The 2004 presidential elections in Mozambique were criticised by the main opposition party and international observers, who made allegations of electoral fraud and misconduct. While the available data is limited, such allegations can be tested by examining whether the evidence from polling stations was consistent with specific complaints.

A paper from the Crisis States Research Centre, in the UK, examines the issue of electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential elections in Mozambique. The researchers begin by exploring allegations of fraud at specific polling stations, then broaden their analysis to see if the problem was more widespread.

A multiparty democratic system was established in Mozambique in 1990. Since then, the country has had five multiparty elections, each of which was won by the Frelimo party. In the 2004 presidential elections, Frelimo enjoyed a landslide victory over the main opposition party, Renamo. International observers, the media and opposition parties (particularly Renamo) complained of electoral fraud and malpractice.

They identified three kinds of misconduct: ballot box stuffing, improper spoiling of ballot papers and intentional organisational failure that meant some voters were unable to vote. Although not enough to change the outcome of the election, the incidents were said to happen often.

Ballot box stuffing involves extra votes being cast or a higher number of votes being recorded to benefit a particular party or candidate (in this case Frelimo). Where this happened, one would expect to see an unusually high turnout rate (the percentage of people on the electoral register who actually vote). Where intentional organisational failures made it hard for voters in Renamo-supporting areas to vote, one would expect to see unusually low turnout rates. Where ballot papers were spoilt to damage Renamo’s chances, one would expect a high number of invalid votes.

The researchers found hundreds of polling stations where the evidence is consistent with the allegations of fraud and misconduct:

• 194 polling stations had turnouts of 85 percent or higher (140 had turnouts of over 95 percent).
• 241 polling stations had turnouts of less than 4 percent and 396 had turnouts between 4 and 8 percent.
• Over 25 percent of the votes were invalid at 93 polling stations and between 15 and 25 percent of votes were invalid at 160 stations.
• Suspiciously high and low turnout rates and invalid vote rates occurred mostly in areas where allegations of electoral fraud had been made.
• At the national level, irregularities in turnout rates and invalid votes were linked to party support (for example, high turnout rates were linked with support for Frelimo).

While such statistical evidence does not prove that electoral fraud took place, the authors conclude that:

• Ballot box stuffing (benefiting Frelimo) and improper ballot spoiling and organisational failure (harming Renamo) did take place on a large scale, even if overall results were not affected.
• Fraud was most prevalent in provinces where Renamo registered complaints.
• The analysis provides a useful method for assessing allegations of fraud and misconduct.
• It also highlights areas of concern for future elections in Mozambique and other countries.

Source(s):
‘Identifying Fraud in Democratic Elections: A Case Study of the 2004 Presidential Elections in Mozambique’, Crisis States Research Centre Working Paper No.8, Series No.2, CSRC: London, by Joe Hanlon and Sean Fox, 2006 (PDF) Full document.
More papers from the International Development Centre on Mozambique Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 27 April 2008

Further Information:
Joe Hanlon
International Development Centre
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
UK

Tel: +44 1908 655419
Fax: +44 1908 654825
Contact the contributor: j.hanlon@open.ac.uk

International Development Centre, The Open University, UK

Sean Fox
Crisis States Research Centre
Room U610
London School of Economics
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
UK

Tel: +44 20 78494631
Fax: +44 20 79556421
Contact the contributor: s.fox1@lse.ac.uk

Crisis States Programme, London School of Economics, UK

Other related links:
'Paying for votes in Sao Tome and Principe'

'What are the best ways to lead anti-democratic states to development?'

'Building inclusive citizenship and democracies'