One of the most intriguing general elections in Namibia are due to be held on 27 November 2024 to elect a new President and members of the National Assembly. 

An election is a contest of legitimate power that can be described as non-violent competition, fought within a political forum. In this context, it is important to recognise that elections do not avoid confrontation, but rather focus on its management and containment within electoral rules and boundaries. 

In a democracy, there’s no single model of elections which is universally applicable to all countries. An election is unique, defined not only by the electoral rules, but also shaped by the social values, politics, religion, history and culture of the people. In the same way, the security of an election is unique to the circumstances in which it is conducted. The stakes of any given election are different, even if it is held periodically in the same country, due to the changing forces that shape the national interest, and corresponding political agenda. 

Security planning 

Elections are normally planned 18 to 24 months before polling day, and occur as a widely-dispersed exercise requiring significant planning and preparatory activities. Therefore, integrated strategic planning by the electoral and security institutions is essential to prioritise, allocate and coordinate necessary resources. 

In the first instance, security planning should include a range of contingency plans and resources to ensure flexibility.  Alternatively, clearly-defined constraints on security capabilities and resources, based on efficient planning, should be available to inform decision-makers on the range of options which are feasible to accommodate. The efficiency of these operations, both in delivering substantive security services and adjusting to changes, is an important indicator for the confidence of the electoral participants. 

In practice, the assurance of equitable security during an electoral process is essential to retaining the participants’ confidence and commitment to an election. Consequently, security is both integral to the goal of an election, and an inseparable part of the electoral process. 

Conduct 

Credible elections demand adherence to principles and rights, which in practice impose significant challenges for securing effective security. Thus, the institutions responsible for administration of security of an election must fulfill their mandates impartially, and may be constrained by the need to avoid perceptions that they are favouring a particular political competitor. 

As such, elections must be held in compliance with the national laws that usually create immutable timeframes. Importantly, there must be transparency, which requires that the step of an electoral process is well-advertised to the public. 

Essentially, to operate effectively within the electoral requirements, security forces need to be properly guided by their own principles. Security forces may also enter a Code of Conduct to administer the behaviour of their personnel during an election. They also often outline a policy framework termed a “Rule of Engagement” (ROE) or “Use of Force Policy” (UoF) to guide the actions of their personnel in certain circumstances. 

In this sense, participants in an election must be treated in an equitable manner by both the security forces and electoral officials. In certain circumstances, it may be necessary for the security officials to pursue liaison and consultation with the communities to explain their role in an election. Reasonable and proportionate responses to actions must be consistent, which cannot be influenced by arbitrary factors such as political affiliation. Thus, an election is a mechanism by which people are able to exercise their political, civil and human rights. Security protocols must consider and acknowledge these rights, as well as the heightened sensitivity and scrutiny to the respect of these rights which occur during an election period. 

Impartiality 

To be effective, security forces must avoid allegations of partisan bias. If security forces are found to behave in a partisan way, rather than defusing tensions, they may heighten them, and undermine their own functions in the process. During the election period, and especially during the campaign period, normal security actions may become the subject of analysis which evokes political dimensions. In politics in general, and in elections in particular, perception is as important as reality. Hence, senior security managers must actively consider those political dimensions to preserve not only the reality, but the perception of impartiality. 

Communication 

In security operations, there is always tension between operational security policies of “need to know”, and the public interest. In an election period, disclosure policies are normally best weighted towards public interest, recognising the importance and value of transparency. 

In cases where it is necessary to protect information, extra accountability measures may be necessary to ensure post-event justifications. Transparency in this context also refers to enhancing consultative mechanisms with political groups, civil society and other organisations to ensure the role and functions of security forces are well-understood in the process. 

In many cases, the political dimensions of an election can create obstacles to otherwise seemingly simple security decisions. This feature of the electoral processes highlights the potential frustrations which can arise between security and electoral officials. Eventually, an operational solution cannot be considered desirable if it does not address the necessary political conditions. 

In summary, an effective election security analysis must draw on information and expertise from multiple arenas. A high level of communication and coordination among the agencies responsible for the administration and security of an election is a significant advantage. Neither can security analysis and planning be effective when it occurs only in a period shortly before the electoral process starts, nor depend solely on reactive strategies. Anticipating and pre-empting security risks, mitigating their impact or probability of occurrence, is a strategic endeavour of both the electoral authorities and their security partners. In the end, an equitable secure environment for electoral participants is fundamental to their engagement in the process, and by extension, the goal of an election itself. 

*Maj. Gen. (Rtd) J. B Tjivikua