The lessons that several development agencies learned through the various
evaluation processes described above, balanced with the constraints faced by assistance
providers in applying these conclusions in practice, have been the subject of
further detailed initiatives and studies promoted mainly by International IDEA,
the EC and UNDP, with the aim of making electoral assistance effective beyond
the technical delivery of the electoral event. The aim of these initiatives has
been to clearly state the issue to those stakeholders and development agenciess
still not facing the reality that they are providing too much assistance too
late, when their contributions only serve as “quick fixes” and do not address
structural problems.
In this respect, the Ottawa Conference
organised by International IDEA and CIDA in May 2006 represented a defining
moment in the establishment of a new approach to make electoral assistance
effective and meaningful for the overall democratic development of partner
countries. It was formally acknowledged that even though concepts such as ‘effectiveness’,
‘sustainability’ and ‘capacity building’ had been recognised as the way
forward, turning the concepts into reality in implementation had proven
difficult. Support for institution building is by its very nature a longer-term
exercise, and therefore less visible or perhaps less politically attractive in
the event that elections may be some years in the future. Furthermore, progress
in institution building is difficult to measure, easily influenced by external
factors and unforeseen events, and not always fully informed by or linked to
wider governance programmes. The potential consequence of neglecting the
strengthening of institutions between electoral events is that “open and
democratic” elections can take place in semi-authoritarian states in which the
opposition is given space only during that brief period while the world is watching.
Similarly, institution-building activities must be supported by corresponding
improvements in pluralism and the rule of law, if they are to generate real
changes.
Such practices might also have led in some cases to the misuse and abuse
of development agencies support. For example, development agencies’ officials
could be pressured to apply available assistance funds 
to immediate but
unsustainable expenses, rather than to long-term beneficial investments (see
paragraph on embracing technology). Moreover, delays in development agencies
reaction in identifying assistance needs and planning their responses could be
used by recipients to exercise yet more pressure.
To move towards
sustainability - an important and often underestimated step - is to engage
stakeholders in defining what needs to be done after and between electoral
events. There should be full consultation and as much consensus as possible
among all stakeholders (including governments,
political parties, the media, civil society organisations dealing with
democratic governance, academics and think-tanks) with regard to
political frameworks, legal frameworks and electoral systems and related
activities. This will encourage commitment and compliance by political and
electoral stakeholders at all levels both during an electoral event and after
it.
To this end, development agencies have the
responsibility to ensure that the objectives of electoral assistance programmes
support the longer-term objectives of a democratisation strategy in the partner
countries. In turn, democracy and good governance programmes need to be in line
with the priorities and plans as articulated in national programmes of
development assistance (poverty reduction/poverty eradication programmes) and
should be an integral part of the development agencies–partner government
dialogue.
Next: The Electoral Cycle Approach
