Education in No-Go Areas
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
exercise, 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
exercise and should not be the primary concern of the security forces
and the organisers.
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.
