Equality of arms between candidates in electoral processes in Africa: case of Cameroon

By Théophile Nguimfack Voufo

Understood as a game, or even a process, election is above all a competition between political actors ( 1 ). From this point of view, the candidates must be subject to the same conditions of competition, as required by the democratic ideal at the heart of this modality of designating political leaders in modern States ( 2 ). This justifies the interest in analyzing electoral processes from the angle of equality, a principle inherent to the democracy in vogue in modern States. But equality in electoral matters has often been approached based on gender considerations, notably the representativeness of women or that of minorities ( 3 ). It seems equally interesting to adopt another approach, which is that of equality of arms between candidates during the electoral process. In this regard, it is important to emphasize the interactions between candidates, between them and the election administration or even the election judge.

However, it should be noted that equality of arms is anchored in procedural law where it has acquired the value of principle ( 4 ). In this area, it constitutes a foundation of the right to a fair trial. Its purpose consists of offering the litigant all the necessary means to have his case heard fairly, publicly and within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ( 5 ). Transposed to electoral matters, equality of arms can be defined as the right for each candidate or political party to present its candidacy, its program, and to defend it publicly, fairly and independently before the people, other candidates, the body in charge of elections and the bodies in charge of electoral disputes. If there cannot be free, sincere and transparent elections in the absence of these requirements, it seems urgent to question the level of application of equality of arms in political elections in Cameroon.

While Cameroon is investing in strengthening its political system through increased democratization of institutions, the election remains an essential gauge by which the political modernization of the State can be assessed ( 6 ). Still fragile, the modernization of the Cameroonian electoral process has nevertheless made notable progress in terms of equality of arms between the protagonists of the electoral process (I), despite the gray areas which persist (II) and deserve to be addressed adequately (III).

The institutional reception of equality of arms in the electoral game

From the point of view of its institutional reception, equality of arms seems to be taken into account by the provisions of the Cameroonian electoral law, and implemented by the protagonists of the electoral process.Under the terms of the Electoral Code, equality of arms between candidates or political parties is manifested by their right to be represented in the different electoral commissions ( 7 ). Each candidate or political party has its own representative on preparatory election commissions, local voting commissions, departmental commissions and national commissions. It should be noted that this right implies that access is neither blocked nor made difficult for these representatives. Furthermore, the candidate or political party can only lose this right if they have been validly notified and have not shown up at the appointed time without valid reason. They must be able to express themselves independently on omissions, errors or useful observations and only be expelled for legitimate reasons.

During election campaigns, equality of arms gives each candidate or political party an equal opportunity to convince voters at meetings held to explain and comment on their programs and their political party’s pledges. The Electoral Code provides for an equitable distribution of poster space, media schedules and the calendar of political meetings. To help candidates and political organizations bear the financial cost of these operations, the law provides for public funding to reduce the gap in resources between candidates.During voting operations, Section 100 of the Electoral Code provides that, in each polling station, the number of ballot papers for each candidate or list of candidates, as well as envelopes, must be more than the number of registered voters. This measure implies the availability of ballots for all candidates. Their representatives must be able to freely participate in the vote count and receive a copy of the report of the results. In the event of a dispute, candidates or representatives of political parties are granted the right to appeal to the election judge without discrimination, but only under the conditions laid down by law. However interesting this institutional reception of equality of arms may be, restrictions are observed on their implementation.

II- Restricting the effects of equality of arms in electoral matters

Equality of arms does not exert the expected influence due to factors linked sometimes to the administration, sometimes to the body in charge of elections or to the election judge.With regard to administration, administrative authorities have extensive powers in their administrative districts to maintain public order and prevent disorder. However, this legitimate power must be used with tact and sensitivity. Otherwise, it can become a major obstacle to the expression of public freedoms, as they are necessary for the effectiveness of the debate of ideas supposed to bring the candidates’ program to the appreciation of voters. In practice, the administration showed little tolerance during this period and opted for bans on manifestations as a simple precautionary measure rather than taking action to regulate such events. More seriously, these bans seem more oriented towards opposition parties, as was observed during the 2018 presidential election ( 8 ). Likewise, several opposition parties encountered obstacles in compiling their candidacy files for the legislative and municipal elections organized in 2020 due to a lack of collaboration from administrative authorities ( 9 ).

With regard to the body in charge of elections, it is important to emphasize that its impartiality is a central element of the autonomy which has been granted to it to manage the electoral process in a transparent manner. However, Elections Cameroon (ELECAM) is regularly criticized for treating representatives of opposition candidates with relative discrimination ( 10 ). This is the case with the implementation of its powers to police electoral campaign posters. This body leaves certain latitude to certain parties, notably the one in power, to produce posters in an anarchic and even excessive manner to the detriment of other candidates.As for the election judge, the dispute over the 2018 presidential election revealed that the Constitutional Council is not yet open to an extensive interpretation of its praetorian powers ( 11 ). However, this attitude of the election judge represents a major obstacle to the regulation of the electoral process, as the electoral law contains many unspoken elements, such that only an approach designed to complete the law could serve to ensure equality between candidates and the manifestation of the truth of the ballot boxes. In the end, the opposition parties’ appeals are inadmissible not on substance, but on the grounds of lack of evidence, quality or deadlines, while the law itself seems obscure.From the above, it appears that many obstacles still hinder the materialization of equality of arms during the electoral process. In this regard, it seems useful to offer some recommendations.

Conclusion and recommendations

Equality of arms is the royal road to peaceful elections, since it is a guarantee of trust between the players in the electoral process. To reinforce its impact, we recommend

• Political parties should master the electoral law, in order to apply it and require its application in all circumstances;
• It is up to the administration to strengthen its neutrality during electoral periods, with civil servants and other public agents not having to act directly or indirectly on behalf of a political party;
• The body in charge of elections, ELECAM, should put its autonomy into practice so as not to receive or apply instructions from the administration or even from a political party.