Fairness is an essential component of election integrity. All participants must be treated equally, and integrity safeguards must apply to all participants and the entire process. This means following three basic standards:

• acceptable legal framework
• neutral administration
• equal treatment

Acceptable Legal Framework

A legal framework is the basis for the electoral system. To protect election integrity, the framework must safeguard the principles of a free, fair and competitive election. It must be non-partisan, and must fairly and impartially define the rights and authorities of all participants in the electoral process. It must provide for institutional mechanisms to protect electoral integrity (oversight, enforcement, and a system of checks-and-balances). The legal framework, with its laws and regulations, must guarantee equal treatment for all participants in the electoral process.

Clear and precise language helps ensure that the framework’s provisions are unambiguous and interpreted according to the spirit of the law. Many integrity problems can be avoided with an up-to-date legal framework that reflects current circumstances within a country—for example, a framework that requires electoral districts to be delineated according to the equality of votes principle.

Neutral Administration

The legal or institutional framework is only as good as its implementation. The electoral authorities are responsible for implementing the election process as prescribed by law. They must fulfill this responsibility impartially and objectively, without political interference.

A neutral administration treats all political parties and candidates equally without discrimination or favouritism. If the administration is seen as partisan, this perception can destroy public trust in the system.

Electoral systems may adopt various mechanisms to ensure a neutral administration. In countries where citizens trust the government to be impartial, it often administers elections itself. This is the case in France, Norway and Sweden, where electoral administration is entrusted to government officials at the national or local level. [1] Where there is a history of manipulation of the process, it may be appropriate to form an independent electoral commission, putting election administration beyond the ruling party’s influence. Several East European countries set up independent commissions in 1989-90, during their transition to democracy. [2] This approach helps build a sense of trust in the elections and confidence in their impartiality.

According to a number of election observation specialists, an independent electoral commission ensures a more accountable administration. Nonetheless, a commission cannot be protected from all political interference whatsoever. [3]

If persons recognized as impartial cannot be found, a solution is to ensure political balance by giving representatives of the different parties a role in administering the election. Their participation serves as one of the checks-and-balances on the government. Many systems combine the two approaches, that is, an independent commission and political balance. Some systems try to ensure the neutrality of the key electoral administrators by distancing them from politics. They may be appointed for a set number of years, with the government unable to remove them except through extraordinary measures, such as a judicial hearing. For example, the Election Commission of India is a permanent constitutional body. The President appoints the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Election Commissioners to serve six-year terms, or up to age 65. The Chief Electoral Commissioner can be removed from office only if impeached by Parliament.

Other systems bar the key electoral administrators from participating in politics. In Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer are not allowed to vote in federal elections. Electoral administrators may also be required to give up political party positions while serving in an electoral management body.

Equal Treatment

Another component of a fair election is equal treatment, including equal opportunity and access. This means that all participants receive the same treatment from electoral administrators and election officers, and have the same opportunities to participate. All must have equal access to information, the media, electors, a genuine voter registration process, voting facilities and complaint mechanisms. A basic requirement for equality is that all parties must compete under equal conditions. Most countries have a number of major parties, and smaller ones must make extra efforts to get established and present their messages to voters. Larger and smaller parties have different levels of human and financial resources, as well as different organizational capacity and outreach strength. Even if there is equal opportunity, the inequality of resources may create a sense of unfairness.

NOTES

[1] Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., Free and Fair Elections: International Law and Practice, Inter Parliamentary Union, 1994.

[2] Ibid.

[3] On the importance of independent electoral administration, see Elklit, Jorgen and Andrew Reynolds, “The Impact of Election Administration on the Legitimacy of Emerging Democracies,” Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 40(2), 2002, p. 86-119; López-Pintor, Rafael, Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance, New York, New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2000; Mozaffar, Shaheen and Andreas Schedler, “The Comparative Study of Electoral Governance—Introduction,” International Political Science Review, 23(1), 2002, p. 5-27; Pastor, Robert A., “The Role of Electoral Administration in Democratic Transitions: Implications for Policy and Research,” Democratization, 6(4), 1999, p. 1-27.