Paper short abstract:

This paper argues that in addition to formal political institutions (such as the electoral commission and the Judiciary) there is an important role played by the informal traditional conflict resolution strategies during the Ghanaian disputed 2012 elections.

Paper long abstract:

The gap between the administration of the rules governing elections and the acceptability of electoral outcomes constitute a major challenge for the consolidation of democratic governance in African states. This is mainly because of the weak electoral management bodies and the lack of the full requisite of a well-functioning democratic regime. As a result, even though, the conduct of multiparty elections promises peaceful alternation of government and the selection of leaders, the actual or perceived manipulation of the electoral process by defeated political parties often leads to protracted post-electoral disputes, protests and violence. This paper argues that to address these electoral institutional limitations, there is the need to complement it with the conflict resolution mechanisms in the existing customary institutions and the shared norms in the broader society. It does this by examining the case in Ghana in 2012 when the losing party vehemently disputed the results. The paper draws on the empirical reports of election observers and journalists; the views of electoral officials, legal actors, politicians, and judicial records. It is argued that traditional methods for conflict resolution were effectively deployed to complement the weakness of the formal adjudication role of the electoral commission and the judiciary. It also demonstrates how these traditional peacebuilding strategies can help to infuse innovation, sustainability, and creativity in delivering free and fair electoral outcomes as well as peace, justice, and security.

Paper Download (259 KB)