THE REFERENDUM -- 97% VOTE "YES" TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NOUAKCHOTT 000784

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/26/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM PINR EAID KPAO MR
SUBJECT: THE REFERENDUM -- 97% VOTE "YES" TO
CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMIT THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY; CAN
SUCH A LOP-SIDED VOTE NOT/NOT BE RIGGED?

Classified By: Amb. Joseph LeBaron, Reasons 1.4(b)(d)

--------------
(C) Key Points
--------------

-- According to official figures, Mauritania's voters in the
national referendum on June 25th were virtually unanimous in
their support for several constitutional amendments limiting
the powers of the presidency.

-- Here are the numbers:

757,340 Total number of ballots cast (76% of all voters)
21,783 Ballots deemed invalid (2.9% of all ballots)

Of the remaining 735,557 ballots:

Yes: 713,263 (96.97%)
No: 10,427 (1.4%)
Neutral: 11,822 (1.6%) (neutral was an option)


-- The 97% "yes" vote reported by the Mauritanian authorities
is consistent with what our Embassy monitors witnessed in
over 60 polling stations they visited around the country to
observe the vote. The polling stations included some
randomly chosen at the last minute.

-- Other election observation teams, including those
representing the African Union and the Arab League, and at
least one UN election expert, have told us they believe the
vote was free and fair and that the referendum met
international standards.

-- Some irregularities in electoral mechanics and some
procedural lapses did occur. These are reported below. But
these problems did not appear to have a significant impact on
the referendum results, and they did not appear designed or
coordinated to defraud the election results.

-- The Embassy has meetings scheduled, starting tomorrow,
June 27th, with UNDP, the UN Electoral Team, and other
international partners to discuss further the results of the
referendum. We will report further after those meetings.

--------------
(C) Comments and Analysis
--------------


1. (C) The extraordinarily high percentage of yes votes
notwithstanding, the evidence available to us suggests the
referendum met international standards for a free and fair
election. There could, of course, have been fraud that we
have not yet uncovered, and we explore that possibility below
in paras. 3-8.


2. (C) Some possible explanations for the validity of a 97%
yes vote include the following:

-- The strong influence of a campaign mounted by an
extremely popular government to get out the vote in support
of the constitutional amendments. The government did not
take a neutral stance. It urged all Mauritanians to "Vote
Yes." The vote could well have been more a referendum on the
government than on constitutional change.

-- Those against the government and against
constitutional change did not vote, either because the
outcome of the referendum was already a forgone conclusion or
because they were unable to vote.

-- The recent census and voter registration drive
almost certainly disenfranchised at least some Black African
Mauritanians in the south. This group, which may have been
less supportive of the referendum, was not registered at an
equal rate to other, potentially more supportive groups.

-- Note: These and other Mauritanians will have at
least one more chance to register. After many complaints

NOUAKCHOTT 00000784 002 OF 002


about failing to register all eligible Mauritanians,
including repeated complaints by this Embassy, the government
has decided to reopen the voter rolls at least one more time
before the presidential election next March. End Note.


3. (C) A second explanation we have considered is outright
fraud. However, all those actually in the field observing
these elections (both from our observation teams and those
from the AU, Arab League, OIF, and UN) have reported an
election free from fraud.


4. (C) In all, these teams visited over 125 polling stations
around the country, and observed over 30 different ballot
tabulations (from the seals on the ballot boxes being cut, to
the boxes being opened, to the final tally of ballots).
Tallies from these observations all reported ballot counts
within the 95% - 98% support range. That's in line with the
official results.


5. (C) That is not to say that fraud could not have occurred,
but if it did, it would have had to have occurred before the
ballot tabulations (such as with ballot stuffing during the
day when observers were at another location). While this is
possible, the list of registered voters in each polling
location would have had to have been altered as well (by
checking off names of voters that hadn't voted and then
submitting the same number of yes ballots). However, this
would have shown up when some of these voters later came to
vote and were told that they had already voted and been
checked off the list. Observers would most certainly have
seen cases of this, but no such cases were reported.


6. (C) UN Electoral Team Communication expert Riccardo
Barranca, who had conducted similar observation missions in
over 15 other countries told PolOff that "we would have seen
widespread fraud if it had occurred," adding that "the level
of fraud that would have been needed to fake results such as
these would have been impossible to hide."


7. (C) Barranca said "fraud may have gone unnoticed, but the
safeguards we had in place here would have kept the impact of
such fraud to only a couple of percentage points at most."
Barranca added that he was "surprised by how well organized
and transparent these elections appeared." When asked if he
thought the election was "free and fair," he said
"personally, I do, but that's as much a political question as
it is one related to the elections themselves."


8. (C) Since so many eyes in the field failed to see a single
sign of a deliberate effort to defraud the election, we
conclude that the lack of any real referendum opposition,
combined with the strong government-led campaign in support
of the referendum, are what led to these extraordinary
results.


9. (C) Additionally, we will report septel on the public
reaction of Mauritanian political parties and civil society
to these extraordinary election results. Some have claimed
that fraud must have played a role (though they provide no
examples or theories for such fraud). Others, such as
SOS-Esclaves (SOS-Slaves),believes the elections were free
and fair, and that the strong results demonstrate the strong
support of the Mauritanian public for this transition.
SOS-Esclaves' stance follows the government's refusal to
allow their organization to observe elections. The group
decided to ignore this refusal and went forward with its own
observation mission anyway.
LeBaron