by Phyllis Johnson
When Angolans went to the polls in national elections last month, they voted for a peaceful future.
The mood at polling stations was one of goodwill and reconciliation. Most of the electoral officials and representatives of the various parties were teachers, university students and other young, literate professionals who, if the war had continued, could have been on the front line.
They were dignified, proud of their role in the peace process, looking forward to rebuilding their country.
International observers saw in their behaviour the future potential of the country and its organizational capacity, and went away impressed with Angola and its people.
For electoral models and voting methods, Angolans had turned to their neighbours, studying especially the system used in Zimbabwe and also looking at Botswana, Namibia and Zambia, as well as some European models. They then created something uniquely Angolan.
As the counting progressed and it became apparent that Jonas Savimbi’s party, the National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola {UNITA), was not going to win the election, Dr Savimbi declared it fraudulent and said he would go back to the bush if the MPLA was returned to power.
He risks splitting his own party with such a declaration since some other senior members of the UNITA leadership, including his vice-president Jeremias Chitunda who negotiated the peace accord, are committed to the process and to acceptance of the election results.
However, the joint commander of the new national defence force, representing UNITA, is one of Savimbi’s nephews, General Arlindo Pena “Ben Ben”. He heeded his uncle’s call to withdraw, although he had been sworn in only days earlier and had publicly committed himself to peace and democracy.
There are disturbing indications that Dr Savimbi has moved to isolate, and in some cases threaten, certain key members of his leadership whom he thinks may be offered cabinet posts in a “government of national unity”.
Until a peace accord was signed last year, UNITA fought a guerrilla war against the government, with military support from South Africa and the United States. However, both of UNITA’s main backers have said they will accept the results of the election, which they believe took place without major obstacles.
As counting neared completion, it seemed likely that UNITA would win about one third of the votes, and therefore have a substantial representation in the legislature.
Savimbi’s count in the presidential race was slightly higher, but apparently not high enough to prevent a clear majority by the incumbent, President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, the candidate of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA).
The latter campaigned with the slogan “o futuro tranquilo” — a peaceful future. A Brazilian public relations firm marketed a smiling, confident President as “Zé Du”, a catchy abbreviation of his name, Jose Eduardo.
Both parties have agreed to investigate any irregularities presented by Savimbi, but it seems unlikely there could be anything serious enough to alter the result after a process scrutinized so widely by the United Nations and other international observers.
The main concern was whether Dos Santos would maintain the level of 50% of the votes required for an outright victory. If not, there would have to be a second round run-off vote with the second candidate -Savimbi — within 30 days. Diplomats and others fear that, under the circumstances, a second campaign would raise tension and may not be peaceful.
It is notable that the MPLA was the only party to draw a national, multi-ethnic vote, running well even in some UNIT A strongholds in the south.
The British publication. Africa Confidential, predicted this two weeks before the elections, saying that in any election there is often a protest vote against the government but that, in the south of Angola, the protest vote would be against UNITA as the incumbent authority.
Portugal, the former colonial power, and the United States have firmly advised all parties to accept the results. The US representative on the joint political-military commission, Jeffrey Millington, has described the conduct of the elections in glowing terms saying he was impressed by “the absence of incidents of violence and of any indications of significant fraud.”
“Everything went on magnificently, all polling stations performed well, the participation of the voters was incredible, and the count, in spite of a few delays, is proceeding well.”
The US assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Herman J. Cohen, said, only days before the voting. “We feel that it would be very difficult — extremely difficult not to have a free and fair election in Angola. The country is blanketed pretty well by the UN monitors. Many other countries have sent monitors. A large number of countries, including ourselves, have made voluntary contributions to the logistics that are needed — aircraft, helicopters, communications packages, fuel blotters.”
In testimony to the Senate Sub- committee on African Affairs on 23 September, Cohen said, “Both sides feel they are going to win — which is healthy — because they believe in the competition. When I was there, we got both Dr. Savimbi and President Dos Santos to agree that whoever wins — they will take in the loser into a sort of a government of national reconciliation.
“So I believe that there will be an election, and it will be free and fair, and we will support the winner. No matter who wins, we will recognize them — send an ambassador there.”
AWEPAA (European Parliamentarians for Southern Africa) and Programme Angola-Canada, which together had deployed 40 observers to 10 provinces, released an interim statement on 1 October before the election results were known, urging all parties to “accept the results of the election in the same manner of reconciliation that was shown at the polling stations.
“Whatever the outcome, the main winners are the people of Angola who have shov.11 by their conduct their commitment to a sustainable peace.” (SARDC)
