|
|
Senior Fellow Project Report
Electoral Observation: A Critical Analysis
Horacio Boneo
Senior Fellow, U.S. Institute of Peace
A voter participates in a 2002 election in Slovakia monitored by the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
OSCE Photo
|
Date:
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Time:
12:30–2:00 PM
Location:
U.S. Institute of Peace
1200 17th St., NW
Washington, D.C.
Directions
As the international community continues to examine the work needed to prepare Iraq for elections in 2005, what lessons can be garnered from elections monitored and facilitated by the UN and other international organizations in various nations around the globe over the past two decades? To help explore these and other issues on May 27, 2004, the Institute hosted a presentation by senior fellow Horacio Boneo on "Electoral Observation: A Critical Analysis." Drawing on his extensive experience serving as an electoral observer in more than sixty countries, Boneo provided a critical view of the changing field of electoral monitoring missions. He discussed the multiple objectives and methodologies of electoral observation, problems related to evaluating electoral processes, and the comparative advantages of national electoral monitoring versus the use of international observers.
Horacio Boneo has been involved in electoral assistance and observation in more than 60 countries, including countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa. Between 1988 and 1999, he was deputy chief of mission for the UN Electoral Observation Mission in Nicaragua (the first time the United Nations observed an election in a member state), Haiti, and El Salvador; director of the Electoral Assistance Division of the United Nations; director of programs at International IDEA and interregional adviser in Democratic Governance at the UN Secretariat.
Report Summary
Over the past two decades, electoral observation has become an increasingly common component in the toolkit of democratization efforts. It now involves a multitude of organizations and a vast amount of resources. In fact, according to Institute senior fellow Horacio Boneo, the cost for observing one 1996 election in Nicaragua alone cost over $7 million dollars-a notable sum in a small nation of about 5 million people. However, the usefulness of such enterprises is perceived with controversy within the international community. Some maintain that observation is a powerful tool for resolving most difficult conflicts. Others, however, see it as nothing more than a form of "political tourism," noted Boneo.
Political Tourism or Democratization Tool? Understanding Election Observation
A critical analysis of this controversy requires, first of all, to clarify the goals that electoral observation is called to serve. Generally speaking, Bono stated, electoral observation serves multiple objectives, but the relative priority of these objectives will vary from case to case. This has numerous implications for the way in which the observation should be organized.
For example, one of the most common objectives of electoral monitoring missions is to legitimize the electoral process. The need for legitimacy might be internal, as in the case of transitional elections-when elections take place after conflicts, after the ending of a one-party system, or in the course of a reform process. On the other hand, the need for legitimacy might also be external, Boneo pointed out. A good example of that can be seen in the 1989 request from the Nicaraguan government to the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS) to observe Nicaragua's general elections in order to achieve international recognition of the government's legitimacy.
Another frequent motivation in election monitoring is confidence building. For example, the purpose of the OAS and the UN observation missions in the 1990 elections in Haiti was to encourage voter participation and to reassure the voters that, unlike in 1987, there would not be any intimidation and violence.
Fraud deterrence is also often named as an important goal of election observation. Although this is a valid objective, its significance is often exaggerated, Boneo stressed, as only long-term missions with sizable resources can effectively reduce fraud and manipulation. Short-term missions, on the other hand, can effectively alert the international community to large and rapidly deteriorating situations.
Another important objective of electoral missions is the facilitation of democratic practices and institution building. A good example is provided by Transparencia in Peru, which moved from a humble start as an electoral observation organization to its present active role in a large number of democracy-related activities. Through the support of local NGOs and other civic organizations for monitoring a specific election, it is possible to help empower potentially valuable civil society institutions that will last long past any short-term needs for the election.
Capacity building can also be a useful objective in election monitoring. Electoral observation missions in Central America from the Inter-American Institute for Human Rights and its Center for Electoral Assistance and Promotion (CAPEL), which has organized numerous missions in Costa Rica, are excellent models of how the objective of capacity building, through the sharing of experiences by electoral institutions, can be a collective asset, Boneo noted.
Electoral observation has other possible objectives about which there is less consensus. Observation might contribute to the resolution of conflict or to the solution of technical problems. However, observation, mediation, and assistance are closely related objectives that potentially conflict. For instance, it might be hard to remain impartial in evaluating an electoral process if you have provided technical assistance to it. In order to cope with this problem, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) excludes from the definition of electoral observers such cases where involvement in mediation and assistance may jeopardize the observation role.
The Evolution of Election Monitoring: A Look at Changes Over the Past Two Decades
The evolution of observation efforts over nearly twenty-five years has been impressive. In the late 1980s, when the present wave of observation efforts began, demands for electoral observation caught international and non-governmental organizations "unprepared, uncomfortable and scrambling to find a proper answer," Boneo stated. At that time, literature on the subject was scarce and—making matters even more difficult—first-hand experience was likewise limited.
Some twenty-five years later, the situation has changed radically. There are now thousands of electoral observation related documents (including reports, manuals, guidelines, books, articles, etc). Further, each new election that arouses international interest, Boneo noted, tends to add, on average, 20 to 30 new works to this expanding field of literature. Electoral observation is also now a regular activity of major international organizations. Many of these organizations have permanent specialized units—like the UN's Electoral Assistance Division (EAD), OAS's Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD), the election desk at the European Commission, or OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)—for that purpose. Likewise, there are points of contact on elections in almost every foreign office or development agency of many donor countries. There are also party-related foundations—although following different models—in Germany, the United States, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. There are experienced international and national NGOs that work in election monitoring—including the Carter Center and the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) in the United States, Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS) in the United Kingdom, Accion Ciudadana in Mexico, Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) in South Africa, and the National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) in the Philippines.
However, these dramatic institutional changes have not been accompanied by parallel changes in other dimensions of observation. In particular, our understanding of the impact of observation on the achievement of democratic standards has not advanced much. There has been only limited change in the criteria by which the "informed judgment" of observers is made. As Boneo pointed out, the belief that, "you know a free election when you see it," is still popular among observers and the international community at large. Yet, while much has been written about the subject of "free and fair" elections over the past fifteen years, usage of this concept is still not consistent. For example, Boneo stated, we still tend to use the "free and fair" concept as if it were an entirely dichotomous variable (either an election is free and fair, or it is not). This situation is further complicated as there is no clear agreement on a set of international standards regarding an impartial way to present the data. Therefore, the same information on how "free and fair" an election was may be subject to diametrically opposed interpretations.
Two methodological models of observation remain predominant today. One might be called the ideal long-term observation model. This is a large-scale and expensive approach that requires the permanent presence of a significant number of observers throughout the electoral process. The other might be called the ideal short-term observation model. This model largely relies on fact-finding interviews with electoral authorities, the government, political parties, and other relevant personalities and groups. There are practical and theoretical limitations to the effectiveness of both approaches. The long-term approach can provide better and more reliable information, but its effectiveness largely depends on the ability of the deployed missions to build up information networks. In many cases, however, long-term observers end up spending most of their efforts making logistical arrangements for the short-term observers.
National observers can be found today in almost every country. The main strengths of national observers, as opposed to international observers, are that they are familiar with local languages and customs, understand the political environment, and can engage in electoral observations at a relatively low cost. National observers also can be deployed en masse with much greater ease. International observers, on the other hand, have better access to specialized electoral expertise, tend to be less vested in the local outcomes, have greater visibility, and enjoy greater access to the media. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, international observers have more levers (through embassies, conditionality, foreign aid incentives, international organizations, etc.) to apply pressure to protect the electoral process. In discussing the comparative advantages of the two systems, however, Boneo noted that more detailed study of the best applications and effectiveness of national versus international observers by scholars in the field would be essential in helping advance the understanding and practice of good observation strategies.
Traditionally, the decision to get involved in electoral observation has hinged on a set of conditions related to three factors: 1. an agreement with the host country (official invitation and freedom of observers' access); 2. an enabling environment (security conditions, adequate laws, and regulations); and 3. deployment practicalities (adequate time, resources, etc.). Today, however, electoral observation involvement tends to be less demand-driven than supply-facilitated. Boneo called for greater consideration and evaluation of issues such as the usefulness and relevance of the mission, the desired goals, and the value added by the mission. Similarly, Boneo suggested that questions should be asked about alternative methods that might be cheaper or more cost-effective in evaluating the electoral process rather than sending an observation mission.
Moving Forward
The methodology of information gathering and evaluation in electoral monitoring can be improved if we follow the principle advocated by scholar David Beetham for "democratic audits" to keep different indexes in a disaggregated form rather than combining them into one composite score. Electoral observation is a complex process that involves a complex set of institutions and interrelated activities. These component activities can be conceived both as the targets of observation and the elements of evaluation criteria. For a more nuanced analysis, Boneo recommended that evaluation of elections include the following components:
- Existence of an enabling environment;
- Legal framework of electoral process;
- Delimitation of constituencies;
- Registration of voters;
- Registration of political parties, alliances, and candidates;
- Impartial complaint procedures during the pre-polling period;
- Voter information and education;
- Freedom of assembly and movement;
- Freedom from fear and intimidation;
- Freedom of expression and equitable access to the media;
- Funding of campaigns and use of public resources;
- Electoral preparations;
- Polling;
- Vote counting and compilation of results; and
- Adequate processing of post-electoral complaints and petitions.
Boneo added that it is much easier to define meaningful recommendations, criteria, and standards by focusing on and refining each of these components rather than constantly focusing on the electoral process at large.
In conclusion, Boneo stressed the need for the international community to evaluate the usefulness of electoral observation in terms of the opportunity costs. In other words, as the costs of mounting an election observation mission are substantial, the international community should consider whether the results are justified and whether support for electoral monitoring by the international community should be offset by reducing spending on other potentially worthwhile civil society development activities. A focus on elections alone, Boneo cautioned in closing, may be a mistake as elections are only a periodic 3-5 month process in the life of a democracy and as such should not be used as a complete measure of the health or growth of a modern democratic state.
[ Back to top ]
Related Resources
[ Back to top ]
For further information about the 2004 Project Report series, please contact the Jennings Randolph Fellowship Program by e-mail at fellows@usip.org. Media inquiries should be directed to the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at usiprequests@usip.org.
|