CHAPTER THREE: DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL GOVERNANCE _____________________________________________________________________ What this in effect means is that a total of 41.6% 4 of those polled had experienced corruption. 289. 290. 4 Incidents of electoral corruption. According to the CSAR, there are varying levels of such corruption: • Electoral corruption ahead of elections: if electoral corruption is more noticeable on the day of elections, what must be borne in mind is that it often takes root upstream. It thus occurs either at the time of preparation of electoral lists (fraudulent registration resulting from corruption) or during the pre-election period (manipulation of lists already compiled). Upstream electoral corruption is more discreet and effective, as controls are nonexistent or ineffective. • Electoral corruption after elections: although only the tip of the iceberg, such corruption can be easily detected by the monitoring mechanisms set in motion on the day of elections and through maximum vigilance (national and international observers). Such corruption can consist in a variety of manoeuvres to ensure that the choice of the voters will truly be based on the gains of corruption. • Electoral corruption outside any election: electoral corruption is a system that is maintained even in the absence of forthcoming elections. It is, however, less intense in these off-election periods. Negative consequences of corruption. For the CSAR, electoral corruption is not only complex and elusive, but also imperils democracy. Electoral corruption creates negative consequences for democracy at several levels: • It affects the quality of national or local representation: corrupted elections are not conducive to the selection of the best candidates (in terms of quality and motivation). The risk of corruption is so great that honest citizens are reluctant to present themselves for election, since their chances of success are reduced in such a context. The electoral field is then reduced to that of a competition between corrupt candidates. This is the vicious cycle of mediocrity caused by corruption. • It stains the legitimacy of election consultations and leaders: the elections lose their quality of a democratic mechanism for contesting political power and become a mere instrument of legitimisation of political power fraudulently won. Citizens refrain from voting so as not to support such practices. Leaders lose legitimacy and cannot claim to be the true representatives of the nation. In addition, the people may also suffer at the international level as a result of this lack of legitimacy, the risk being reduced external assistance. Evidently, the CSAR made a mistake, because the accumulated percentage of people having experienced corruption is not 41.6%, as asserted in the report, but 52.7% (17.7+17.9+17.1). 134