VZCZCXRO7356
PP RUEHGI
DE RUEHLGB #0183/01 0550744
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 240744Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY KIGALI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2408
INFO RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KIGALI 000183 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/C and DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KDEM PHUM RW
SUBJECT: 2006 SECTOR-LEVEL ELECTIONS: ORDERLY, HIGH VOTER 
TURNOUT, BUT FEW CANDIDATES 
 
REF: KIGALI 146 
 
This is sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect 
accordingly. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  The second phase of 2006 Rwanda local 
elections, conducted February 20 at the sector level, 
proceeded smoothly.  Polling sites were easy to find and 
easy to access, and local National Electoral Commission 
staff appeared to follow established guidelines and 
procedures.  Voters were generally provided voting 
instructions and privacy.  Security forces were present 
outside polling stations, but unobtrusive.  There were no 
signs of intimidation or coercion of voters or other serious 
procedural irregularities.  Overall, the voter participation 
level was high, ranging from approximately 75 to 90 percent 
of the estimated 4.1 million registered voters.  Observers 
from various embassies noted, however, the low number of 
candidates and high number of last-minute candidate 
withdrawals, which created some confusion among voters and 
raised questions about possible political influence in the 
selection of candidates.  End summary. 
 
Balloting Procedure 
------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The direct elections, conducted by secret ballot at 
the sector level, were generally well-organized and orderly, 
starting at or close to the scheduled starting time of 7 
a.m. and concluding promptly at 3 p.m.  Voting was for two 
positions -- a general sector representative to the District 
Council and a female representative to the district level. 
(Note:  The Rwandan Constitution sets aside a minimum of 30 
percent of all elected government positions for women.  End 
note.) 
 
¶3. (U) Observers reported that voters lined up early to vote 
and that the elections proceeded smoothly and technically 
correctly, with voters generally given voting instructions 
and afforded privacy in make-shift voting booths.  The 
number of ballots was sufficient, and most voters seemed 
familiar with the procedure.  National Police and Local 
Defense Forces (LDF) were present but unobtrusive.  While 
some observers noted inconsistencies in the vote count, the 
overall voting procedure, including the number of local 
National Electoral Commission (NEC) staff per polling 
station, was generally consistent across all polling sites. 
Candidates were not present at the polling sites, but their 
representatives were allowed to observe the proceedings 
throughout the day, including the vote count.  The vote 
count was open and transparent, taking approximately 2-1/2 
hours. 
 
Weaknesses and Irregularities 
----------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The balloting proceeded without coercion, 
harassment, or intimidation of voters or other serious 
irregularities.  Observers noted, however, some weaknesses 
in ballot box security and verification of prior voting. 
While ballot boxes were sealed tight with tape and stamped 
when the polls closed to prevent any tampering until 
commencement of the vote count, observers noted that, except 
when nailed shut, boxes were not tightly secured throughout 
the balloting, although they were never out of the direct 
sight of NEC staff and voters. 
 
¶5. (SBU) In addition, the post-vote marking of fingers with 
indelible ink and the annotation of voter cards were 
inconsistent across polling stations.  Observers noted that 
NEC assessors did not appear to check voters' fingers for 
evidence of prior voting to prevent multiple voting.  Some 
observers noted the presence of political figures at polling 
sites.  Other personnel, including non-uniformed "security 
personnel," also wandered in and out of some polling 
stations. 
 
¶6. (SBU) During the vote count, NEC staff in most precincts 
displayed ambiguously marked ballots to all observers, 
including the candidates' representatives, and sought their 
opinions as to whether the votes should be counted and, if 
so, how they should be tallied.  Consensus was generally 
reached on these cases.  At the end of the vote count, 
however, when there was a discrepancy between the number of 
ballots cast for a position and the number of voters who had 
voted at a given station, NEC staff in several instances 
simply decided to declare uncast ballots as spoiled/unmarked 
to reconcile the discrepancy.  In some cases with clear 
victors, counting appeared to proceed with more interest in 
 
KIGALI 00000183  002 OF 002 
 
 
speed than accuracy, though this did not affect the overall 
result. 
 
Lack of Candidates and Last-Minute Withdrawals 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶7. (SBU) In a meeting with observers from other embassies 
February 21 to share observations, all agreed that the non- 
partisan elections were technically and procedurally 
superior to the February 6 cell-level elections (reftel) and 
the balloting procedure generally orderly and transparent. 
The basic rules were observed, and there were no significant 
problems.  Observers noted, however, that at almost every 
polling site there were candidates who had withdrawn, which 
created some confusion among voters and raised questions 
about possible political influence in the selection of 
candidates. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Observers questioned whether there was unauthorized 
campaigning prior to election day, whether candidates were 
listed on the ballot in any particular order, and if so, who 
determined the order of candidates, and whether there was 
favoritism for the candidate listed on top.  Some noted that 
candidates listed on top received most of the votes and that 
their photos were clearest.  One observer noted that at one 
polling site, four of six candidates had withdrawn for 
personal reasons.  No further explanations were provided for 
the withdrawals.  Some voters in the polling station were 
confused because the ballots still listed all the candidates 
and they were not aware that candidates had withdrawn. 
Another observer remarked that illiterate voters may have 
simply voted for candidates pointed out by local NEC staff 
on the ballot when providing voting instructions.  Some 
observers wondered whether the participation level was high 
because Rwandans believe in the democratic process or 
because they believe that voting is compulsory. 
 
Media Coverage 
-------------- 
 
¶9. (U) Government-owned Radio Rwanda, one of only two radio 
stations that provided nationwide coverage of the elections, 
reported that in the southern city of Butare there were 
convicted genocidaires who had received their voting cards 
prior to conviction but were not allowed to vote under the 
electoral law which prohibits convicted genocidaries from 
voting.  Radio Flash FM did not report any irregularities. 
 
¶10. (U) VOA reported that the elections went well, 
commenting that "perfection is not humanly possible."  It 
also reported that "there were reports that some candidates 
were forced to withdraw their candidacy."  The Vice 
President of the Electoral Commission, however, informed VOA 
that candidates had made their own decisions and that no one 
had forced them to withdraw.  The Vice President also told 
VOA that there was one NEC staff member who was detained for 
not adhering to NEC regulations. 
 
¶11. (U) According to pro-government newspaper "The New 
Times," Minister of Internal Affairs Christophe Bazivamo 
called upon the electorate to hold the newly elected local 
leaders accountable.  "Voters shouldn't only be active in 
the elections and turn away from overseeing the commitment 
of the elected leaders during their five-year tenure of 
office," he commented.  "They should be watchdogs to make 
sure that the leaders deliver on what they promised. 
Keeping an open eye helps to identify the leaders' mistakes 
and monitor their performance."  Bazivamo warned losers to 
"respect the voters' decision since there has to be a loser 
and winner in any democratic electoral exercise." 
 
¶12. (SBU) Comment:  Although voting is not compulsory at the 
local elections level, voter turnout was very high.    One 
explanation for the high turnout may be the perception among 
Rwandan voters that it is necessary to prove participation 
in elections to receive some government services (e.g., 
passports).  (Note:  Every Rwandan citizen is issued a voter 
identification card, which is stamped by an election 
official after voting to verify participation.  End note.) 
The success of the elections reflected in part by the 
overall high voter participation level, however, was offset 
somewhat by the large number of unexplained last-minute 
candidate withdrawals and low number of candidates.  While 
generally the non-partisan elections proceeded smoothly with 
no serious irregularities or violations and balloting was 
viewed as free and fair, observers questioned the extent of 
political influence in the process.