By Burnett Munthali
As Malawi embraces digital transformation in its electoral system, the decision by the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) to engage Smartmatic as its sole bidder for election technology raises important questions about alternatives and global best practices.
While Smartmatic emerged as the only firm to submit a proposal before the November 7, 2023 deadline, it is far from being the only company in the world that provides digital voting and biometric registration systems.
Globally, several reputable firms specialize in secure and scalable election technology solutions, including IDEMIA (France), Gemalto (Netherlands), Indra Sistemas (Spain), Dominion Voting Systems (Canada), and even Election Systems & Software (United States).
Each of these companies offers a unique combination of biometric data systems, voter authentication tools, vote-counting machines, and secure result transmission platforms that have been used in national elections around the world.
IDEMIA, for instance, is renowned for its high-level biometric identification systems and has provided technology for elections in countries like Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo.
Indra Sistemas has been widely used in Latin America and parts of Europe, offering reliable electronic voting and data transmission systems.
Gemalto, now part of Thales Group, has been active in digital identity solutions and electoral systems in Africa and Asia.
These companies have built solid reputations on transparency, system auditability, and multi-stakeholder collaboration—qualities that are vital in a politically fragile context like Malawi.
However, MEC opted for Smartmatic, a company that has faced controversy in various jurisdictions.
In Venezuela, Smartmatic’s systems were used in elections that drew accusations of vote manipulation and lack of transparency.
In the Philippines, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has repeatedly come under scrutiny due to system glitches and transmission failures associated with Smartmatic’s technology.
In the United States, although investigations have not proven fraud, Smartmatic has been caught in a swirl of legal and political controversies post-2020 elections, which raised public doubts about the integrity of digital voting systems.
These global incidents should have served as cautionary signals to MEC before selecting Smartmatic, especially in the absence of competing bidders.
The lack of competition alone is a governance red flag and undermines the credibility of a procurement process that is meant to deliver impartial and secure electoral systems.
In such a critical undertaking, MEC should have reopened or extended the bidding process to attract more credible and experienced bidders.
Transparency and public confidence should outweigh convenience or speed in procurement when dealing with the future of democracy.
Instead of proceeding with a single vendor, MEC could have issued a revised tender with technical clarifications to attract companies like IDEMIA or Indra Sistemas, which have a strong African footprint and transparent track records.
Alternatively, MEC could have initiated a multi-vendor consultation process to evaluate each company’s capacity, regional experience, and pricing models before entering formal bidding.
This would have ensured that Malawi got the best deal—not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of security, transparency, and reliability.
Moreover, civil society organizations, political parties, and independent IT auditors should have been involved in the vendor selection process to boost public trust.
Going forward, MEC must learn from this experience by ensuring wider consultation, independent technical evaluations, and full disclosure in future procurement related to electoral technology.
Malawi’s democracy is too important to be left at the mercy of a single company with a controversial international track record.
Digital voting can revolutionize the electoral process, but only if implemented with accountability, competition, and the utmost integrity.
