling streams

 Slow and late counting of poll results

 Technical problem with the toll free numbers

 Inadequate capacity to identify and capture incidents in the report forms

RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT

 Need for perseverance on the part of implementers – MESN leadership.  Need for proper coordination among members and donors for SBM to succeed  Need for adequate funds - financial and material.  Need for public education on the importance of SBM.  Need for capacity building for civil society organizations on new ways of elections monitoring and observation  Need for ample time to plan, assess and implement

 Need to fundraise early enough

 Need to sensitize and appraise key stakeholders on the real meaning of SBO

 Training schedule to allow reasonable days to address unforeseen eventualities

 As a lesson learnt: in preparation for future elections, MESN must design programmes between the ballots. This is to say MESN must not wait until elections are around the corner to start mobilizing its members and resources. This year’s MESN election observation was going to be a disaster if NDI did not quickly come in to assist.

31 CONCLUSION

MESN conducted a very successful SBM and managed to get over 99% of Monitoring forms. MESN managed to process 796 forms/ streams out of 800 forms/streams that were sampled. This was no mean achievement. MESN thank local and international community for their financial and technical support.

Statistical Based Observation (SBM) is an important exercise that can contribute to enhancing the integrity of the results management in the election monitoring process. SBO is better conducted as part of the wider election monitoring and not as an exclusive activity.

It is also very important to ensure that key stakeholders are well appraised on SBM as to what is involved, the methodology, purpose and what SBM cannot do.

APPENDICES

MESN Monitoring Form – 19 May 2009

Incident Reporting Form

Oath of Neutrality for MESN Monitors