“Yet” another Election Day…

Yesterday Sierra Leone held general national elections (president and congress; the contest for local administrations is today) for the third consecutive time after the end of its ravaging Civil War in 2002, which left the country in economic and social ruins. Furthermore, the BBC notes these are the first elections organized completely by the country, as the United Nations administered the contests of 2002 and 2007. The results will be made public in ten days. If no presidential candidate obtains at least 55% of the vote, the two top candidates will meet again in a second round. So far everything indicates that the contest ran smoothly, before and during election day. There have been no major violent incidents, and after the closing of the campaigns there was a rally in the capital, Freetown, in support of peace. Just in case, armed soldiers have been deployed in strategic areas. Is Sierra Leone now a democracy?

Elections have been used as the identification mark of a democratic breakthrough. This idea has received a number of critiques, especially under the argument that to place the boundary between authoritarianism and democracy in procedures is too simplistic. However, Staffan Lindberg has argued that the organization of elections in African countries dramatically contributes to the strengthening of democracy, even though the electoral exercise is not carried out under completely free and fair conditions. He points out that elections make citizens more aware of their political rights, especially due to the facts that as equal members of the society their votes all count the same, and that they can speak out their concerns and do something to try to attend them. The more time elections are held, the deeper that awareness gets into citizens. At the same time, Nicolas van de Walle has noticed that the construction of democratic parties in Africa faces some obstacles, among which are their differentiation along ethnic, rather than programmatic, lines, and the large risk that the party of the winner of the first election becomes dominant given the patronage networks it can build by distributing the resources of the state.

Although there are nine candidates, two are the main contenders in the Sierra Leone elections: the incumbent Ernest Bai Koroma, from the All People’s Congress party (APC), and the representative of largest opposition group, the Sierra Leona People’s Party (SLPP), Julius Maada Bio. Koroma was first elected in 2007, succeeding the SLPP’s government, which won the elections immediately after the end of the Civil War. Now, Koroma is campaigning under the motto “I will do more”, and his most important banner is the infrastructure that has been built under his government, mainly paved roads and an ambitious health care program (relevant in the context of countless people who suffered amputations during the war). He also expects that the recently discovered oilfields boost the national economy. The management of the resources with which those works have been financed has prompted accusations of being soft on corruption, contrary to what he promised in his inauguration address. He has retorted by saying that it is wrong to expect him to do the job of the judiciary by making the judgments, implying the problem is elsewhere, not in his government.

On the other hand, Bio, a retired brigadier general, calls himself the father of democracy, given that he staged a coup against the military Junta in 1996 to which he belonged, allegedly out of suspicion that it would not keep its compromise to pass power on to an elected president. After the coup, Bio organized presidential elections and stepped down in order to allow the winner to take office. When questioned about his former allegiance to the Junta, he underscores that his commitment to democracy is demonstrated by his splitting from it. In this campaign, he insists that even if Koroma’s record during his first term is good, the SLPP’s first government was far more successful, and he is determined to achieving something similar. His most important support might come from people who doubt that Koroma’s health program can be sustained in the future, or from citizens unable to find a job.

The ghosts from the civil war and violence are still present in the country. One of the running candidates, Eldred Collins, was the spokesman of the Revolutionary United Front, the rebel group acknowledged to have committed the largest and grossest atrocities against civilians during the conflict. Furthermore, teenagers have been reported to be harassing supporters of the SLPP by impeding their entrance to their party’s rallies and throwing stones against them; allegedly, they are paid by the APC with money, food, and alcohol. In addition, the motorcades of the two major candidates were in a stand-off when they met at a crossroads and mutually blocked their way through.

According to the theory, the considerably free environment for elections makes a good prospect for democracy in Sierra Leone. So far,the absence of concerns around the organization of the elections suggests that the Sierra Leone’s government has successfully met the challenge of the first contest organized by itself. In addition, in spite of the ethnic support for parties and candidates that has not completely disappeared, and although it cannot be ascertained that patronage networks are nonexistent, both of the two largest parties have not disbanded when they have lost elections, surviving as organizations and presenting candidates for the next contest. The further step towards their consolidation is to form a constituency whose interests they can articulate. This should be in the greatest interest of the citizens, as that can help to prevent an oligarchic party system where the APC and the SLPP take power in pre-established turns. Finally, after the devastating experience of the war, citizens seem to be committed not to return to violence: for a third time they are returning to polls. Without a question, this constitutes the most important asset for democracy in Sierra Leone.