By Sangwani Mwafulirwa [1]
I. Introduction
Malawi held the first-ever Tripartite Elections on May 20, 2014. Voters elected the President, Members of Parliament and Local Government representatives (councillors) at once through a first-past-the-post system.
Due to logistical challenges polling did not take place in some centres, either because of late delivery of polling materials or because polling was disrupted while in progress. What followed was that polling took three days instead of the planned one day. The Commission made up for logistics to allow the people who failed to vote on May 20, 2014 to vote either on May 21 or May 22.
This resulted in a scenario where some radio stations started announcing unofficial results while polling was going on in other centres. Some stakeholders condemned the situation and implored on the Malawi Electoral Commission to stop announcing, broadcasting or publishing unofficial results while the media houses and media advocacy groups stood their ground. This was further perpetuated by the fact that it took eight days for the Electoral Commission to announce the official results due to challenges with the result management system.
This paper will examine the underlying circumstances and discuss whether media should be allowed to broadcast/publish unofficial results or not.
II. Planning for polling and results announcement
The Malawi Electoral Commission planned to conduct polling on May 20, 2014 and per provision of the law, all polling stations were expected to open at 6AM and close at 6PM or when the last person to be on the queue before closing time casts his/her ballot. When polling started it was expected to proceed uninterrupted until closing time.
All contesting political parties and candidates were asked to place two monitors at each polling stream.
Vote counting started immediately after the closing of the polls. With voting stations closing at 6PM in most centres the counting was over before the next morning. The results were posted on notice boards at the polling centre and each monitor received a copy. The presiding officer transmitted the results to the Constituency Tally Centre, which was located at the council headquarters.
In previous elections, the Electoral Commission used faxes to transmit the results to the main tally centre. However, for the 2014 elections, the Commission, with support from UNDP, procured a computerised Results Management System. Thus, the results would be transmitted through computers.
According to the procedure, each polling station’s presiding officer would submit the results to the respective constituency returning officer who would in turn give them to the data entry clerk to be entered into the system and issue a print out. The results sheet from the polling centre was also scanned and attached to the computer generated sheet. Using a special code, the constituency returning officer would then authorise the transmission of the results to the national tally centre.
At the main tally centre the results were verified and then a copy was made for the Commission to make a determination. The Commission also looked at all complaints and challenges submitted against particular results. Once the complaints were resolved, then the Commission would make a determination and announce the official results.
III. Accreditation/appointment of official broadcasters
The Malawi Electoral Commission allowed all broadcasters and radio stations, total of 32, to cover and report on all electoral processes. However, Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS), a private radio station, and Malawi Broadcasting Corporation, a public broadcaster, were appointed by the Commission as official broadcasters for the polling and results announcement.
In choosing the official broadcasters, the Commission looked for stations with nationwide coverage, good reputation, experience in broadcasting and good command of listenership.
It should be noted that, appointment of the two as official broadcasters did not bar any other radio/television station from covering and broadcasting the electoral results.
The official broadcasters were expected to give a fair and balanced reporting and programming throughout the election period. They were also expected to be apolitical in their reportage and programming. Results were expected to be announced by the official broadcasters as soon as they were made available to them. However, it was emphasised that all results should be treated as unofficial until the Malawi Electoral Commission released the official results. At the end of each announcement of results, a disclaimer was required stating “that these were unofficial results and the official results would be announced by the Malawi Electoral Commission”.
IV. Elections coverage by the media
The Malawi Electoral Commission built a good relationship with the media considering their influence and ability. The Commission in liaison with the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Malawi, the Media Council of Malawi, all media houses in the country, political parties, civil society organisations and development partners developed a media code of conduct on reporting elections.
The code of conduct, which all media houses signed to abide by, provided that the media should be impartial and apolitical, among many other provisions. The code of conduct also urged the media to provide electoral results to the public as soon as they were made available to them.
To facilitate access to polling stations and vote counting centres, the Commission provided accreditation cards to all journalists who had been deployed by various media houses to cover the processes.
Both print and electronic media outlets deployed reporters across the country depending on their ability. The two official broadcasters had a reporter in all 35 council headquarters. As a result, there was countrywide coverage of the elections. For the polling and vote counting, radio and television stations suspended their normal scheduled programmes and came up with special ones just to ensure that the listeners followed electoral events very closely. There was also a strong presence of live and spontaneous reports by reporters in the field trying to update listeners and viewers on every stage of the polling process from opening to closing.
V. Challenges and extension of polling
There were 4,445 polling stations nationwide. However, due to some challenges, about 46 centres did not open or polling did not conclude on May 20, 2014. In some centres this was due to late delivery of polling materials. Rains made some roads impassable and the centres inaccessible. Some vehicles delivering materials got stuck in the mud while others had breakdowns.
In other centres, polling was disrupted while in progress after rumours that some candidates were not put on the ballot paper and that some ballot papers were already marked. The electorate confiscated ballot boxes and torched ballot papers and tents. [2]
This put the Commission at the crossroads: whether to quarantine everything from those stations or re-conduct the exercise.
There were different opinions by stakeholders regarding extension of the voting period. Since in some centres votes had already been cast and results had started coming, some felt this would influence voters. It was argued that some voters would be forced to vote for a candidate who was already known to be leading, unlike for the one who was losing.
On the other hand, it was argued that voters who knew that their candidate was trailing would be persuaded to vote for him or her so that the candidate could win.
In the end, the Commission decided to move forward with polling in the centres where it had failed on May 20, 2014. It was felt that these people should still be accorded their right to vote and choose leaders of their choice. The Commission’s decision was also supported by legal commentators. [3] Furthermore, the Commission argued that the centres where extension would take place were insignificant to influence the national outcome of the vote as they only constituted 1 percent of the total number of centres.
Out of the 46 centres, polling failed to take place in 13 centres on the second day, May 21, 2014.
In centres where polling had been disrupted while in progress, the Commission arranged for printing of ballot papers with different security features. All the ballots that were cast in these centres were nullified. Polling in these centres took place on May 22, 2014 and voters were asked to dip their left index finger instead of the right index finger in the indelible ink. This was because some had already voted before polling was disturbed and the indelible ink might not have been removed by that time.
VI. Announcement of unofficial results
A few hours after the closing of the polls, results started being transmitted from the polling centres which had concluded vote counting, to the district tally centres. Reporters from various media houses gathered at these district tally centres to get the results as soon as they came in and be the first to broadcast them although they were still unofficial, as they had not been certified by the Commission.
Media houses were also tallying the results on their own so that they progressively updated their listeners and viewers as to who was having an upper hand.
While the reporters were busy announcing the unofficial results, the Commission was busy planning to re-open the 13 centres which failed to conduct polling on that day. For example on May 22, 2014 a leading national daily newspaper, The Daily Times led with the story “Unofficial Results; Its Mutharika vs Chakwera” [4] on its front page. The story quoted the unofficial results compiled by the media showing that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate was leading with 79,531 votes seconded by Malawi Congress Party (MCP) candidate, Dr Lazarus Chakwera with 76,578 ballots. There were 12 presidential candidates and this story placed the then incumbent president, Joyce Banda, a third follower and the United Democratic Front candidate, Atupele Muluzi on fourth position with 35,106 votes. This story came out the same day the Commission was conducting voting in centres where polling was disrupted while in progress. The newspaper quoted the unofficial results that were being compiled by the official broadcasters and were gathered by their reporters placed in the councils.
A follow up article was published on Saturday, May 24, 2014 in the Malawi News newspaper with the title “Mutharika Leads” and this one too quoted the same sources. The paper announced that Professor Peter Mutharika was leading with 1,789,364 votes, followed by Dr Lazarus Chakwera with 1,387,500 votes. The incumbent president then was reported to be on third position with 1,042,686 and Mr Atupele Muluzi was given 665,819 votes. [5]
VII. MEC delay in announcing results
While the media was doing a great job updating the nation on the minute results, the Commission started experiencing challenges with the results management system due to several reasons. The system had strict inbuilt checks against fraud and could not accept results with an error. In addition, some results that were coming from the polling stations had some arithmetic errors and the system could not accept them.
The system was also designed to accept a maximum of 800 voters for each polling stream. However, in some stations some presiding officers merged polling streams which resulted in having more than 800 voters per stream and the system could not accept such results although they were true reflection of the results.
As a consequence, the media was ahead in announcing the official results while MEC was unable to get the results at the main tally centre, verify and make a determination.
The electoral laws allow the Malawi Electoral Commission up to eight days, from the last day of polling, to announce the final results of presidential and parliamentary elections. Since last voting took place on May 22, this meant the Commission had up to May 30 to announce the results. In previous elections, the Commission used to take three days to announce the final results, but in this case it took up to eight days. The unofficial results in public domain started shaping and indicating who might likely win the elections at all three levels: presidential, parliamentary and local government.
With the challenges faced with the Result Management System, the Commission resorted to plan B which was to bring all the result sheets to the main tally centre and enter them directly into the system.
The Commission announced this to all stakeholders on May 21, 2014 and promised that it would be releasing its official results once it had received 30 percent of the results from the councils. The next announcement before the final one was scheduled at 70 percent.
VIII. Parties query unofficial results
Some parties and candidates became uncomfortable with the continued announcement of results while the Malawi Electoral Commission had not issued any result.
Their argument was that the unofficial results were projecting other candidates as winners. They argued that this created unnecessary tension among the electorate, and they urged the Electoral Commission to address the situation.
Barely a day into the extension of the voting period, one of the contesting parties, the United Democratic Front, held a press briefing on May 21, 2014 urging the Commission to stop media houses from broadcasting unofficial results, claiming that the results were having an impact on the electorate who were yet to vote.
The party argued that broadcasting of the unofficial results had an influence on the electorate especially towards those who were said to be already leading. “MEC needs to do something to stop the announcements because it is not healthy as some people are yet to cast their votes. This has an impact as some voters might give up or might be compelled to vote for those who are already in the lead”, the party’s publicity secretary, Ken Ndanga was quoted as saying. [6]
The former ruling party, the Peoples Party went to court to seek, among other things, an order restraining the broadcasters from announcing the unofficial results on similar arguments. However, this was turned down by the court. In particular, the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that it was premature as there were no official results from the MEC.
IX. In defence of unofficial results
While political parties were condemning announcement of unofficial results and urging the Malawi Electoral Commission to stop it, the media watchdog body, Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Malawi came out in defence of the media.
Through its Chairman, Anthony Kasunda, MISA Malawi argued that the media had played an important role in the process of creating a picture of the unofficial tripartite elections results. He also contended that lack of information would have created suspicion among voters, which would likely cause violence. As the Malawi Electoral Commission was taking time to release the official results, the media had filled that gap by giving a picture of the unofficial results. [7]
One of the official broadcasters, Zodiak Broadcasting Station came under attack when it run a concluding article indicating that from the unofficial results compiled by its reporters all over the country, DPP presidential candidate was likely to carry the day. However, the station defended itself saying that they had always been carrying a disclaimer that theirs were unofficial results and also boasted that no one had challenged the results since they started announcing.
Zodiak Broadcasting Station and other media houses were also defended by the Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN), which run a Parallel Voter Tabulation (PVT) system for the results. Using its scientific approach, MESN argued that the results which were being announced by the media were credible and within its scientific projections. MESN had also placed monitors across the country who gathered the results and fed them into its PVT system.
Furthermore, commentators argued that stopping the media would be a violation of media freedom. According to their claims, the media should ensure that they were getting the unofficial figures correctly and always emphasise that the official results would be announced by the Commission.
X. Official vs. unofficial results
On May 23, 2014, the Malawi Electoral Commission started releasing the official results for presidential elections. The first 30 percent of the results from the centres showed the slightly different trend as the unofficial figures by media. Professor Mutharika was leading with 42 percent of the votes. He amassed 683,621 votes followed by Joyce Banda with 372,101 translating into 23 percent. Dr Chakwera was third with 289,145 votes representing 18 percent, and Atupele Muluzi trailed with 269,250 votes which was 16 percent.
The Commission released the partial results for the public to understand that progress had been made in entering the results into the system. The Commission had to emphasise that an early lead in the progressive result count should not tempt people to conclude that the candidate had won. By this time, the media had already concluded tallying their national unofficial results which showed that Professor Mutharika was leading followed by Dr Lazarus Chakwera, then Joyce Banda who was trailed by Atupele Muluzi. The other three major parties were already disputing the unofficial results arguing that they did not reflect the reality on the ground. [8]
On May 30, 2014 evening the Commission released the final results for the presidential elections. Professor Mutharika was declared winner with 1,904,399 votes representing 36.40 percent followed by Dr Lazarus Chakwera with 1,455,880 votes translating into 27.80 percent. Dr Joyce Banda who preliminary was on second position, now shifted to third position with 1,056,236 votes, which was 20.20 percent. Atupele Muluzi remained on fourth position with 717,224 votes translated into13.70 percent of the total valid votes cast.
XI. Conclusion: should media continue with unofficial results broadcast?
While there were variations between the official figures by the Commission and those tallied by the media, the media can still be commended for their efforts which shaped the expectations of the electorate. The trend of the unofficial results was not complete departure from the final one, as all major candidates followed the same ranking.
With the increasing and uncontrollable sources of unofficial results like the online and social media, banning the mainstream media from broadcasting unofficial results would not have any effect. On the contrary, it can serve the opposite. The unofficial results announced by the media help to neutralise and defuse black market speculations that can be disastrous.
Even if attempts would be taken towards creating that ban, whether by law or otherwise, the media and other interested groups are likely to challenge it as unconstitutional and a violation of media freedom.
However, the concerns against the broadcasts should be heeded. Media should also handle unofficial results with caution and precision. They should not usurp the power of the Commission of declaring final winners. Apart from emphasising that what they are broadcasting are unofficial results, they should also highlight that the result can even change in case irregularities are reported and rectified.
There are many sources of unofficial results, some of which could be careless and inaccurate. It is, therefore, safer to get unofficial results from a trusted source than unofficial results from an unreliable source.
[1] The author works for Malawi Electoral Commission but writes in his personal capacity. Views expressed in this case study should not in any case be construed as reflecting those of the Malawi Electoral Commission.
[2] “Chaotic Elections” by Madalitso Musa and Josephine Chinele, The Daily Times published on May 21, 2014.
[3] “Commentators back MEC on handling elections”, by Kenneth Jali, The Daily Times, May 22, 2014.
[4] Unofficial results: Its Mutharika vs Chakwera, by Josephine Chinele and Kenneth Jali, The Daily Times, May 22, 2014.
[5] “Mutharika Leads”, by Gregory Gondwe and Josephine Chinele, Malawi News, May 24, 2014—May 30,2014.
[6] “UDF Demands Unofficial Results Broadcast Stop”, by Sam Banda Jnr, The Daily Times, May 22, 2014.
[7] “Election Coverage Impresses MISA” by Moses Chitsulo, The Daily Times, May 23, 2014.
[8] “MCP, PP, UDF dismiss DPP lead”, by Gedion Munthali, The Nation, May 22, 2014.
