interim statement
EISA Regional Observer Mission to the Zambia 2006 Tripartite Elections 28 September 2006 (continued)

2.10.2 Compilation
The compilation continues. Again, the logistics are proving to be a big challenge given the volume of material to be handled, particularly difficulties of storing and sorting material received from the polling centres. The compilation process is as sensitive as counting and needs to be undertaken with equal diligence.

2.10.3 Electronic Tabulation System
The results management system in 2001 was one of the chief areas of contention and criticism. In an effort to ameliorate this critical aspect of the process, the ECZ introduced an electronic tabulation system both as a backup to the manual system and to ensure that verification of results would be completed as quickly as possible. Whilst this was a welcome move, the mission noted that the system was not fully understood by the stakeholders, particularly political parties who also did not understand that it was a backup measure.

3 Areas for improvement and recommendations

The mission therefore recommends the following:

3.1 Funding of Political Parties

A number of political parties expressed their concern that they did not have adequate funding for organising their parties and their campaigns and that the incumbent candidates took advantage of their powerful positions and had unfair advantage in the campaign.

The Mission recommends that provision be considered for transparent state funding of political parties with reasonable limitations in order to allow all prospective candidates to participate in the electoral process equitably.

3.2 Media Access and Coverage of Candidates

Free and fair access to the media has and continues to be an important feature of elections. The mission recorded that the increase in media outlets, both print and electronic, since the previous election has improved media coverage of the elections. The increase has largely been in private ownership of print and electronic media accompanied by an increase in the number and influence of community radio stations.

However, the Mission noted the concern of certain political parties as well as independent candidates who felt that the access to State-owned media was unbalanced with most of coverage going to the incumbent president and his party. The mission was also informed that both public and private media displayed varying degrees of partisanship in their coverage of the campaign. Where opposition parties and candidates were covered on the state owned media, the coverage was inconsistent. In the state-owned electronic media there were reports that coverage of the opposition was at unfavourable hours whilst the incumbent received primetime coverage. In the print media coverage of opposition views and activities was, until the last stages of the campaign limited to the inside pages whilst the incumbent consistently received front page coverage. The mission was not in a position to fully investigate these complaints.

The Mission further recommends that an effective level playing field should be created for the fair access to the media by parties and candidates during the electoral process.