Societies in conflict spawn geographic areas that are unsafe for the
authorities or supporters of an alternative faction or group.
These become areas where no one can go, at least not without being
under threat of attack. In most, but not all, such cases, the borders of such territories are clearly marked. There may even have been a general "chasing out" of perceived aliens (whether as a result of their ethnic identity,
political or religious persuasion).
When such a society begins an electoral process, or starts a reconciliation or nation building exercize, these geographic areas remain. Indeed, they may be the most significant obstacle to the re-establishment of peace and democracy.
It is essential that there be an education programme in such areas. During elections, it may even be considered necessary to allow the citizens living in such areas (who may or may not have had a choice in the matter) access to the various political contestants or their ideas.
The political parties and factions may have divided up a country in such a way that they cannot enter the territory controlled by one another. This could be a recent or long-standing phenomenon. It poses special questions for election administrators.
But for educators, it raises a series of dilemmas. Voters require information and education that must be made available on a professional and nonpartisan basis, when the risks to educators and voters may be high. Voters require access to information about all the contestants if this education is to be relevant and efficacious. The very state of territoriality is having a negative effect on voters and their perceptions of democracy, which may be difficult to overcome through standard educational programmes. Indeed, these may be so at odds with the reality of those being educated that the programme engenders cynicism or disbelief.
Life is not perfect. It may be decided that despite the problems (and the
problems of educators are invariably secondary to those of political settlement) it is important to continue with elections despite the creation of "no-go" areas where political opposition is neither welcomed nor tolerated.
In these circumstances, programmes may have to be developed that require the assistance of the security forces to protect the educators, and where the educators themselves have to convey political party information on a nonpartisan basis.
In some cases this dilemma can be overcome by the use of broadcast programmes that can be received across any border. In other cases, programmes should include face-to-face activities even in the unnatural environment of an event protected by security forces.
Security Precautions
When this happens, care has to be taken to protect voters on their way
to and from the event, and to ensure that the event details in every respect have been approved by the party or faction controlling the territory. Educators will leave with the security forces, but voters will not, and the
determination about whether to proceed with such education has to be based on the personal safety of the participants after the event is over. Security for the event itself is the easy part of the exercize and should not be the primary concern of the security forces and the organizers.
In some cases, it may be decided to conduct a road show in which the electoral authority creates a platform for all candidates or contesting parties to speak in a particular area. Educators should use the opportunity to convey messages about the secrecy of the ballot, tolerance for opposition, and acceptance of the results of the election. They should also make handout materials available that are clearly identified as nonpartisan.
In some situations, even education is risky. A territory may be controlled by a faction that is resisting the election itself. Here, a determination has to be made about how the election itself will continue and what security is going to be provided for voters wanting to vote despite the opinions of the controlling faction.
Broadcast material may be most appropriate in these situations, although there may be other information networks that can be used.
Voter education conducted under such difficult circumstances can still be worth it. The presence of nonpartisan educators in a no-go area can increase the climate of tolerance of different points of view. These educators develop levels of trust that cannot be achieved by broadcast programmes, and they form the vanguard for what must inevitably follow the setting up of voting sites and the monitoring of the conduct of the elections during voting time. By being present when political party campaigners cannot be present, they also establish the one presence not linked to the party in control, and thus provide an opportunity for voters to obtain on a one-to-one basis general information about the campaign.
Nonpartisanship is Crucial
Care must be taken to ensure that those involved in such programmes are amongst the most experienced and clearly nonpartisan. Because they may be the only people present, they may be approached for information about other parties. If this information is not given carefully, educators could provide just the excuse a party leadership requires to turn the election to its own advantage, or even to withdraw from the election. This care should include consideration of
language: using a familiar term that is acceptable in one area but not another is all that is needed to make the educator seem partisan.
One way to overcome this particular problem is to always have teams of educators from different regions. This has additional significance as a physical demonstration of the reconciliation that is being sought, but it is likely to be difficult for the team itself and such people need special support from the programme administrators and leaders.
