Mapping violence during elections and voter education

This is not the first time I’ve helped plot violence related to elections in Sri Lanka. In my first post I noted that the map helped journalists better understand the degree of violence on the ground. Things are no better in the lead-up to the Western Provincial Council elections.

Just like previous maps, this map is so packed with incidents of violence that you need to zoom into some places (e.g. Horana) to see the degree of violence on the ground. Shooting, arson, intimidation, assault, looting are common.

Must democracy countenance the worst of us in public office? How can we improve, through civic education using mobiles and the web, voters more informed about key issues, candidates, their positions and political parties that are contesting?

Kantipur in Nepal ran a comprehensive website in Nepali featuring information on candidates during their key Constituent Assembly Elections in 2004, interviews with them and their stances regarding vital policy issues. I don’t see a comparable effort here. Some leading bloggers have made an effort to interview som candidates and candidates themselves have leveraged web media (including Facebook), but overall there is little real awareness about the (oftentimes criminal and sordid) history of candidates.

I feel that election violence can only be addressed if voter education results in the electoral defeat of those who indulge in such activities. For example, Vote Report India powered by Ushahidi is a great example of just how vexing elections in the world’s largest democracy can be.

vote-report-india

But unless awareness campaigns before an election, and advocacy campaigns after which bring to light, including name and shame, perpetrators of elections violence, these exercises alone, including my own, have little chance of really strengthening democracy. The problem with raising awareness before an election is that NGOs can never match the reach of an incumbent government’s propaganda, or even that of a political party, both of which have vested interests in keeping the public ignorant about the history of candidates and their violence.

The problem with post-election advocacy is that placing the violence of winners in public scrutiny will almost always be (a) seen as a conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of their victory (b) cast as a rival party political bid to discredit the electoral victory and the ‘will of the people’ (c) be seen as some sort of NGO / civil society campaign to discredit the winners.

Technology alone then is no guarantee of cleaner elections. But technology can be part of the solution.

Any ideas?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Limitations of Technology in Tracking Election Irregularities | Gauravonomics Blog - April 25, 2009

    […] feed in a feed reader or by e-mail and you’ll never miss a single post. Thanks for visiting!Sanjana Hattotuwa has written a really thought-provoking piece on the limitations of using (mapping) technology to […]

  2. Election monitoring using new media: Notes from my experience in Sri Lanka « ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT4Peace) - March 10, 2010

    […] of a better, more transparent and accountable electoral process and democracy? As I note in Mapping violence during elections and voter education, albeit from a Sri Lankan perspective, … unless awareness campaigns before an election, and […]

  3. Global Voices in English » Technology for Transparency: The South Asian Story - May 4, 2010

    […] Sanjana Hattotuwa, from CMEV, almost has a similar view, “…these exercises alone, including my own, have little chance of really strengthening democracy. Technology alone then is no guarantee of cleaner elections. But technology can be part of the solution.” […]

  4. ICTs for transparency and accountability in South Asia « ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT4Peace) - May 6, 2010

    […] is tempered by realistic assessments of political will, capacity and the socio-political context. As I note in a previous blog post, “…these exercises alone, including my own, have little chance of really strengthening […]

  5. Global Voices em Português » “Technology for Transparency”: A História do Sul da Ásia - June 15, 2010

    […] Sanjana Hattotuwa, do CMEV, tem uma opinião parecida, “…esses exercícios sozinhos, inclusive o meu próprio, tem pouca chance de fortalecer de fato a democracia. A tecnologia sozinha não é a garantia de eleições transparentes. Mas a tecnologia pode ser parte da solução.” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: