The Question
This question was posted by a person working for an international NGO in Kyrgyzstan.

Kyrgyzstan is planning on having a referendum on a new constitution on June 27 this year. However, parts of the country have been severely affected by violent inter-ethnic clashes between the Uzbeks and Kyrgyz population living in the area. According to some, the violence was provoked by pro-Bakiev oriented fractions in the south of Kyrgyzstan in an attempt to hamper the process of preparation for the referendum. Recently, some political parties have urged the government to call off the refendum due to the security situation.

In the light of this event, are you aware of any occasions where a referendum or election has taken place throughout a country, with the exception of a specific area or region affected by conflict? And if so, what, if any, measures were taken to ensure that the people living in that area had the opportunity to vote? Are there even instances where the referendum or election was delayed only in that area, allowing the people to vote at a later date than the rest of the country?

Summary of responses

A number of cases are cited where elections or referenda have been delayed in one geographical area and gone ahead in the rest of the country.  The reasons for such a delay are numerous.  Local elections in South Africa, for example, were postponed in a single province in 1994, due to the risk of violence and then held at a later date when the situation had been brought under control.

Burma is given of an example of one such country where a referendum was conducted on two separate occasions. Nepal has in the past spilt the holding of elections along constituency lines due to a lack of capacity to conduct all voting on a single day.

One measure that has been taken in such instances, e.g. in East Timor and Afghanistan, is to enlist the assistance of UN or NATO peacekeeping forces.

In India, legal provisions are in place - and have drawn upon in disturbed parts of the country – that allow the electoral commission to suspend elections in insecure areas, and which do not affect the forming of parliament afterwards.

The difference between regular elections and a referendum is stressed by two experts, while all three replies emphasise the need to have as short an interval as possible in the event of voting taking place at different times, so as not to jeopardize a referendum’s credibility. If a certain part of a country were not able to vote in a referendum at all, then this would raise grave questions as to its legitimacy.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Focus on Elections and Security

Names of contributors
1. Sa Ngidi
2. Somsri Hananuntasuk
3. Needamangalam Gopalaswami

I am aware of a delay in local government elections in South Africa in the mid 90s. In that case, the country's 8 provinces (out of 9) went to elections in 1995 and the province of KwaZulu Natal went into elections in 1996.

The local government elections in question were part of the transformation process following the first democratic national elections in 1994. Violence was a big contributor to the decision to delay the elections and so was the existence of "no-go" areas in the said province which led to a strong argument by major political parties that elections could not possibly be free and fair if held earlier. The measures that were taken I would say was that there were continued talks and negotiations between the major political parties in the Province so as to get the contentious issues resolved and the parties to calm their supporters down. Other than that, measures were in line with the rest of the country in that election management structures were set up and an emphasis put  on voter education. A separate date was then identified and set for the elections (though postponed once) for the KwaZulu Natal Province and elections held later.

Your case might be complicated by the fact that referendum results must be nationally aggregated whereas in the South African case it was affecting individual (local) authorities. A postponement  might make sense if the argument is that you want to deal with the stable parts of the country and then concentrate your resources (including security) in the troubled part on a different date. But it would have to be such that it is held as soon as possible after the rest of the country so as not to compromise the release of the referendum results. Issues like securing the voting material from the rest of the country whilst the other section is voting would also come into play.

At the same time, postponing at a late stage (scheduled date 27 June?) might do more harm than good.

Posted on behalf of Somsri Hananuntasuk:

From my experience/knowledge on referenda and similar situation, the situation in Kyrgyzstan are somewhat similar to previous situations in Nepal, East Timor, Aceh and Burma. 

1.  Simply answering this question, they may just postpone the entire referendum or election until a peaceful environment with less violence has been established. This might require all parties to sign an agreement for not using force, threat etc. like what they did in Aceh. There might be a need for a mediator to initiate this agreement.

2.  If not, they can have two separate occasions for the referendum like what Burma did after the Cyclone Nargis attacked some areas. The first occasion will take place in peaceful/less damage provinces and the second occasion later on in the areas troubled by violence. However the dates of the two occasions cannot be too far apart.

3.  Some countries, such as Neptal, have in the past divided the constituencies into two groups and holding elections for these groups on two separate days. The reason to do this was that the capacity of the police and military forces was insufficient to take care of the whole country's constituencies in one day.

4. Finally, one option would be to call for UN or Nato peacekeeping forces to assist them, although this option is unlikely and there might not be enough time for this process. This has however been done in countries such as East Timor and Afghanistan.
 

This is a tricky issue and one country's experience cannot be transplanted to another where conditions would obviously be different. Further, referendums and ordinary elections are different things altogether. But even so, after recording  that caveat, I would answer this question from the experience in India.

We have had in the past disturbed conditions in Punjab, Assam and Jammu and Kashmir and there have been general elections to the country's Parliament when one or the other state could not go to polls and so elections were held in other parts of the country leaving aside the disturbed states. There is a provision in our Law that vacancies of some seats in Parliament would not compromise the legitimacy or functioning of the Parliament.

Further the Election Commission in India has the power to suspend elections to any constituency or constituencies if the law and order deteriorates during the period (that is after the call for the election but before the poll is actually taken) and its decision is final and a Parlaiment constituted with elections not held to some such seats that were excluded by the ECI  (i.e.. the Election Management Authority) from poll would in no way compromise the legitimacy of the Parliament.

But having said that I must add that if the referendum is about the country's constitution itself, its legitimacy would certainly be questionable if some part of the country does not take part, especially if the referendum is on an issue in which the disturbed part of the country has a community/ethnic group that has a different view/opposite view.
 

Needamangalam Gopalaswami