Peaceful Voting Does Not the Fair Election Make

Elections are not made free, fair, and peaceful by the conduct of the polls themselves. The conditions that determine a poll's credibility and shape its outcome are laid long before election day itself. Calling for peaceful elections on the eve of voting day in, say, Sri Lanka might make for a nice headline, but is rather dubious in its sincerity.

Sri Lankans will cast their ballots today in a fierce presidential contest between two war criminals that has been marked by violence and intimidation in a country with a less-than-stellar human rights record, and the integrity of the polls is being questioned on account of accused misconduct by the government of President (and candidate) Mahinda Rajapaksa. Similarly, the possibility of free and fair elections in Sudan in April is already virtually nil, thanks to a violent repression of dissent and control of the media by the Sudanese government, not to mention irregularities in census and voter registration processes.

Critics of those who preemptively condemn elections argue that these nay-sayers are jumping the gun by judging an event that has yet to commence -- but this misses the point entirely: A fraudulent election may appear entirely peaceful and legit at the polling station, but if the pre-election environment is characterized by systematic repression and a careful manipulation of a poll's technical details, then it is virtually impossible that the result will be a valid expression of the will of the people.

The time to condemn a poll is not after it occurs, but before. Elections are always imperfect, especially in fragile states or fledgling democracies (or want-to-give-the-appearance-of-being-a-fledgling democracies). But certifying electoral legitimacy with a government that intentionally and violently ensures results in its favor does not advance democracy or serve the interests of the citizens of that country.

Photo credit: CarbonNYC