By Dr Samuel Chindaro
There have been a number of
publications in the local media, quoting comments from various ‘experts’, and citing
developments elsewhere, using these to cast aspersions on the use of biometrics
in the upcoming Zimbabwe elections. Examples
of these publications are “Red Flag over Biometric Registration” (The Herald,
11 March 20017), “France’s Cancellation of e-voting: Eye-opener for Zim” (The Herald
9 March 2017), “BVR, A Luxury We Cannot Afford” (The Herald, 13 March 2017 –
Editorial Comment) and most recently “More Thumbs Down for Biometric Voting”
(The Herald, 15 March 2017). This effort has been systematic and sustained,
culminating into a Newsday publication (16 March 2017) screaming “2018 Polls
Hang in Balance”. All this comes after the tender process has commenced and a
shortlist of companies compiled - maybe just a coincidence. This however is the
political side of the process which the author will leave to political
analysts.
What these publications revealed
was a clear lack of understanding of the BVR process. This lack of
understanding and “mis-information” is being used to discredit the process culminating
in the set-up of an agenda giving cues to the abandonment of the biometrics
project. This article is intended to correct some of this mis-information and
mis-interpretation of developments elsewhere. It also aims to clarify the
proposed Biometric Voter Registration and Verification process (BVR) which Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission (ZEC) is proposing, and has been successfully used in
other countries.
The common theme in these
publications has been the misconception that ZEC is going to implement ‘biometric
voting or electronic voting’. This then
set the basis for the claim that the system would be susceptible to
‘cyber-attacks’ and ‘hacking’ which
would derail the voting process and dis-enfranchise voters, citing France’s
abandonment of electronic voting as an example.
ZEC is not proposing to implement ‘biometric or electronic voting’; it
is proposing a model of BVR which is very different from electronic voting
(even though it can be used as a launch pad for electronic voting).
Additionally, the process being proposed is not more vulnerable to
cyber-attacks or hacking than any other electronic voter’s register or
database. This will be further explained in this article.
The call for the employment of
technology in Zimbabwe for both voter registration and facilitation of the electoral
process is not new. The issue has been raised in parliament several times
(Tongai Matutu, 2010, Pishai Muchauraya and Nelson Chamisa, 2012 for example).
The author of this article also advocated for biometrics to be used in a 2012
publication and in a number of follow-up articles thereafter.
The intention to introduce biometrics
in Zimbabwe for the 2018 elections has enhanced ZEC’s credibility, and should
be applauded as a step in the right direction. Zimbabwe is not re-inventing the
wheel, but is following in the footsteps of other countries including Ghana, Benin,
Tanzania, Togo, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, DRC and Nigeria among others, which
have successfully pioneered this technology.
Before, dealing with the issues
that are being raised in the recent publications, a brief explanation of
biometrics is given here. Biometrics refers to human physical and behavioural
characteristics such as fingerprints, the iris, signature, face etc. These can
be used to uniquely identify an individual.
This concept is definitely not new! Zimbabwe has been collecting
people’s biometrics for decades; everyone has to have a picture taken and fingerprints
captured to obtain a national identity (ID) or passport. This background and reference is important because
BVR is just similar to this process. In
BVR, a voter’s details (name date of birth, address etc) are digitally captured
and stored alongside their biometric features (face and fingerprints) on a
computer– that’s it. Nothing more nothing less! The advantage of this system is
that these biometric features can be used to uniquely identify an individual in
a computerised way and additionally , there is inbuilt software to identify and
eliminate duplicate voters/registrants; leading to a clean voters roll.
The deployment of personnel for
the purpose of collecting BVR information is not different to that done in
order to register people in the “old way”.
Personnel will be trained and equipped with mobile voter registration
kits. These are portable devices designed to create electoral rolls; equipment
that is reusable, extensible and resistant to adverse conditions. These devices
are self-contained, autonomous units supported by long-life batteries and can
be used in remote areas for registration, even within homesteads. In the end, what
is compiled is a normal database or electoral register which includes
biometrics information.
The second part of the process is
voter verification or authentication which happens on voting day. This is
whereby a person appears on voting day, presents an ID or provides a name. The
person’s biometrics face and/or fingerprints are then captured and compared to
those in the computer database (biometric voters’ register). Again mobile
biometric kits/stations are available to achieve this, enabling penetration of
remote areas. If there is a match, the
person is verified, gets a ballot paper and continues to vote (manually) in the normal way! The person’s details are then
digitally marked as having voted and cannot be used for repeat voting (no need
for ink). This is NOT electronic or
biometric voting, but manual voting
as we are used to!
At first ZEC had indicated that biometric
verification would not be done (thus just creating Biometric Voter Register – or
simply an electoral register which contains a person’s face and fingerprints
which would not improve the voting process itself but provide a clean and
credible voters’ roll). However Vice President Mnangagwa in response to a
question by MP Chamisa in parliament regarding use of biometrics on voting day
had this to say; “Hon. Chamisa has
forgotten that we agreed that we need BVR.
We never said it would not go full throttle. We agreed that the biometric system would be
used in coming up with a Voters Roll up until
the actual voting.” So, it is expected that biometric verification will
be used on voting day.
The other dominant theme of the
publications attacking the BVR process was the ‘susceptibility to hacking and
cyber-attacks’. A biometric voter register, as mentioned before, is no different
from any electoral register (as prescribed by the Electoral Act) or any other
database. Therefore it’s susceptibility to hacking and cyber-attacks should
just be at the same level; but this is not even the case as these biometric
databases are more robust and designed to protect the sensitive personal
information they contain.
The issue of data privacy
features dominantly in the development of biometric processes. Consequently, the
BVR process has inbuilt protection included in the software packages (for
example, template protection) which makes it more robust than the current electronic
register which has been used in the previous elections. It is difficult to hack,
and even if the data is somehow stolen it would be in an unusable format for
the perpetrator. It is accepted that the outcry might have been based on the
misconception that “electronic voting” and automatic tallying of votes would be
carried out; an assumption which is very wrong.
Another debate and negative
concept being cast about the BVR process is its perceived cost, but before
delving into the intricacies of financial cost, it is important to look at why
Zimbabwe has embarked on this path. It is not by accident that ZEC has embarked
on the Biometrics project. The history of disputed elections and
unclean/suspicious voter registers is a known political burden to Zimbabwe. This
has damaged the credibility of Zimbabwe elections leading to violence, leading
to loss of lives, people being displaced and some fleeing the country. The cost
in terms of human lives and the country’s economy has been monumental and
cannot be quantified. It is clear that the current scenario cannot be sustained,
and an improvement/change in the electoral process is crucial. Reverting to the
use of national IDs or licences will create the same cycle of rigging
accusations and discrediting of the electoral process – a vicious circle which
needs to be avoided.
In 2012, ZEC said they would need
about US$20 million to spruce up the widely-condemned roll after which
constituency boundaries would be drawn up for general elections(The Herald
21/12/12). It is on record that a proposal for biometrics registration was made
at that time, detailing that the exercise could be carried out within 3 months,
costing USD20 Million; the same figure that ZEC had said it needed to clean up
the voters’ roll!
The current proposal for BVR is
based on a budget of US$29 million; to produce a NEW clean and credible voters’
roll – surely not an expensive exercise especially if put into context of what
it will achieve. The cost of acquiring the equipment needed is no more than
US$15 million. Therefore the “unaffordability” claim is unfounded. Furthermore
UNDP had offered to fund the BVR procurement process through their structures
to ensure transparency, a proposal which has now been rejected for
‘sovereignty’ reasons. However the government has now made US$17 million
available to fund the process. In addition, this process is sustainable, and
will be much cheaper in the next elections (no/low procurement cost) in
addition to the bonus of sustainable dispute free elections.
Having said all that, BVR in
itself does not guarantee successful, fair or credible elections. The author
does not propose the use of biometrics as a "silver bullet" capable
overcoming all obstacles Zimbabwe faces in ensuring a level playing field in
which all eligible voices have their say in the political future of the
country. Its effectiveness can only be
recognised if applied in tandem with the political-will and sincerity of
authorities in charge, who are tasked with guaranteeing fairness and ensuring
inclusion of all citizens. Biometric
technology cannot solve problems rooted in issues such as mistrust among
stakeholders or lack of political freedoms. Elections, at the end of the day,
are a political process.
In spite of all the challenges,
the introduction of biometrics in the compilation of voter registers should
improve the accuracy of the voter registers and provide the foundation for
clean and violence free elections. Ghana has used biometric registration and
verification in three consecutive elections (the latest occasion being in 2016)
proving that the process can be reliable and sustainable. It is therefore urged that ZEC and all
stakeholders embrace biometrics technology to ensure integrity, inclusiveness,
accuracy, transparency and accessibility in the coming elections. The media
should act responsibly and report facts accurately, and ZEC should take a
pro-active role in explaining the BVR process and educating the public.
This article first appeared at: http://www.techzim.co.zw
