Against all odds, Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) has just concluded one of the most successful presidential elections in recent African history, bringing a country which has teetered on the edge of crisis for more than a decade a step closer to implementing a democratically elected civilian government.  The process has been described as “the most transparent and inclusive election in Cote d’Ivoire’s history and a key step towards a normalized political environment,” and enthusiastically hailed by voices as diverse as former President of Ghana John Kufuor, among others.

While although concerns remain over the counting of the votes and the observation of results by all parties, this is still a matter which deserves significant attention as a leading model for the technical implementation of democratic process for a number of developing nations, from which lessons can be drawn to avoid the stalemate situation which has unfolded in Guinea.  To learn more about how this incredibly complex election became a reality, we called up United Nations official Georges Tadonki* for a short interview.

Q:  What has been your position in the Côte d’Ivoire elections process?

I serve as a director to the United Nations Office for Project and Service (UNOPS), which in providing crisis transition assistance to Côte d’Ivoire, placed me under the direction of Deputy Sec. Gen. Young-jin Choi of Korea, who oversees the UN mission to the country.  My job was to advise Mr. Choi on operational and logistical matters.

Q:  And how did your offices become involved in the election?

Well, to discuss how the UN came to be involved in Côte d’Ivoire requires an understanding of the country’s turbulent history – a very tragic crisis which brought down one of the most modern and admired financial and business centers of West Africa, Abdijan, which at one point had its economic development on par with South Korea.

Over the past ten years since the interruption of democracy, Côte d’Ivoire has attempted to hold elections no less than six different times – each time proved to be an abject failure due to political tensions and poor organization.  The result was a total lack of trust between all the political factions, and a lack of grounds for an agreement to organize the process.