The Competence of the Electoral Commission to Conduct Free and Fair Elections in Tanzania: A Legal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The credibility of election being termed as free and fair election cannot be examined without examining the competence and independence of the Electoral Commission with mandates of conducting the elections. In Tanzania, Electoral Commission of Tanzania vested with mandates of conducting elections is constitutionally and statutorily described to be an independent body with the mandates of carrying out its functions without adhering to directives from any person. Nonetheless, the analysis in this study reveals that the Electoral Commission of Tanzania’s set-up is unlikely to run elections and produce a government that reflects the will of Tanzanian voters. This is so because the said Electoral Commission is not independent of the ruling party, in particular the influence of the incumbent President. The incumbent President's legal mandates in interfering with the Commission's functioning give the ruling party an advantage over other political parties during elections. The incumbent President is more likely to dictate election results than the Electoral Commission. These create an unfair playground for other participating parties during elections. It is also revealed that the courts in Tanzania lack jurisdiction to deal with petitions against presidential results once declared by the Electoral Commission. As such, the independence and impartiality of the Electoral Commission to run free and fair elections remain a serious legal concern for the supporters of the effective functioning of democracy. Lastly, this paper concludes that the Electoral Commission of Tanzania is not competent, impartial and independent to run credible, free and fair election in the country. Thus, this calls for serious legal reform to establish an electoral body capable of conducting free and fair elections in the country.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".