IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections The CMCs were criticized by EMB and political party officials as being merely an “academic” exercise without “sanctions or formal findings of wrongdoing.” 120 To address this deficiency, in 2016 the ECZ 121 gave district CMCs an added mandate 122 to recommend the suspension from campaigning or the disqualification of any political party or candidate who violates the Code of Conduct. The NCMC considers the merits of the recommendation and submits its views to the ECZ, which considers the case and takes the decision. The new mandate has been well-received by members of the district CMCs, who view it as increasing political parties’ respect for their decisions and recommendations. However, awareness of this new mandate remains low, and it was not widely used in the 2021 elections. Some experts believe it is appropriate that the DCMCs only have the power to recommend, rather than impose, sanctions. “The DCMCs were not created to punish parties to a dispute; instead, they were designed to promote cohesion between political parties and the communities.” 123 Other experts take a different view and argue that the CMCs’ lack of enforcement powers limits their effectiveness and impact. 124 But this was how the CMCs were designed: “The ECZ established the committees to be advisory, not punitive.” 125 Such ADR mechanisms are meant to complement, not replace, judicial or other dispute resolution and law enforcement mechanisms. Despite a positive start, the impact of the CMCs has been mixed. Between 2001 and 2011, the ECZ and international observers agreed that they helped reduce violence and tension during campaigns. 126 However, international observers pointed to challenging timeframes and lack of training at the district level, 127 and the ECZ found that many rural districts did not follow the mediation rules and recordkeeping requirements, with training inadequacies appearing to be the problem. 128 The view of the CMCs began to turn around from the 2011 elections, with the 2011 EU Election Observation Mission (EOM) report noting that the CMCs were “very active in places where the electoral contests were particularly hard fought, and they served a valuable role in resolving matters such as disputes about posters, insults traded between candidates, and threats of violence.” 129 Similarly, the EU EOM in 2016 observed that “in many districts, CMC mediation helped diffuse tensions and solve minor disputes 130 between parties…,” and the CMCs were “useful as a discussion platform for political parties.” 131 The EISA Election Observation Mission (EOM) from 2016 Jackson, R. (2013). Creating avenues to resolve election disputes: conflict management committees in Zambia, 2001–2011. Innovations for Successful Societies – Princeton University. https://successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/sites/successfulsocieties/files/Policy_Note_ID222.pdf 121 The Electoral Process Act, 2016 (No. 35 of 2016) §110(2) (Zam.). 122 Electoral Process (Code of Conduct) (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (Statutory Instrument No. 35 of 2020), GOVERNMENT GAZETTE (SI). Electoral Act No. 2 (1991) Government Gazette (Acts) § 3A(4) and 4(1) (Zam.). 123 IFES Zambia, personal communication, September 2021. 124 Magasu, O., Banda, D. & Muleya, G. (2020). An evaluation of the challenges in the management of electoral conflicts in Zambia: A case study of Lusaka conflict management committees. Zambian Journal of Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 1(1). 59–69. https://web.unza.zm/index.php/ZJEMAL/article/view/214/194 125 Jackson, R. (2013). Creating avenues to resolve election disputes: conflict management committees in Zambia, 2001–2011. Innovations for Successful Societies – Princeton University. https://successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/sites/successfulsocieties/files/Policy_Note_ID222.pdf 126 Centre for Public Impact. (2017, December 13). Conflict management during Zambian elections. https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/conflict-management-elections-zambian 127 Jackson, R. (2013). Creating avenues to resolve election disputes: conflict management committees in Zambia, 2001–2011. Innovations for Successful Societies – Princeton University. https://successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/sites/successfulsocieties/files/Policy_Note_ID222.pdf. See also Chasulwa, P. An evaluation of the effectiveness of conflict management committees (CMCs) in the management of electoral conflicts in Zambia. The International Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Research. http://www.multiresearch.net/cms/publications/CFP8882018.pdf 128 Jackson, R. (2013). Creating avenues to resolve election disputes: conflict management committees in Zambia, 2001–2011. Innovations for Successful Societies – Princeton University. https://successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/sites/successfulsocieties/files/Policy_Note_ID222.pdf 129 European Union election observation mission final report: Zambia – General elections 20 September 2011. (2011). https://www.eods.eu/library/FR%20ZAMBIA%202011_en.pdf 130 The most common complaints dealt with were destruction of campaign material, inflammatory language, and personal insults. 131 European Union election observation mission final report: Republic of Zambia – General elections and referendum 11 August 2016. (2016). https://www.eods.eu/library/final_report_eu_eom_zambia.pdf 120 52