US embassy cable - 04LILONGWE523

UNCLAS LILONGWE 000523 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/14/2014 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, MI, Elections 
SUBJECT: SADC TEAM ALONE IN PRAISING MALAWI'S ELECTIONS 
 
REF: LILONGWE 445 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
1. (U) The SADC Election Observer Team (SEOT) stood alone in 
its failure to find fault with Malawi's May 20 elections, and 
unlike all other observer missions deemed the elections as 
"free and fair and credible" according to a preliminary 
statement. African Union (AU), Commonwealth, European Union 
(EU), Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA), and SADC 
Parliamentary Forum (SADC-PF) observers pointed out 
deficiencies in the electoral process and distanced 
themselves from public declarations of "free and fair" 
elections. 
 
SADC - A TALE OF TWO OBSERVER MISSIONS 
-------------------------------------- 
2.  (U) Two missions from SADC were in Malawi to observe 
elections: SADC-PF and the SADC Election Observer Team 
(SEOT), organized by the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence, and 
Security Cooperation. In an official statement, the 
Parliamentary Forum pointed out a number of shortcomings, in 
particular the failure of state-controlled media to allow 
equitable access for opposition parties.   The Malawi 
Electoral Commission (MEC) was, according to SADC-PF, 
overstretched, and the statement included a long list of 
recommended improvements.  Notably, the team  declined to 
comment on the level of freedom, fairness, and credibility of 
Malawi's elections. 
 
3.  (U) SEOT, however, praised the election. SEOT's 
statement, issued on May 21 (note: two days before official 
results were announced) deemed the voting process "free and 
fair and credible in terms of transparency and accepted 
electoral practices" and praised the MEC's overall management 
of the elections.  It urged stakeholders to accept the (then 
still unannounced) final results, calling them a "true 
reflection of the wishes of the people of Malawi, committed 
to further consolidation of peace, stability, freedom and 
democracy in this sister country and full member of the SADC." 
 
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS? 
---------------------- 
4.  (U) Statements from other observer missions, including 
the AU, EU, Commonwealth, and EISA were uniformly critical in 
their analysis of the elections.  While all missions noted 
that the elections were peaceful, they also made pointed 
remarks about unfair media coverage, irregularities in the 
voters' roll, use of state resources by the ruling party, and 
various other issues (reftel). The AU statement referred to 
the language during the campaign as "intimidating, 
provocative and insulting" and deemed the practice of 
handouts disturbing. (note: Candidates, particularly those in 
the ruling party, commonly distributed cash and food at 
political rallies.)  The EISA statement blasted the media's 
treatment of the campaigns as unbalanced and notes that the 
MEC is widely perceived as partisan. The EU statement went 
further in such criticism, citing specific examples of media 
and MEC bias, while the Commonwealth couched its praise for 
the polling staff by pointing out that there were "serious 
inadequacies in the registration process" and "grave concern" 
about the "misuse of the advantages of incumbency." 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
5. (SBU) Of all the international and diplomatic observer 
missions, only the SADC Election Observer Team found no 
substantial fault with Malawi's elections, bringing into 
question SADC's objectivity in its peer review of member 
states.  In praising Malawi's dubious performance, the team 
demonstrated SADC's unfortunate proclivity to close ranks 
behind its members no matter what the issue and what the 
truth. 
DOUGHERTY