Limiting Electoral Violence in Zambia 2011-2016
Public Diplomacy, Smart Power and the Role of NGOs
Summary
importance and impact of Public Diplomacy (PD) and Smart Power (SP) by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID/Zambia) and Friedrich-Ebert
Stiftung (FES) in Zambia by means of collaborating with local NGOs – the Foundation
for Democratic Process (FODEP) and the Southern African Centre for the Constructive
Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD) to help elections take place among poor, uneducated
voters without resorting to violence.
General and by-election periods have for more than five decades generated an increased
intensity of electoral violence by hired impoverished youth political cadres who are
increasingly becoming more daring and lethal, capable of damaging property, inflicting
injuries on victims or causing death.
There is a growing urgent need for special-tailored programmes that target instigators and
perpetrators of electoral violence – more definitely needs to be done besides efforts by
international organisations. It is up to citizens, local NGOs and especially political parties
and responsible public institutions to act in order to limit electoral violence in Zambia.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Abstract – English
- Abstract – Romanian
- Acknowledgements
- Declaration
- List of Acronyms
- Table of Contents
- List of Tables
- List of Tables
- Chapter 1: Introduction
- 1.1 Background to the Problem
- 1.2 Problem Statement
- 1.3 Aim and Objectives
- 1.3.1 Aim
- 1.3.2 Objectives
- 1.4 Research Questions
- 1.5 Rationale of the Study
- 1.6 Importance of the Study
- 1.7 Limitations
- Chapter 2: Historical Background
- 2.1 Political History of Zambia since Independence
- 2.2 The Economic Context
- 2.3 Zambian Society
- 2.4 Electoral System in Zambia
- 2.5 Electoral Violence in Zambia after 2010
- Chapter 3: Public Diplomacy, Smart Power and Civil Society in Zambia
- 3.1 Theoretical Framework regarding Public Diplomacy (PD) and Smart Power (SP)
- 3.1.1 The Argument of “Dead Aid” by Dambisa Moyo
- 3.1.2 IFES – Elections Worth Dying For? A Selection of Case Studies from Africa
- 3.1.3 John Keane’s Theory of the Emerging Monitory Democracy
- 3.2 NGOs and Civil Society in Zambia
- 3.2.1 Case Study FODEP
- 3.2.2 Case Study SACCORD
- 3.3 International Organizations Acting in Zambia
- 3.3.1 Case Study USAID in Zambia
- 3.3.2 Case Study FES in Zambia
- 3.4 Programmes to Curb Electoral Violence in Zambia 2011–2016
- 3.4.1 Programmes Run by FODEP
- 3.4.2 Programmes Run by SACCORD
- Chapter 4: Field Research Concerning Programmes Run by FODEP and SACCORD and Supported by USAID and FES for Limiting Electoral Violence in Zambia 2011–2016
- 4.1 Research Methodology
- 4.1.1 Research Design
- 4.1.1.1 Conceptual Framework of Research Design
- 4.1.1.2 The Chosen Research Design
- 4.1.2 Sampling Plan
- 4.1.3 Sampling Unit
- 4.1.4 Census
- 4.1.5 Data Collection
- 4.1.6 Primary Data
- 4.1.7 Secondary Data
- 4.2 Data Collection Instrument
- 4.2.1 Type of Data Collection Instruments Utilized
- 4.2.2 Questionnaire and Semi-structured Interview Themes
- 4.2.3 Pilot Testing of Research Instrument
- 4.2.4 Validity and Reliability of the Study
- 4.2.4.1 Validity of the Study
- a) Face Validity
- b) Content Validity
- c) Criterion Validity
- d) Concurrent Validity
- 4.2.4.2 Reliability of the Study
- 4.2.5 Ethical Considerations
- a) Recruitment
- b) Confidentiality
- c) Informed Consent
- d) Respect for the Participants
- 4.2.6 How Data Was Analyzed
- 4.2.7 Findings and Analysis of Data
- 4.3. Qualitative & Quantitative Analysis of Data
- 4.3.1 Demographic Data of FODEP & SACCORD Respondents
- 4.3.1.1 Educational Qualifications
- 4.3.2 Details of the NGOS (FODEP and SACCORD)
- 4.3.2.1 Nature of Non-governmental Organizations (FODEP and SACCORD)
- 4.3.3 Existence & Causes of Violent Behaviour during Electoral Periods
- 4.3.4 Perception & Role of USAID & FES Zambia PD & SP to FODEP & SACCORD
- 4.3.5 Importance & Impact of USAID & FES Zambia’s PD & SP
- 4.3.6 Recommendations by Local NGOs on How to Improve PD & SP Funded Programmes
- Chapter 5: Outcomes of Civil Society Programmes and International Support for Limiting Electoral Violence in Zambia 2011–2016
- 5.1 Main Results of the Programmes to Curb Electoral Violence 2011–2016
- 5.2 Perceptions of FODEP and SACCORD Respondents regarding USAID and FES in Zambia
- 5.3 The Role of USAID and FES Zambia’s PD & SP towards FODEP and SACCORD
- 5.4 The Relevancy of USAID and FES Zambia for the Finances and Sustainability of FODEP and SACCORD
- 5.5 The Impact of International Donors on the Agenda of Zambian NGOs - FODEP and SACCORD
- 5.6 Opinions of FODEP and SACCORD Staffers on the Ways to Improve the Effectiveness of Programmes Combating Political Violence in Zambia
- Chapter 6: Relevance of the Zambian Experience for the Theoretical Debates regarding Public Diplomacy, Smart Power and the Role of Civil Society in the Consolidation of Democracy in the Third World
- Chapter 7: Conclusion
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- APPENDICES
- Appendix I: Semi-structured Interviews conducted with Janet Deutsch – USAID Zambia (Date: 20 October 2016)
- Appendix II: Semi-structured Interviews (1) Conducted with Lady Kathy Short – FES Zambia (Date: 11 July October 2016)
- Appendix III: Semi-structured Interview Conducted with Helmut Elischer – FES Zambia Resident Director (Date: 29 August 2016)
- Appendix IV: Semi-structured Interviews (2) Conducted with Lady Kathy Short – FES Zambia Programme Manager (Date: 30 September 2016)
- Appendix V: Semi-structured Interview Conducted with Justin Sandi – FODEP Administration Officer (Date: 29 September 2016)
- Appendix VI: Semi-structured Interviews Conducted with Theresa Chewe & Tumaini Kalebuka – SACCORD Administration Manager & Programmes Officer (Date: 15 October 2016)
List of Tables
Table 4.3: The Distribution of FODEP PD and SP Programmes Funded by USAID/Zambia
Table 4.4: The Distribution of SACCORD’S Programmes Funded by FES Zambia
List of Figures
Figure 4.1: Distribution of Gender for FODEP and SACCORD Respondents
Figure 4.2: The Distribution of FODEP and SACCORD Respondents’ Educational Qualification
Figure 4.11: The Distribution of FODEP Respondents Who Feel There Is a Need for More Funding
Figure 4.12: The Distribution of SACCORD Respondents Who Feel There Is a Need for More Funding
←63 | 64→Chapter 1 Introduction
This thesis is on the “Usage, Importance and Impact of Public Diplomacy (PD) and Smart Power (SP) by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Zambia) and Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung (FES) in Zambia by means of non-governmental organizations (NGOS)”. The thesis belongs in the field of History of Public Diplomacy in International Relations. This area of study is interesting because, amongst other reasons, it promotes peace building through many avenues including states engaging communication strategies in foreign countries and enables the understanding of historic development of monitory democracy.
Henrikson describes Public Diplomacy (PD) as:
“(…) the conduct of international relations by governments through public communications media and through dealings with a wide range of nongovernmental entities (political parties, corporations, trade associations, labour unions, educational institutions, religious organizations, ethnic groups, and so on including influential individuals) for the purpose of influencing the politics and actions of other governments” (Henrikson 2005).
In line with this definition, I opted to investigate USAID/Zambia and FES Zambia for the purposes of this study. Despite the former being a government agency and the latter a socialist party-linked foundation, these institutions are deemed some of the most important players in providing financial assistance to NGOs in Zambia. The two institutions have gone on record as major funders/partners of human rights and democratic civic and voter programmes with the NGOs under study. It was also necessary to examine the successes or failures of state-to-society Public Diplomacy (PD) that USAID/Zambia and FES Zambia practice by means of Smart Power (SP) with the Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) and African Centre for the Southern Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD).
The model of public diplomacy that is practiced between the interaction of USAID/Zambia and FES Zambia with local NGOs FODEP and SACCORD is the network model. This model encourages building networks by means of international dialogue, which can be in the form of partnering with other organizations to fund and host conferences, seminars, programmes, and training activities for specific causes. The network model of public diplomacy also requires investing in communication research, which in turn enables well-strategized and tailor-made approaches, which yield successful engagements with global partners. ←67 | 68→When it comes to matters of interacting and disseminating foreign policy by Western financial funders/partners, the most practical means of doing so nowadays in Zambia is by collaborating with NGOs. Non-state actors – FODEP and SACCORD – are utilized in this research because the two local NGOs are popular in Zambia for their efforts to strengthen the country’s human rights and democratic practices.
Smart Power (SP) involves the use of Soft Power (SP) and Hard Power (HP) in order to achieve effective results in varying interactions; Soft Power influences by means of ideas, policies, philosophies and ideals whereas Hard Power (HP) utilizes military or economic strategies to get things done. The concept of Smart Power (SP) was used in this research because local Zambian NGOs not only operate on Soft Power influenced by funders/partners but also via financial assistance in the form of aid or grants.
The reality is that Public Diplomacy (PD) as a by-product of traditional diplomacy has indeed evolved over the years and accommodates varying interactions and dealings in the world of diplomacy. Research on how Public Diplomacy (PD) and Smart Power (SP) can influence peaceful elections in Africa falls short in the field of history of PD in international relations; this gap in knowledge warranted further study and this research particularly investigated a Zambian scenario. Over the past two decades in Africa, research in this field has focused on many aspects of NGOs, elections and democracy, peace-building and conflict mitigation generally, but, nevertheless not concerning Public Diplomacy (PD) and Smart Power (SP) – an international relations angle involving USAID/Zambia and FES Zambia in relation to local NGOs FODEP and SACCORD. I therefore, had to rely a great deal on primary data collected during the research. Nevertheless, research and literature close to my topic (secondary data) was utilized in the study.
Alex Mwamba Ng’oma produced a dissertation entitled ‘Non-governmental organizations as agents of democratization: Evidence from the Republic of Zambia’ which I found relevant in my studies as it dealt with FODEP and SACCORD – the same NGOs I had chosen for my case studies. However, Ng’oma (2008) also included another NGO – Women for Change (WfC) – in his research. His study was a quasi-experimental design, involving an experimental group and a contrast group, to assess the impact of these three indigenous NGOs in their attempt to promote democratization and democratic consolidation (Ng’oma 2008).
My research, on the other hand, focused on investigating if past and present Public Diplomacy (PD) and Smart Power (SP) strategies utilized by USAID/Zambia and FES Zambia in relation to their funding/patterning in democratic and good governance programmes with local Zambian NGOs (FODEP and ←68 | 69→SACCORD) gave sufficient priority or none at all to sponsoring non-violent activities, civic and voter programmes. I also investigated whether their programme funding priorities require re-strategizing and re-focusing on educating Zambian citizens from refraining from violent behaviour during electoral periods. It also argues that there is a growing need and urgency for special tailored messages and programmes that require formulation by local NGOs for targeting instigators and actors of electoral violence in Zambia. Importantly, above all, this also meant investigating how USAID/Zambia and FES Zambia used their Public Diplomacy and Smart Power to influence the NGOs under study to engage in democratic and human rights programmes that aimed at tackling head-on the violent behaviour of poor, uneducated constituents during election periods.
A study carried out by Claudia Auer and Alice Srugies published June 2013 from the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School for Communication and the School of International Relations at the University of Southern California called ‘Public Diplomacy in Germany’ was indeed instrumental in enlightening me on German Public Diplomacy issues as it was the first comprehensive and empirically grounded research of its kind. These scholars shade light on the true definition and practice of Public Diplomacy; they argue that many organizations practice PD but hardly realize this fact. This study, unlike mine, took on a wider perspective of the Public Diplomacy concept in Germany while my research was partly of a case study of a German foundation – Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung (FES Zambia) – as a financial partner of a local NGO (SACCORD) in Zambia. According to these authors:
“The study looks at the understanding and practice of public diplomacy from three different perspectives: 1) it theoretically conceptualizes public diplomacy by applying approaches of communications science and sociology; 2) it depicts the historical development of public diplomacy in Germany; and 3) it empirically analyzes the practice of most relevant German public diplomacy actors. On the basis of 32 expert interviews as well as content analysis of the publicly available documents and online activities of the respective organizations, this research project explores the basic understanding of public diplomacy as well as the function, aims, target groups, tools and structures of PD used in Germany, while contextualizing the findings in an international comparison”. (Auer & Srugies 2013, p. 5)
Another scholar Smith-Höhn provided an overview of current trends, risks and opportunities for conflict mitigation, in a monograph entitled “A Strategic conflict assessment of Zambia” (Smith-Höhn 2009). This researcher argued that broad-based economic growth and equitable sharing of benefits are imperative to the prevention of violent conflict in Zambian society. The focus of her study was:
←69 | 70→“(...) to identify why those involved in disputes in the given societies resort to violence to settle their disputes and grievances” (Smith-Höhn 2009, p.4).
Her focus was not on conflicts within the communities per se, but on those conflicts, which exhibited a violent character, that is, where physical force was used as a coercive means of attaining one’s objectives. This was regardless of the actors involved and the various motives, which justify their actions – the actions are always violent and she refers to them as ‘violent conflicts’ (Smith-Höhn 2009).
While Smith-Höhn also investigated the role of civil society, governance and political institutions, economic structure and performance amongst other issues, Smith-Höhn’s and my conclusion on violence differed in that by 2009 when she wrote her monograph she had concluded that:
“(…) conflict in Zambia has generally been resolved without the resort to violence;” and her study therefore, aimed “to identify factors that may counteract this trend in order to ensure that conflict continue to be managed peacefully” (Smith-Höhn 2009, p.xiii).
This is no longer the case as going by the timeframe of my research (2011 to 2016) political violence, especially in the form of electoral violence, has in Zambia increased alarmingly and deserves the attention of various stakeholders including the international community, NGOs, politicians and the citizens of Zambia to curb the conflict.
‘Elections and Democracy in Zambia’, a research report edited by Claude Kabemba and published in 2004 in South Africa by the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA) was one of the literature resources which gave a rich background to my thesis. This research report extensively covered topics such as multipartyism in Zambia, the place of civil society in Zambia`s democratization process, the administration of elections in Zambia, and donor’s support of democratization in Zambia (Kabemba 2004). It gave great insight on past Zambian elections and how democratization was shaped in the period before my research.
Details
- Pages
- 412
- Year
- 2022
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783631874400
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783631874417
- ISBN (MOBI)
- 9783631874424
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783631874394
- DOI
- 10.3726/b19484
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2022 (June)
- Published
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2022. 412 pp., 24 fig. col., 2 fig. b/w, 6 tables.
