Biometric voter registration: A new modality of democracy assistance?

Abstract

It has been argued that we are witnessing a retreat from democracy promotion in liberal interventionism. Focusing on the roll-out of biometric voter registration (BVR) across Africa, as supported by institutions such as the United Nations Development Programme, this article suggests that rather than a retreat we are seeing the emergence of a new and seemingly lighter approach to liberal democracy promotion. Through an analysis of the use of BVR in Kenyan elections, the article illustrates some key implications of this development. At the local level, the framing of BVR as a ‘solution’ omits important challenges to democratic elections in Kenya. At the global level, the roll-out of BVR reinforces unequal global power structures, for example by constituting an increasing number of African states as laboratories for the trialling of a technology which, due to fears of hacking, has now been rolled back in the US. To make this argument, the article combines insights from recent debates about the state of liberal interventionism, with insights from Michel Foucault and Sheila Jasanoff about the politics of technology.

Developing statizens: biometric technologies and digital identification

“…Weitzberg’s (2020) article on the colonial origins of identification regimes in Kenya, and the imperial circulations of these technologies reinforces this point, and further stresses the making of racialised subjectivities in the process of identification as ‘a chain of embodied practices, … [or] biometric rituals’ (2020: 32). Addressing the technosolutionism of BVR, Jacobsen is attentive as much to what is included within the technocratic problem‐frame as what challenges are obscured, arguing that with the widespread ‘roll‐out of BVR we are seeing the contours of a modality, which places greater emphasis on the use of technocratic strategies to resolve complex political challenges’ (Jacobsen 2020: 128). To illustrate, Jacobsen notes that the significant politics of identification technologies are excluded from the apolitical technocratic problem‐frame, pointing to instances of voter purges, displacement of fraud onto other aspects of the voting process and the creation through digital gatekeeping of new opportunities for electoral corruption (2020: 129).…”

“…Addressing the technosolutionism of BVR, Jacobsen is attentive as much to what is included within the technocratic problem‐frame as what challenges are obscured, arguing that with the widespread ‘roll‐out of BVR we are seeing the contours of a modality, which places greater emphasis on the use of technocratic strategies to resolve complex political challenges’ (Jacobsen 2020: 128). To illustrate, Jacobsen notes that the significant politics of identification technologies are excluded from the apolitical technocratic problem‐frame, pointing to instances of voter purges, displacement of fraud onto other aspects of the voting process and the creation through digital gatekeeping of new opportunities for electoral corruption (2020: 129). Moreover, Jacobsen notes how the Kenyan domestic issue of illicit financing of elections is completely obscured by a BVR‐problem frame, where instead in adopting a technocratic solution with BVR, Kenyan confidence and contestation was displaced from the trustworthiness of political actors to technical systems, potential outside interference and the trustworthiness of voters.…”

“…Such displacement of the objects of contestation and statizen‐making through discourses of suspect voters resonates with Weitzberg’s contention that identification practices constitute social and political relations as much as they reflect them (2020: 34). This insight is important in that it challenges the central claims of reliability, transparency and accountability in statizen‐making projects like BVR by politicising ‘provision of “neutral”, technical and procedural assistance’ (Jacobsen 2020: 138).…”

Election Technology, Disputes, and Political Violence in Kenya

“…In Africa, there is continued use of digital technology in the electoral process for mainly similar arguments: to reduce the scope for manipulation of elections, improve efficiency, embed transparency in the electoral process and, above all, boost legitimacy of elected governments (Cheeseman et al, 2018; Evrensel, 2010; Gelb and Clark, 2013; Jacobsen, 2020). Use of new technologies, however, has not resulted in greater effectiveness in administration of elections or contributed to greater credibility in the results of elections.…”

Candidate Registration System and Results Transmission System on Credibility of the Electoral System in Kenya; A Case Study of Nairobi County

“…Technology has undoubtedly helped electoral management bodies to make their processes more efficient. As indicated by Jacobsen (2019), increased Internet penetration, even in developing countries with poor communications infrastructure is enabling Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) to be more effective at communicating internally and with all the stakeholders involved in the process. Technology is also playing an increased role in enhancing the integrity and credibility of electoral processes and strengthening trust between stakeholders (Iwuoha, 2018).…”