Election integrity involves a set of standards based on democratic principles and a legal and institutional system that encourages and protects fair and equitable elections. These systems need to be adapted to the social and political context of each country, but the basic objectives are the same and stem from the need to ensure free and fair elections. The guiding principles essential to maintaining election integrity are:

• respect for principles of electoral democracy;
• ethical conduct;
• accuracy;
• institutional protections (a system of checks-and-balances);
• oversight and enforcement; and
• transparency.

Respect for Principles of Electoral Democracy

Under the principles of electoral democracy, all citizens have equal rights to participate as voters and candidates; all citizens must have equal voting power; the secrecy of the vote must be assured; voters must have access to political information; legislation must provide for fair and non-partisan election administration; and elections must be held regularly and decided by the freely cast votes of the majority.

These principles guarantee free and fair elections as an essential condition of election integrity. A free election depends on freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement, and freedom from fear. A fair election depends on a transparent electoral process, equitable electoral legislation and systems, equal opportunities for all participants, an independent and impartial elections commission, lack of intimidation, proper procedures, and acceptance of the electoral results. [1]

Election integrity depends on a commitment to abide by the democratic system of governance and the rule of law; channels for participation and complaints; an openness to change where it is needed; and acceptance of the official results of a free and fair election. The system protects the principles of electoral democracy and free and fair elections through its legal framework and institutional framework.

Ethical Conduct

Election integrity depends on ethical conduct by electoral administrators, election officers, candidates, parties and all participants in the electoral process. It implies that all participants should behave in a way that promotes a free and fair process, and that discourages conduct jeopardizing the integrity of the process. To achieve this, all participants must carry out their duties or roles in a professional, transparent and impartial manner. This means that public officials (including electoral administrators) must not use their position for personal or partisan benefit. It means that candidates and parties must not misuse campaign contributions. And it means that lobbyists must not use money or other incentives to improperly influence an electoral administrator or public official, and must disclose their funding and spending as required by law.

Ethical conduct also depends on respect for the political rights and activities of others; acceptance by citizens and electoral administrators that everyone has the right to freely debate political issues and promote different political viewpoints; and an understanding that no one has the right to interfere with political parties’ efforts to spread their message or with other citizens’ political activities.

Many systems have a code of conduct that sets out the behaviour required of all participants in an election.

Accuracy

Integrity problems are usually thought to result from dishonest or fraudulent practices, but they can also be the result of human error or an honest mistake. It is essential for election administration to be professional and accurate. Sloppy work or inaccuracies in totalling votes can raise serious integrity questions and compromise the validity of an election. The same checks-and-balances designed to limit power and ensure accountability can also help catch mistakes. Although a deliberate attempt to derail the process or manipulate election results would be treated as a criminal act, problems resulting from mistakes and inaccuracies usually remain an administrative or civil matter.

Integrity problems can also arise from weaknesses in the wording of laws or the design of systems. For example, laws and regulations delegate to election officers certain responsibilities for administering elections. Poorly worded provisions granting too much discretion to an individual officer would thereby create opportunities for abuse of power. By the same token, a poorly designed voter registration system could allow multiple registrations by dishonest persons or could raise barriers to registration for large segments of the eligible population. Outdated laws could also cause problems if they do not take into account modern technology and do not cover computer-based fraud.

Inaccuracies in defining legal and institutional frameworks, as well as in implementing and enforcing them, can inadvertently create many problems and encourage deliberate fraud.

Institutional Protections: Checks-and-Balances

Institutional protections based on checks-and-balances are widely used today to protect integrity and keep elections free and fair. To be effective, they must be part of the legal and institutional frameworks. They ensure that the various authorities inherent to the electoral process are divided among different bodies, providing a counterbalance to the electoral administration. The division of powers gives political parties, civil society and the media a role in the oversight of elections and the presentation of public reports.

Separation and limitation of powers are usually specified in the legal framework. For example, legal provisions can separate administration and enforcement of a law. They can also separate the powers of prosecuting authorities and courts that issue rulings. The powers associated with oversight responsibility can be delegated to a division of an inspector general’s department or an electoral court. These protections can also delegate authority for enforcing electoral law to the judicial system. Administrative regulations should clearly specify the delegation and limitation of authority for each division and staff position within the electoral system. This will ensure that electoral organizations are aware of the extent of their authority and know that a system is in place to keep election officers from exceeding their responsibilities.

When there is a division of electoral powers between several bodies, it is important to develop good coordination so that organizations work together without duplication of effort or conflicting approaches. It is also important to ensure that the public, politicians and parties are informed about the roles and responsibilities of each agency to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.

In New Zealand, for example, different institutions have responsibility for specific electoral tasks. The Chief Electoral Officer, an employee of the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for running the elections. The Electoral Enrolment Centre (part of the New Zealand Post Office) handles voter registration and voter list maintenance. The Electoral Commission is an independent body mandated to register political parties and their logos, inform the public about electoral matters, allocate public funds for campaign broadcasting, and receive campaign financing reports. The police are responsible for investigating breaches of electoral law and prosecuting offenders. The Representation Commission is an independent statutory body that determines electoral boundaries. A Parliamentary committee reviews election administration and recommends amendments to electoral legislation. [2]

In countries that are in transition or where there is no reliable judicial system, the only way to counter the influence of existing institutions may be by establishing an electoral commission with wide-ranging powers, similar to the Australian Electoral Commission.[3]

The Mexican electoral system, which underwent a series of reforms between 1990 and 1996, is a good example of effective electoral reform using separation of powers and a system of checks-and-balances. To limit the power of electoral administrators, the reformers set up a scheme of interlocking institutional constraints. Among other things, they drafted new electoral legislation, the Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures (COFIPE). They took the administration of elections out of the hands of the Ministry of the Interior and established a permanent, non-partisan and autonomous election management body, the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). They set up a judicial tribunal specifically to rule on electoral disputes. They drew up a list of electoral crimes and specified harsh penalties; a special prosecutor is responsible for enforcing the law. They revamped the register of electors and issued high-tech, high-security voter ID cards. And they established a party oversight regime, allowing political parties to monitor each step of the process. [4]

Oversight and Enforcement

To ensure a free and fair process, and to make administrators and participants accountable, the legal and institutional frameworks should provide for oversight and enforcement of election laws.

Continuous oversight of the process by internal and external mechanisms can locate problems in the system and identify the groups or individuals responsible.

Enforcement of legal and regulatory measures is essential to monitor the actions of personal and special interests, and to create the conditions for a free and fair election. Enforcement is a deterrent to those contemplating illegal or unethical behaviour, and it punishes those who have broken the law. An atmosphere of impunity and a lack of enforcement encourage a climate of corruption and mediocre performance. In a climate such as this, there is little incentive for electoral administrators, election officers or candidates to follow rules or play fair. Ongoing enforcement is an important priority in rooting out corruption from the election process, bringing those responsible to swift and sure justice, and maintaining a sense of trust in the system.

Transparency

Last, a system with integrity is transparent. Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood. It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption. Electoral administrators and election officers should be held accountable for decisions they make when administering elections; legislators should be held accountable for the content of the laws they pass and the level of funding allocated for elections; and candidates and political parties should be held accountable for their conduct and that of their supporters during the campaign.

Participants need to have access to all of the procedural information so that they can understand how the process works. Transparency, along with the public scrutiny that follows, usually requires electoral administrators and election officers to comply with the rules and be accountable for their actions.

Regular consultations between the policy-making bodies, the electoral management body and political players can help build a transparent electoral administration and a framework that is acceptable to the participants. Consultation is especially useful in countries that are in transition, where procedures are still being developed and candidates have concerns about the capacity of the electoral agency and policy bodies to organize and hold free and fair elections.

Transparency builds understanding of the process, the difficulties encountered, and why electoral administrators and election officers make certain decisions. Transparency increases the credibility of the process and the legitimacy of the results. If the electoral process is free and fair, accurate, transparent and monitored, and if laws and regulations are enforced, it is difficult for participants and voters not to accept the election results or the legitimacy of the newly elected representatives.

NOTES

[1] For more information on free, fair and democratic elections, see Elklit, Jorgen and Palle Svensson, “What Makes Elections Free and Fair?” Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 1997; Beetham, David, “Freedom as the Foundation,” Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 2004, p. 61-67; Inter-Parliamentary Union, Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections, 1994; European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report, 2002.

[2] Electoral Commission of New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Voting Under MMP, Wellington: GP Publications, 1996.

[3] Maley, Michael, Australian Electoral Commission, communication with Sue Nelson.

[4] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico, Mexico City: FLACSO, 1999.