Political and judicial contestations affecting election management in South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe

Abstract

The latest elections in South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe suggest that Africa must brace for serious legal and political contestations of election management. The separation of powers principle presupposes a healthy balance between the executive, judiciary, and legislative arms of the state. This seemingly worked well to support the election management bodies (EMBs) from undue interference and meddling by these arms of state before, during, and after elections. However, recent developments in South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe suggest that a slight shift in this arrangement has occurred, and that serious contestations between politicians, the judiciary, and election management have resulted in adulteration of the ‘free, fair, and credible’ principles of conducting elections on the continent. Using a comparative perspective and rational choice approach of institutional theory, this article interrogates the relationships between the judiciary, politicians, and EMBs in the three countries, and evaluates them based on the African Union’s (AU) Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa and the AU’s Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance.