1

PANEL DISCUSSION ON “THE INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

(EVM) IN BOTSWANA: POLITICAL REFLECTIONS AND PRACTICAL ISSUES’’

Secretariat Report

This report summarises the key conclusions, proceedings and evaluation of a Panel Discussion that was hosted by BOCONCO

and FES Botswana, titled “The Introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in Botswana: Political Reflections and Practical Issues” on May 18, 2017 in Gaborone, Botswana. The Panel Dis-cussion followed an earlier presentation Still on May 18, during which Botswana’s Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), to-gether with a team of experts from Bharat Electronics Limited of India (a company that has been contracted to supply EVM’s to be used in the 2019 General Elections) conducted a demonstration session on how the EVM and its Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) operate in Gaborone, Botswana. This report will specifi-cally focus on the deliberations at the BOCONGO/FES Botswana Panel Discussion.

The report was written by the Secretariat of BOCONGO. The Secretariat wishes to thank Member Organisations of BOCON-

GO, FES Botswana, the diplomatic community, the moderator Dr. Gladys Mokhawa, panellists: [Hon. Dithapelo Keorapetse (Bo-tswana Congress Party), Mr Botsalo Ntuane (Botswana Democrat-ic Party), Mr Nelson Ramaotwana (Botswana National Front) Mr Takawira Musavengana (Democracy and Governance Expert); Mr Grant Masterson (Senior Programs Officer-Electoral Institute for the Sustainability of Democracy in Africa (EISA)], members of the public who attended the event, academia and the media for their hospitality and valuable input during the Panel Discussion.

Background 3

Report On The Panel Discussion 4,5

Welcome Remarks:

Mr. Botho Seboko- Executive Director Bocongo 5

Opening Remarks: Dr. Ulrich Golaszinski Fes Botswana 5,6

The Moderator 6,7

The Panel Discussion [The Panelists] 6,7

Hon. Dithapelo Keorapetse (BcP) 6

Mr. Nelson Ramaotwana 7

Mr. Botsalo Ntuane 7

Mr. Takawira Musavengana 8

Mr. Grant Masterson 9

comments & Questions 10,11

Answers 10,11

Final comments 12

closing Remarks 13

Abstract Acknowledgements

Table Of Contents

2

3

BackgroundIn August 2016, on the closing day of the

3rd meeting of the 2nd Session of Par-liament, Botswana’s National Assembly passed the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2016 into law, paving the way for the introduc-tion of EVMs in Botswana’s electoral system. At the time, Minister of Presidential Affairs, Governance and Public Administration read the Bill for the first time and requested a certificate of urgency; effectively ensuring that the Bill would be debated and passed before it was published in the Government Gazette for 30 days as it the norm. A motion was also moved to extend the business of Parliament, which resulted in the motion being debated and passed into law in the wee hours of the morning.

President Lieutenant General Dr. Seretse Khama Ian Khama later signed the Bill into law. After reaching the retirement age of 65, Secretary of the IEC Gabriel Seeletso retired from the public service in November 2016; and was immediately hired as a Consultant for the Elections Commission. Given the position of Coordinator EVM, Seeletso was tasked with overseeing the transformation from paper-based ballots to the new elec-tronic voting system. He then led the IEC’s EVM Unit on a nationwide tour, addressing 490 ward meetings and 57 constituency meetings during which he educated the public and stakeholders about the EVM. The campaign cost the IEC P150 million.

Opposition political parties, which had always been against the introduction of EVMs, raised concerns about the urgen-cy with which the Bill was rushed through Parliament. They argued that the Bill should have been brought to Parliament through normal channels after extensive consul-tation with the people. They further ex-pressed fears that the BDP will use EVMs to rig elections. In subsequent media inter-views and political rallies, the opposition maintained their crusade against EVMs, saying Batswana should have been consult-ed through a referendum. They further said the amendments were selective as they did not address long standing opposition con-cerns such as the need for direct presiden-tial election of the President, political party funding and halting the practice of specially elected Members of Parliament and nomi-nated Councillors. As time progressed, the opposition threatened to boycott the elec-tions and warned of possible unrest, civil strife and bloodshed if Government failed

to address their concerns about the EVMs. In December 2016, the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board (PPADB) ap-proved a request from the IEC for authority to engage Bharat Electronic Limited, a state owned Indian aerospace and defence com-pany, for the supply of EVMs through direct appointment.

In January 2017, the BCP instituted a no-tice of intention to commence legal action

against the IEC for introducing EVMs. In their papers, BCP urged the court to declare the Electoral (Amendment) Act of 2016 unconstitutional as it violates Section 32 (2) (c) of the Constitution because it intro-duces voting by electronic machines and/or computers as opposed to the ballot pa-per. The BCP also argued that the Electoral (Amendment) Act was unconstitutional as it sought to replace the method of voting by ballot (which means voting by way of physically marking on a ballot paper to be deposited in a ballot box) with an EVM and/or computer, which does not produce a bal-lot paper indicating how the voter voted and which can be susceptible to counting and verification. The BCP added that the Electoral (Amendment) Act was uncon-stitutional and against Section 67 of the Constitution to the extent that it abolished supplementary voter registration, thereby disenfranchising all those who would oth-erwise qualify as voters after the period of general registration has elapsed.

On May 18, 2017 the IEC, together with a team of experts from Bharat Electronics Lim-ited conducted a demonstration session on how the EVM and its Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) will operate. The session was held at Fairground Holdings, Gaborone,

Botswana. On the evening of the same day, spurred by the developments and concerns raised about the EVM, BOCONGO and FES Botswana organised a Panel Discussion ti-tled “The Introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in Botswana: Political Re-flections and Practical Issues.”

The Panel Discussion was attended by different stakeholders; including the dip-lomatic community, representatives from different political parties, academia, the media, and democracy experts from the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) and the Electoral Institute for the Sustainability of Democracy in Africa (EISA). The Coordinator EVM, Mr. Seeletso was not present at the Panel Discussion despite nu-merous invitations by BOCONGO and FES.

In their concept note on the Panel Dis-cussion, BOCONGO and FES Botswana em-phasised that it was important for voters to have confidence in their current electoral system before introduction of the e-voting system. They also urged governments not to take such confidence and public trust for granted, but rather do their utmost to en-sure that it is preserved because it will be hard to restore once eroded.

BOCONGO and FES Botswana described a trusted system as one that:

l Gives scope for citizens and other stake-holders to ask critical questions.

l Fosters transparent practices by outlin-ing details of different electoral procedures, reasons for introducing e-voting and har-nessing voters’ knowledge and understand-ing.

l Respects and ensure attributes and properties such as transparency, verifiabili-ty, accountability, security and accuracy.

With the above attributes, an e-voting system will foster and promote the partic-ipation of all citizens. BOCONGO and FES said the introduction of e-voting and EVMs should not compromise or impede univer-sal suffrage, which is a basic principle for democratic elections.

On the issue of consultation, BOCONGO and FES Botswana said the process which decides how people are going to cast their votes is too important to be decided by government alone. They called for an intense and robust consultation process with political parties, civil society organ-isations, associations and trade unions and churches. Through the Panel Discus-sion, BOCONGO and FES Botswana hoped to broaden and to deepen the debate on the introduction of EVMs in Botswana by giving voice to various groups in society which were side-lined from discussions be-fore.

On May 18, 2017 the IEc, together with a team of experts from

Bharat Electronics Limited conducted a demonstration session on how the EVM and

its Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail

(VVPAT) will operate

4

Report On The Panel Discussion(1) Hon. DITHAPELO KEORAPETSE: Information and Publicity Secretary, Member of Parliament Selebi Phikwe West-Botswana Congress Party (BCP)

Hon. Keorapetse holds a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Social Sciences- Political Science and Public Administration and a Master of Arts (M.A.) in Political Science and International Relations. He is a former lecturer of polit-ical science and international relations at the University of Botswana, where he also published a few articles and book chap-ters. During that time, he also worked as a resource person for Botswana Defence Force Command and Staff College as well as Botswana Police College. He has also worked as an Anti Corruption Officer at the Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC).

Hon. Keorapetse boasts of over 14 years experience in the media industry, where he started off as a Freelance Reporter for a weekly publication called The Mirror Newspaper. From 2013-2014, Hon. Keora-petse published a weekly column titled Body Politik in The Gazette Newspaper, which focused on topical political issues in Bo-tswana, the region and the world. During the time, he doubled as an Editorial Con-sultant for the newspaper, working with the editorial team to develop and actualise stories and features. Since 2014, Hon. Keora-

p e t s e h a s

been running another weekly column titled Views from the House on Mmegi Newspaper, which discusses issues debat-ed at the National Assembly of Botswana and other issues relating to Parliament.

Hon. Keorapetse’s political career start-ed in 1999 when he joined BCP. He rose through the ranks over the years; serving as Secretary General of the BCP UB Sell (2002-2005), Vice President of the BCP Youth League (2011) and President of the BCPYL (2012-2015). In October 2014, he was elected Member of Parliament for Selebi-Phikwe West, becoming the young-est MP in Botswana.

He was also rated among the top 5 performing MPs in Botswana by a weekly publication, The Patriot on Sunday. He has also served as Secretary General of University of Botswana Aca-

demic and Senior Support Staff Union (UBASSU); Council Member of Bo-tswana Federation of Trade Unions (BFTU) and Vice

Chairperson of the board of

B o -

tswana Network on Ethics, Law & HIV-AIDS (BONELA).

(2) Mr. NELSON RAMAOTWANA: International Affairs SecretaryBotswana National Front (BNF)A legal practitioner at Kambai Attroneys,

Mr. Ramaotwana has a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and a Masters in Law (MLB) from the University of Botswana (UB). He is a former President of the UB Student Representative Council (SRC) and a former Mayor of Gabo-rone.

(3) Mr. BOTSALO NTUANE: Secretary General-Botswana Democratic Party (BDP)Mr. Ntuane has enjoyed a somewhat

colourful political life. From his days as an activist for BDP GS 26 at University of Bo-

tswana (UB), onto his nomination as a member of the BDP Central Commit-tee while still at UB, for many years Mr. Ntuane has maintained a ubiquitous presence in domestic politics. Upon

completion of his BA Humanities de-gree Mr. Ntuane worked for 6 years

as Executive Secretary of the BDP, after which

he was nominated to Parliament in 2004. He contested and won a second term in Parliament as Member of Parlia-ment for Gabo-rone Bonnington South from 2009 until 2014. Mr.

Ntuane also had a short stint in oppo-

sition politics as he

The Panelists

Mr. Nelson Ramaotwana Mr. Grant MastersonHon. Dithapelo Keorapetse

5

Welcome Remarks

Opening Remarks

Mr. BOTHO SEBOKO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOCONGO

The event kicked off with welcome remarks by Mr. Botho Seboko - Executive Director BO-CONGO, who thanked attendants for honour-ing the invitation; and expressed hope that the Panel Discussion will be educative and informative.

He highlighted the role played by Non-State Sectors (NSAs) in harnessing partici-patory democracy in Botswana’s democracy through educating government, the people and political parties about their rights and ob-ligations as democratic citizens. He also said BOCONGO’s new Strategic Roadmap, Mov-ing Forward 2017-2020 will reinvigorate and reposition the Council as a key player in the national and global development landscape. Going forth, said Mr. Seboko, BOCONGO’s role in national development will be more visible, value adding and impactful. The new vision of BOCONGO is to have NGOs working to-gether for a more just, equal and integrated

Botswana; while the new mission is to have members working effectively with other ac-tors for inclusive development. BOCONGO remains a membership driven organization whose operations and functions are cantered on four Thematic Groups: namely Inclusive Social Policy, Economic Justice, Sustainable Environment and Resource Management and Democracy and Governance.

Mr. Seboko said the Panel Discussion was convened in pursuit of BOCONGO’s vision and mission, guided by the four Thematic Groups; we are gathered here to share knowledge, ex-periences and perspectives on our democra-cy, particularly the introduction of EVMs. This is our way of saying we are back to reclaim the narrowing space of democracy of dialogue and engagement. We owe it to our people and those who have entrusted us with the re-sponsibility of holding the state accountable. We are BOCONGO. He then welcomed FES Bo-tswana Resident Director, Dr. Ulrich Golaszins-ki to give the opening remarks.

was the founding Vice President of the Botswana Movement for Democ-racy (BMD) in 2010.

During this chapter in his political story book he also served as Leader of Opposition (LOO) in Parliament before returning to the BDP in 2012. In 2015 he was elected BDP Secretary General. Mr. Ntuane also holds a Mas-ters in Mass Communications and is currently enrolled for a PhD Political Science at University of Botswana.

(4) Mr. TAKAWIRA MUSAVENGANA: Democracy and Governance Expert-Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)

Mr. Musavengana is a Zimbabwe-an national who has been working in the area of democracy and gover-nance for the past 7 years; particular-ly focused on parliamentary devel-opment, security sector governance, elections and political participation, accountability, human rights as well as constitution making. He has been involved in a number of exercises in Botswana. Mr. Musavengana current-ly serves as Democracy and Gover-nance team leader at Johannesburg based OSISA. He has also served in various capacities in the Zimbabwe parliament, Africa University in Zim-babwe, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Tanzania, Insti-tute of Security Studies in Pretoria, and in the Southern African Devel-opment Community (SADC) Parlia-mentary Forum in Namibia. He has designed and coordinated a number of election related programmes and training in at least 15 African coun-tries.

(5) Mr. GRANT MASTERSON: Senior Programs Officer-Electoral Institute for the Sustainability of Democracy in Africa (EISA)Currently the Programs Manager

at EISA, Mr. Masterson has a Master Degree from Wits in International Relations as well as a Post Graduate Diploma Degree in Monitoring and Evaluation from Carlton University in Canada. He has observed elections in 16 countries, including the recent elections in Kenya and Namibia. He has also published a number of books, notably the internationally ac-claimed “Constitutionalism in Africa.”

Dr. ULRICH GOLASZINSKI – RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE FES BOTSWANADr. Ulrich Golaszinski, Resident Repre-

sentative of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Botswana presented the opening remarks. He thanked the panellists for their willing-ness to share their knowledge, experiences and perspectives with Batswana; further explaining that the Panel Discussion was meant to stimulate reflections and intellec-

tual exchange among a group of slightly concerned citizens.

While his opinion was that the introduc-tion of EVMs will not bring the death of de-mocracy in Botswana, Dr. Golaszinski said any changes in the form and procedure of how elections are conducted creates a feeling of unease, mistrust and sometimes

Turn Over

Mr. Botho Seboko

6

resistance among the electorates. He further said democrats hold elections in high regard and they don’t want them to be fiddled with. He emphasized the importance of taking the questions and concerns raised by the people with regards to EVMs seriously; saying trust is the foundation of representative de-mocracy. For citizens to trust their representatives and the leaders to trust the citizenry there must be transparency, dialogue and open exchange. Dr. Go-laszinski said the introduction of EVMs is not just a technical question as people are no longer afraid of technology, but rather a concern about the way peo-ple will vote.

Though not secretive, the traditional method of voting by hands or voice was very public and there-fore diminished the possibility of corrupt officials manipulating the final tally. With the advent of secret ballots, said Dr. Golaszinski, there was need to put in place new electoral control and observation meth-ods so as to guarantee that all votes were account-ed for. EVMs will reduce transparency even further. There must be stringent controls to ensure that all votes cast are counted and attributed correctly.

With e-voting systems, public confidence in the election relies on trust in technical experts instead of a transparent process, which will lead to changes in how the public maintains confidence in the integri-ty of elections. Dr Golaszinski said a voting system is only as good as the public believes it to be. He called for open debate and rational discussions on the ben-efits, challenges and problems which come with the introduction of EVMs. Though he acknowledged that many Batswana feel they were not part of the initial debate before EVMs were introduced, Dr Golaszinski said it is never too late to restart the discussion and information sharing process.

Opening Remarks

Moderator

From Previous Page

Dr. Ulrich Golaszinski

Dr GLADYS MOKHAWALECTURER UB

The moderator, Dr. Gladys Mokhawa, explained that she will not be guid-ing the Panel Discussion in any par-ticular direction, but will leave it up

to the panellists to focus their pre-sentations on issues such as electoral observation, technicalities as well as whether the new electoral system is in line with internationally approved standards. She urged the panellists

The PanelThe Panelists

Hon. DITHAPELO KEORAPETSE (BCP)

Presenting on the political reflections and practical issues that affect the in-troduction of EVMs, Hon. Keorapetse started off by commending BOCON-GO and FES Botswana for organising the Panel Discussion. He said the BCP views the introduction of EVMs as an unwelcome development; and re-minded the audience that there is an ongoing court case in which the BCP is challenging the manner in which the EVM was introduced.

He then gave the background of how the EVMs became a part of Bo-tswana’s political discourse, saying the issue of EVMs cannot be debat-ed in abstract. He explained that for the first time since independence in 1966, the ruling BDP’s popular vote has dwindled to below 50%. He said in the 2014 general elections, BDP got 46.5% of the popular vote while the combined opposition got 53%. Hon. Keorapetse the decline in popu-lar vote compelled the BDP to move an urgent motion to amend the Elec-toral Act in 2016. The amendment included introduction of EVMs, but not Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). Before the EVMs were even introduced, Bharat Electronics Lim-ited (BEL) was approached to supply the machines. Hon. Keorapetse said it Batswana, political parties and NGOs were never consulted before the EVM was introduced, which was a funda-mental change to how the country has been consulting elections. De-mocracy pre-supposes that rulers are chosen and removed by the ruled,

and they must act in the interest of the ruled. This then means that the ruled must be consulted and there must be participatory democracy not paternalistic democracy where gov-ernment assumes role of parent and decides what is best for the nation. Hon. Keorapetse said the BCP argues in its court papers that the EVM is in contravention of Section 32 of the constitution, which states that voting shall be done by ballot.

Highlighting the BCP’s problems with EVMs, Hon. Keorapetse revealed that there was a factual finding by the Supreme Court of India that EVMs are not tamperproof. He added that Pro-fessors at the University of Michigan conducted a research in which they successfully tampered with EVMs; while the Journal of Electronic Engi-neering has also published articles on how EVMs can be hacked; and an international conference on the tamperability of Indian EVMs also suggested that the machines are not tamperproof.

Hon. Keorapetse also asked why Botswana was in such a hurry to in-troduce EVMs when all compelling evidence suggests that they are not tamperproof. He gave examples of countries like India, with a voting population of 814 million using 1.4 million EVMs; and South Africa with a voting population of more than 23 million; which have shunned EVMs. He then asked why a small country like Botswana, with a voting popula-tion of 670 00 or more, believes that it needs EVMs. Hon. Keorapetse then told Mr. Botsalo Ntuane that if the

7

Discussion

to address issues such as transparen-cy of elections, verifiability, fairness, universal suffrage, free suffrage and equal suffrage. Each panellist will be given 7 minutes to present their case. The presentations will be followed by a question and answer session; after which the panellists will be given a chance to make their final remarks.

Dr Gladys Mokhawa

BDP cannot listen to BCP or UDC, they must at least listen to former President Sir Ketumile Masire who warned that the EVMs must be stopped before they tar-nish Botswana’s democracy. In conclusion, Hon. Keorapetse pointed out that the IEC has made an undertaking not to proceed with purchase of EVMs until the litigation process is concluded. However, he said, the Attorney General has filed a motion to oppose, which means the case is going ahead. He said the opposition does not really care about the outcome of the case as they will not go to elections that will be rigged using electronic devices.

Mr. NELSON RAMAOTWANARepresenting the UDC, Mr. Ramaotwana

was debating on the practical concerns that they have about the introduction of EVMs. He started off by stating that the UDC is clear in its stance, which is No to EVMs.

He said the Indian opposition parties are already up in arms contesting the tamper-ability of EVMs that were used during the general elections and calling for the coun-try to return to ballot papers. Even in the USA, he said, President Donald Trump is being accused of rigging elections using EVMs. Mr. Ramaotwana said Botswana is better off using the ballot system that they know. He accused government of trying to alter the operations of election with-out a referendum, saying this practice was cemented by a Court of Appeal ruling on the case of Unity Dow versus the Attorney General, in which the court said on page 182 that matters requiring a referendum include alterations to the composition and operations of parliament, elections and provisions establishing superiors courts. He said the state cannot alter the operations of the 2019 elections without a referendum as that will be in violation of the Court of Appeal ruling. The Court

of Appeal, in explaining its ruling, stat-ed that “these provisions are intended to entrench a particular form of democratic governance to ensure that that govern-ment acts within the constitution.” Mr. Ra-maotwana said a system of conducting elections determines who assumes power; such that there should be a dictatorship of the people in electing governors instead of a dictatorship of machines in choosing who rules. He said it is not debatable that EVMs are not tamper proof as even India has undertaken to introduce paper trail to circumvent the rigging of elections. How-ever, said Mr. Ramaotwana, Botswana’s Electoral Act does not have a provision to cater for instances where there is a conflict between the paper trail and the election results. Assuming that Botswana was to in-troduce paper audit trail, Mr. Ramaotwana said Botswana’s Electoral Act leaves it up to the Electoral Commission to decide who the victor is.

He also cautioned Batswana not to be-lieve that the paper audit trail will counter electoral fraud, as research has shown that EVMs can be programmed to determine the winner. He cited a research paper titled “The paperless chase to electronic voting and democratic values,” which states on page 789 that EVMs can be compromised and programmed to records votes incor-rectly while providing a correct paper bal-lot to the voter. In the case of Botswana, Mr. Ramaotwana said the fact that EVMs can be programmed means that the out-come of the elections are going to be determined by the programmer (Bharat Electronics Limited) and the procuring en-tity, such that going to the 2019 elections using EVMs that have been programmed to ensure a BDP win will be a waste of time.

He further said Batswana do not need EVMs as they will cause chaos in the coun-try. Instead they want the ballot paper. Mr. Ramaotwana also rubbished the IEC’s con-

tention that the ballot paper causes delay, saying it is rather the system of elections adopted by the IEC, which insists on not counting the ballots at polling stations, that causes delays. He said a lot of time is taken transporting ballots from polling stations to the counting centre, despite repeated calls by the SADC, African Union and opposition parties for ballots to be counted at polling sta-tions. He gave an example of France, a country that uses the ballot system, but still managed to announce results within four hours in an elec-tion that involved 30 million people. He accused the BDP of using the ballot system as an excuse to hide their real intention of rigging elections to extend its stay in power. Mr. Ramaotwana also dis-missed the IEC’s argument that EVMs will reduce costs, saying costs will be escalated because EVMs have to be maintained, serviced and stored ap-propriately.

Mr. BOTSALO NTUANERepresenting the BDP, Mr Ntuane divided his

presentation into four parts. He started off by saying Botswana has been in the same position before. On the first part, he gave a historical ex-planation of his position for the benefit of visitors and those in the audience who may not have a recollection of what happened in the past. He explained that back in the 1980s Botswana used to vote using a round disk that reflected the dif-ferent party symbols and colours. At the time, the opposition agitated for change, suspecting that the BDP was using a special powder which they poured into ballot boxes to change the colour of opposition ballots to red, thereby ensuring a BDP victory.

The BNF then proposed for a hole to be drilled on their ballot, to which the BDP acceded. The BDP still registered a comprehensive election victory. However, Mr. Ntuane admitted that the disc compromised the sanctity of elections at the time. During the next elections, on account of agitation by the opposition parties, Botswana then adopted the ballot paper. Today there is yet another change in the form of EVMs. Mr. Ntuane explained that the point he was driving home was that Batswana have always had differences over the system of voting.

Secondly, Mr. Ntuane pointed out that the BDP

Turn Over

8

is committed to the ethos and ideals of de-mocracy and multi-partyism. He said Botswa-na has always remained the odd one out by maintaining multi party democracy even at a time back in the 60s and 70s when almost all African countries were one party states. He said the BDP is not about to compromise its heritage and reputation of multi party de-mocracy, which it built over many years. He pointed out that the BDP understands what is at stake and is alive to the fact that any is-sues that have to do with elections are very sensitive and must be handled with care. Mr. Ntuane admitted that the passage of the Elec-toral (Amendment) Bill into law was mired in controversy, adding that perhaps things could have been done differently. He said that he was not sure why the Bill was rushed in the nocturnal hours as elections are about 3 years away. However, he said he could not speak for government as he does not sit in parliament and he was not privy to the con-siderations of the Minister responsible for elections and the IEC. He explained that he was at the Panel Discussion to speak for the BDP. He expressed disappointment that the IEC was not there to account for themselves and illuminate the issue to Batswana.

Mr. Ntuane pointed out that in the past all changes in the voting system were champi-oned by the opposition. Because the BDP was not tone deaf, it acceded to those de-mands, despite the fact that the opposition of yesteryears was minute and fringe, unlike the opposition of today which has substan-tial numbers in parliament. He said the BDP also has a right to propose changes to elec-toral laws, just as the opposition did all those years ago. Mr. Ntuane said the BDP did not initiate the EVM.

“Without any fear of contradiction, I can tell you categorically that the BDP did not initiate EVM. This is the right forum to really explain this issue,” said Mr. Ntuane.

He explained that the IEC was invited to make a presentation on EVMs at the BDP Na-tional Council, where delegates also raised concerns and asked questions. At the same national council, Mr. Ntuane said the Pres-ident went on record to tell the delegates that the BDP did not initiate EVMs. Rather, it was the IEC that approached the execu-tive with the idea, saying it will quicken the voting process. Government felt that the IEC had a point and decided to take their views

on board and sponsor the Bill in parliament, which later caused so much uproar through-out the country.

Mr. Ntuane explained that the BDP re-solved at its National Council that in principle it has no objection to the EVM; but called for introduction of changes and improvements to allay the fears of voters. He added that the issue of EVMs will be an agenda item at the forthcoming BDP National Congress; adding that the party expects the IEC to bring the machine to Congress so that they can have a taste and feel of it. However, Mr. Ntuane said the BDP remains open minded and flexible because it did not come up with the idea of the EVM. In fact, said Mr. Ntuane, the EVM is a new lexicon to the BDP as it has never been discussed by any structure or forum of the BDP. Rather, he said, the fact is that the EVM was first heard from the opposition. For the reason that the BDP has never had any idea or conception of EVM, the party will not lose any sleep at all if ultimately the IEC decides to withdraw the EVM. Mr. Ntuane promised that the BDP will have adopted a position on the EVM by the end of July.

Mr. TAKAWIRA MUSAVENGANARepresenting the Open Society Initiative

for Southern Africa (OSISA), the Democracy and Governance expert presented on polit-ical considerations for implementing EVMs. From the onset, he pointed out that OSISA is interested in building the capacity of civil society to engage in government and gov-ernance. He explained that he will not be talking about EVMs in Botswana, but about EVMs as part of methods of voting. He also said he will pretend that the legislation for EVMs has not been passed in Botswana; and that he will not pass value judgement on what has happened in Botswana so far.

Mr. Musavengana said the issue of EVMs is fundamental because electoral systems and processes of voting assist citizens in trans-lating their ballots into parliamentary repre-sentation. He said that when you change a voting system you are in effect changing the political character of citizens.

He said a couple of questions arise during the change of an electoral system:

1) What are we trying to fix or improve2) Is it the technical capacity of the EVM?

Are we trying to eliminate human error asso-ciated with manual voting?

3) Are there any concerns with voter fraud?4) Are there any concerns with undue de-

lays in transmitting results?5) Do we want to reduce the cost of elec-

tions?6) Could this be one way of eliminating

spoiled ballots?7) Do we want to increase voter turnouts

by reducing long queues and attracting the tech savvy youth votes?

Mr. Musavengana also pointed out 7 key considerations in changing electoral systems:

1) PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE: Elections are political and highly contested spaces. Whether or not an electoral reform succeeds is a function of a conducive po-litical and socio economic environment of the country. Therefore any election related changes, even the smallest and well intend-ed, are bound to generate a lot of debate and suspicion. Oftentimes, given the fact that e-voting attracts a lot of controversy as there are fears of hacking, it is important to give as-surance to the people. Stakeholders must be comfortable that the changes that are about to take place are in the interests of the peo-ple. There must be sufficient consensus that these changes are necessary to address the identified problems.

2) CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ENVI-RONMENT: Once you have dealt with the politics and established consensus, now ad-dress yourselves to the laws of the country. Because the country has been using ballot papers for so many years, you need to amend laws and terminology to comply with the new changes.

3) DIGITAL DIVIDE/DIGITAL PHOBIA: It takes time for people to warm up to the idea of technology in elections and political process-es. It is not impossible, but it requires building sufficient political capital for people to feel comfortable that they can decide their future using technology.

4) STATUS OF THE ELECTORAL MANAGE-MENT BOARD: An electoral commission can be said to be truly independent if it is impartial, acting with integrity, transparent, efficient, professional and service minded. If changes happen in the electoral system when people don’t have confidence in the electoral commission, particularly with re-gards to its operation and institutional auton-omy, such changes are likely to fail.

5) STATE OF READINESS AND CAPACITY BUILDING: For many years our elections com-missions have been working on capacity building to perfect the art of running elec-tions. Because we have been using ballot pa-

The Panel DiscussionFrom Previous Page

9

pers where voting is manual, it is common to find that the operations department of most electoral commissions are very big and well resourced while the IT units are small and under resourced. Now, if we shift to e-voting, we will have to beef up the IT or Technology Department, failing which we will have to en-gage consultants.

6) THE TRANSPARENCY AND TECHNOLOGY CONUNDRUM: In other countries, voting and counting are done at polling stations; where there is also verification and endorsement by party agents, domestic observers and elec-tions observers. The only thing that moves from the polling station to the tallying station is the signed piece of paper, not the ballots. In trying to reform the electoral system, we must ask ourselves what it is that we are try-ing to fix in the current arrangement.

7) SUSTAINABILITY: Technology has a lifes-pan. Before making any moves about EVMs we must consider the projected expenditure patterns that will accompany the system, the lifespan of the machine, storage facilities, li-cense requirements, renewal rates and so on.

Mr. GRANT MASTERSONThe Senior Programs Officer at the Elector-

al Institute for Sustainability and Democracy in Africa (EISA) started off by recognising the huge turnout for the Panel Discussion. He then went on to state that EISA has observed that technology is fast encroaching into elec-toral systems in Africa.; and this development has been observed in every single election in the continent. EISA has therefore concluded that the use or non use of technology is a technical consideration that must be treat-ed as such. What countries must not do is use a technical consideration to solve politi-cal problems. If you want to use technology, make sure that you are addressing a technical problem. He however pointed out that this

conclusion does not negate the fact that the use of technology in elections is not political.

When giving examples of technology en-croachment in elections in Africa, Mr. Master-son cited the use of digital cameras to cap-ture faces; and biometric voting information to capture thumbprints of voters during the voter registration process. These will be used to verify the voters on the voters roll at a later date. The voters are then furnished with ID cards that have their pictures on them. This has been made possible by the fact that tech-nology has become cheaper. This innovation has also increased the transparency and cred-ibility of elections by and large as it enables efficient use of the voters roll. On voting day, people simply present their thumbs, which are then scanned on the biometric voting machines to check if they have already vot-ed or not. Countries like Kenya have adopted such technology.

In the post election environment, Mr. Mas-terson gave the example of South Africa, which though it has not adopted much tech-nology in the electoral process, uses simple SMS technology to ensure rapid transmission of results from polling centres to the national tallying centre. He pointed out that the sys-tem has redundancies in place to allow for auditing. This simple technology has enabled South Africa to rapidly tabulate results and release them. Mr. Masterson pointed out that technology can either be good or bad for an election, depending on how it is used.

He also highlighted a number of issues that came up regarding the use of technology in recent African elections, among them:

POWER: While machines require power or batteries, there is often a lack of access to reliable power supplies during elections in Africa. He gave the example of the Kenyan elections in 2018, where the Kenyans failed to provide sufficient provisions to recharge

the machines that were used to verify voters. While the elections lasted over 16 hours, the machines’ batteries lasted for about 2 hours. He pointed out that it is important to make such practical considerations before opting to use technology in elections.

STANDARDISATION: Elections require the use of standard practice in the whole country. One cannot use type of machine in one area and a different machine in another. It is well known that elections take place every 5 to 6 years. Within that 5 to 6 year cycle, the cost saving aspect of technology can be realised provided the same machines are used re-peatedly over two or three elections. But the reality is that machines break and they need to be replaced. Worse, because of standard-isation of elections, damaged machines will have to be replaced with the exact duplicates of those that are being used in elections. Re-search suggests that over a 5 to 6 year period, it will be challenging to find exact replace-ments and uphold the principle of standard-isation in elections. This then means that the arguments for cost saving by using technol-ogy in elections is debatable and remains a big question mark. It’s doubtful that a tech-nology supplier will be willing to commit to making or supplying the same machines 10 or so years down the line.

In conclusion, Mr. Masterson said there is no perfect election. What is important, he said, is the trust of the people. When the people trust that the process of election was credible and that the will of the people has been satisfactorily expressed, then the elec-tion will be given approval. Though he did not make a pronouncement on elections in Botswana, Mr. Masterson said it is essentially that the voter is able to trust that his or her ballot was part of a credible process.

10

Comments & QuestionsRAYMOND MALINGAWhy is the BDP, as a political party that has

always listened to the will of the people, ig-noring the glaring fact that the people are against EVM, as everyone is saying no? Why does the BDP insist on taking this matter to Congress when it’s clear that people don’t want EVMs?

OBAKENG MATLOU (Coordinator #NoToEVM campaign)(i) Batswana have told the Coordinator of

the EVM that they don’t want the EVM. We were there in almost all kgotla meetings. What is the BDP’s response to the resounding rejection of the EVM by the people?

(ii) Seeing that there has been unanimous rejection of this EVM; added to the lawsuit by the BCP? Why can’t the just abandon the EVM campaign and give the mandate back to the people through a referendum?

(iii) The BDP claims that it did not come up with the idea of the EVM. I therefore chal-lenge the BDP to join the BCP in suing those who are rooting for the EVM.

MALATSI MOKHUBAME (BNF) It is not true that the BDP has never initiat-

ed EVMs. A Minister in the Office of the Pres-ident sponsored a motion in Parliament for the use of EVMs. The majority of BDP MPs in Parliament agreed and voted in favour of the usage of EVMs. So I don’t know where Ntuane gets the audacity to come here and utter lies.

REVEREND SEJOE(i) If you check the parliamentary archives,

they show that the change of electoral sys-tem from disc was sponsored by the oppo-sition. During the winter session of 2010, the issue of electoral voting was from the oppo-sition and not the ruling party. Is the problem the issue of electoral voting or the product called EVM?

(ii) After opposition MPs visited Namibia on a fact finding mission about EVMs, they nev-er raised concerns about the EVM on their returns. They only raised complaints when the budget was presented. They never raised concerns about EVM in parliament; rather their complaints were about lack of consulta-tion. If there was no consultation, where do you get the view that the masses have reject-ed the EVM?

REVEREND GABRIEL TSUANENG (BOCONGO)(i) It would have been good if the church

was invited to this Panel Discussion. The IEC should also have been invited so that they could give feedback to those who didn’t have the luxury to attend kgotla meetings.

(ii) The UDC has said it will not participate

in elections that are rigged. For me that raises concerns about social justice and social secu-rity. How will the UDC not participate in elec-tions and ensure that they jealously guard against any challenges to social security?

(iii) How does the ruling party hope to rec-oncile the divided opinion of the people over the EVM?

ANDRE MOKOPAKGOSI (Lobatse VDC)We as Botswana have a rich legacy and rep-

utation to protect. I suggest that we listen to the people.

SERGEANT YELLOWMAN KGOSIETSILE (UDC COUNCILLOR)Batswana have resolutely spoken that they

do not want the EVM at all kgotla meetings. We should not even bother with any modifi-cations like including paper trail. We are say-ing No to EVM in any kind.

DITHAPELO KOORAPETSEQUESTION: If you check the parliamen-

tary archives, they show that the change of electoral system from disc was sponsored by the opposition. During the winter session of 2010, the issue of electoral voting was from the opposition and not the ruling party. Is the problem the issue of electoral voting or the product called EVM?

ANSWER: That is false. We never proposed the introduction of EVMs. Let me also point out that I grew up in the BCP and I attended almost all its forums including policy con-ferences and elective congresses. There was never a time when we resolved to mandate anyone to propose EVMs.

QUESTION: After opposition MPs visit-ed Namibia on a fact finding mission about

EVMs, they never raised concerns about the EVM on their returns. They only raised complaints when the budget was present-ed. They never raised concerns about EVM in parliament; rather their complaints were about lack of consultation. If there was no consultation, where do you get the view that the masses have rejected the EVM?

ANSWER: Three MPs participated in that fact finding mission to Namibia and India: Hon. Ngaka Ngaka, Hon. Gaolathe and my-self (Hon. Keorapetse). We were with the Ministers responsible for Elections (Presi-dential Affairs and Local Government). We learnt valuable lessons in Namibia, which is why the BCP went to court earlier. The Na-mibian opposition shot themselves on the foot by participating in an election in which there was no Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPT); and then rushing to court afterwards to contest the election on the basis of the absence of VVPAT. So our position is that we will approach the courts before elections are held. After realising that the Namibians didn’t have answers to many of the questions that were raised by myself and Ndaba Gaolathe, I proposed that perhaps we should have gone to the manufacturer in India. We managed to observe the use of EVM in state elections in India and also visit the Bharak Electronics Limited manufacturing plant. I raised the same issues that I raised today at the Bharak conference room. I told them about the factu-al finding by the Indian CoA and the hacking by researchers at the University of Michigan. I also told them we don’t trust their Elector-al Commission because the Secretary of the IEC is appointed by the President. We don’t believe the IEC is fully independent. Again, only one institution checks the security and national interest compliance of anything that gets into the country; the DISS. That is a rogue institution that has no oversight. So

Answers

11

Comments & Questions

what guarantees do we have that these ma-chines will not be used to favour the ruling party at the polls? So I told them that their machine may as well be good, but unfortu-nately there are facts that it can be tampered with. And I don’t trust my government to use that machine fairly.

QUESTION: The UDC has said it will not participate in elections that are rigged. For me that raises concerns about social justice and social security. How will the UDC not par-ticipate in elections and ensure that they jeal-ously guard against any challenges to social security?

ANSWER: I have said this before that we will fight as the opposition to protect univer-sal suffrage; the right to vote and the right to be voted into office. If it takes us going to the courts we will do it. If it takes us go-ing to the streets we will also do it. But we will not participate in elections that we know will be rigged. We will not just boycott these elections; we will also make sure that there are no elections because Batswana deserve a government of their choice. We won’t allow BDP to rig elections while we watch and say we have boycot-ted the EVM.

QUESTION: Batswana have told the Coordinator of the EVM that they don’t want the EVM. We were there in almost all kgotla meetings. What is the BDP’s response to the resound-ing rejection of the EVM by the people?

ANSWER: The truth of the matter is that the issue before us has caused so much conten-tion. It’s a lightning rod that we must acknowledge and recog-nise. But the fact that people

can sit in a forum of this kind and exchange ideas is proof of the richness of our democ-racy. From here we are going to exchange ideas and discuss further. Like I said, this is an agenda item at Congress. That should under-line to you that we take it seriously. It will be unfair for us to make a pronouncement that we have nothing to do with EVM. Allow our people to ventilate as you have done at your parties. The matter will come to conclusion in one way or the other.

QUESTION: (i) It is not true that the BDP has never initiated EVMs. A Minister in the Office of the President sponsored a motion in Parliament for the use of EVMs. The ma-jority of BDP MPs in Parliament agreed and voted in favour of the usage of EVMs. So I don’t know where Ntuane gets the audacity to come here and utter lies.

QUESTION: (ii) Seeing that there has been unanimous rejection of this EVM; added to the lawsuit by the BCP? Why can’t the just abandon the EVM campaign and give the mandate back to the people through a ref-erendum? (iii) The BDP claims that it did not come up with the idea of the EVM. I therefore challenge the BDP to join the BCP in suing those who are rooting for the EVM.

ANSWER: The IEC on its own cannot go to Parliament. They have a Minister to whom they take their bills for presentation in Par-liament. I cannot stand here in front of the entire nation and misrepresent the President of the Republic. He spoke to the National Council, to BDP Members and said IEC brought this idea to us. Otherwise it will be your word against mine. So let’s let it pass.

Again, this is water un-der the bridge because

the law has been passed. As we

m o v e

forward, we must address ourselves to the question of how do we come up with an electoral system that will satisfy all stakehold-ers and enjoy the confidence of the people of this country. That is the only way through which we will get a credible outcome. We are very much alive to this sentiment. But it is an ongoing national debate and at some point we will reach a conclusion and hopefully it will be to the satisfaction f this great nation of ours.

COMMENT: NELSON RAMAOTWANA: The BNF Central Committee and all parties met with Mr. Seeletso. We asked him why he came up with this EVM. He said it not IEC but government. We asked him to tell us what his concerns were regarding elections, he could not answer. That explains why Mr. Seeletso was hired upon retirement and is now at the forefront of this campaign. What is in it for Seeletso? What is evident is that there is no trust here; which means the elections will not be legitimate. We are in a conundrum. Who do we believe? Can we trust the outcome of this EVM election? The answer is no. Now, in terms of the Constitution and Article Section 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the will of the people is paramount. Anything that distorts the will of the people is illegitimate. We have reached a point where no one trusts or owns the EVM. Why don’t we just relieve Mr. Seeletso of his duties be-cause clearly no one wants to take own- ership of the EVM?

12

Final CommentsBOTSALO NTUANELet me make it clear that we are not

throwing IEC under the bus. As the BDP we cannot disown a law that was voted for by the majority BDP caucus. We are however of the view that certain clauses of the Electoral (Amendment) Act have to be reviewed. Ultimately, the position that the BDP will adopt will be in the best interests of Batswana.

NELSON RAMAOTWANA:As Batswana we are very velar: No to

EVMs. We will not accept any electoral reforms that do not take into consider-ation: political party funding, equal ac-cess to state resources, counting of bal-lots at polling stations, limited abuse of state resources by the BDP during elec-tions campaigns and many others. If the BDP gives the EVM thumbs up, then we will definitely meet in the streets.

DITHAPELO KEORAPETSENo to EVMs because they are a viola-

tion of the constitution in terms of vot-

ing by ballot. If you insist on forcing the EVM on Batswana, we will meet in the streets and we will make sure there are no elections.

Mr. TAKAWIRA MUSAVENGANAA voting system is as good as what

the public believe it to be. In Gambia for example they vote using marbles. But it works for them because the public has trust and confidence in the elections.

Mr. GRANT MASTERSON As EISA we have watched these de-

bates playing out in other countries. Many countries only embraced these technologies after they were depoliti-cised. When they became part of the political landscape, these technologies failed because the people rejected them. It is important to depoliticise the issue and address the advantages and disad-vantages of EVMs objectively.

13

Mr. OSCAR MOTSUMIBOARD CHAIRMAN BOCONGOBefore he gave the closing remarks, Mr. Oscar

Motsumi, Board Chairman of BOCONGO clarified the absence of the Independent Electoral Commis-sion (IEC) at the Panel Discussion. He said that when BOCONGO and FES Botswana first came up with the idea of a Panel Discussion, they approached the IEC to participate, but were asked to postpone, to which they complied.

After some time, BOCONGO went back to the IEC, but were told to postpone. At the time, he said, BO-CONGO told the IEC that they were going ahead with the Panel Discussion as they were working on a calendar. They then wrote a letter of invitation to the IEC, but never got a reply.

In his closing remarks, Mr. Motsumi urged Batswa-na to protect and defend the country’s fragile de-mocracy and make sure that no one is left behind, disenfranchised or forgotten. He added that the di-vergent views on the EVM should not be used to di-vide Batswana, but unify and strengthen the nation. He reaffirmed BOCONGO’s commitment to claiming its watchdog role; promising that going forward the Council will hold a series of activities that will chal-lenge government and political parties to account to the nation.

Mr. Motsumi said democracy calls for the protec-tion of minorities, saying Botswana’s democracy should be built on trust and should not leave any-one behind. He thanked the moderators, panellists and FES Botswana for supporting BOCONGO even during hard times.

Closing Remarks

14

Audience Botswana Congress Party President (BCP), Dumelang Saleshando in the audience

15

FES Programs Officer Roy Paya

BOPEU Secretary General Topius MarengaFrom left Mr. Olebile Machete BOCONGO Vice Chair, Ambassador Alexander Baum (EU) and Ambassador Rolf Ulrich (Germany)

From left, BOPEU President Masego Mogwera, BDP’s Fanu Masalila and Rev Rupert Hambira

Audience

BOCONGO Board Member, Douglas Thamage (wearing glasses) with Chaiman and his vice sharing a light moment

Plot 948/9 Kaunda Road, Extention 2Private Bag 00418, Gaborone, Botswana

Tel: +267 391 1319 Fax: +267 391 2935Email: info@bocongo.org Web: www.bocongo.org