Active oversight of the
electoral process is an important means of safeguarding integrity. In many electoral
systems, a particular governmental authority is mandated to oversee, or even
more actively supervise, the electoral process. This agency may be located
within the EMB itself, or in a separate institution, such as an auditor
general’s office, or an independent commission or court. In Canada
the federal Commissioner of Canada Elections bears this responsibility; in Mexico
the Federal Electoral Tribunal plays a similar role.
Occasionally, conflicts arise
from the actions of Government officials, such as “Ombuds-persons” or Public Defenders, exercising their general
(non-election specific) jurisdiction to investigate and respond to violations
of human or civil rights. The risk is
that their actions may discredit the conduct or results of an election in a way
that cannot be remedied. In Georgia, the highly-respected Public Defender
at the time sought to subpoena the
video continuously captured in certain polling stations (as part of a pilot
program insisted upon by opposition parties) during the 2008 Parliamentary
elections. By this time, the complaint
and appeal process had already been concluded, and final results
announced. The purpose of the Defender’s
action was to determine if the vote totals recorded in those polling stations
could possibly have been as large as reported.
While laudable in themselves, such actions might undermine the
credibility of the electoral process after the results have been accepted.
Oversight agencies generally address
potential or actual integrity problems in all aspects of the electoral process,
including:
- election administration and management;
- voter and candidate registration;
- election campaigns;
- candidates’ financing;
and
- voting and vote counting.
In addition to providing routine
oversight of the electoral process, oversight agencies may also be empowered or
undertake investigations or consider formal complaints. To be effective,
oversight agencies should generally have:
- freedom to decide what
must be reviewed;
- access to information
needed for reviews;
- ability to publish their findings
and recommendations without censorship or political interference; and
- no personal or
institutional interest in the outcome of oversight.
To protect election integrity,
oversight agencies can have the following tasks:
Provide
independent oversight of the electoral process
This can be done through:
- ongoing, non-partisan
monitoring of the electoral administration to check that objectives are
met, resources are protected, laws and regulations are followed, and
mechanisms are in place to safeguard the process and its assets;
- regular, independent and
objective auditing of the electoral administration and financial
operations—plus specific audits and investigations conducted as needed to
deal with complaints or concerns identified during routine monitoring; and
- independent assessment of
the performance of the electoral administration in order to obtain
information needed for transparency, improving public accountability and
facilitating decision-making and corrective action.
Review
compliance with legislation and regulations
Oversight agencies can:
- review electoral policies and procedures to
check compliance with legal requirements;
- check whether electoral administration
complies with specific performance requirements and submits financial
reports as stipulated by law
- consider measures to promote accountability
on the part of electoral administration.
In Canada, for example, the objective of the oversight officer, the
Commissioner of Canada Elections, is “to assist in maintaining the confidence
of the public in the fairness of the electoral process by seeking compliance
with the Act and the resolution of contraventions through remedial rather than
punitive measures, where appropriate, and by enforcing the Act through
injunctions or the authorization of prosecutions when that is in the public
interest.”[1]
Detect
and prevent problems, including corruption, abuse of power and discriminatory
practices
Oversight agencies may promote
the effective and economic use of administrative assets and systems; they may also
seek to detect and prevent waste, fraud and abuse. They may review legislation
and regulations, and make recommendations regarding the impact of these on
economy and effectiveness of electoral administration and operations. They may
recommend policies to promote economy, or to detect and prevent fraud and
abuse.
Depending on the agency’s
mandate, oversight may deal with such issues as misconduct by election
officers, vote buying, election fraud, obstruction of justice and other
breaches of public trust related to elections.
Promote
transparency and credibility of the election process
Public access to the results
of oversight makes the election process more transparent, and builds the
credibility and legitimacy of the results. The public should be able to check
whether the decisions made by the electoral management body comply with
legislation and regulations, and discourage discrimination, fraud and abuse.
Oversight reporting highlights
problems stemming from programs and operations, and brings them to the
attention of the electoral management body and principal electoral
administrators, as well as all others with a need to know (such as parliamentary
oversight committees and parliamentarians, and governmental accountability
offices). In countries in transition to democracy, confidence in the process
can be bolstered and voter turnout can be increased with the help of oversight
by a neutral and professional mechanism that has gained the trust of political
parties and electoral administrators through objective and professional work.
Ensure
compliance with the legal framework
Oversight agencies may play a
similar role as enforcement agencies, if they have power to determine responsibility
for actions, as well as impose punitive measures. The actual enforcement power
of an oversight agency depends on its specific mandate but may include taking
corrective or enforcement action. These
could include imposing civil sanctions, such as fines or suspensions, on
violators. In serious cases, the oversight agency can recommend such
administrative (including disciplinary) sanctions as termination of employment
or referral of the matter to the criminal justice system.
Monitor
compliance, including with codes of conduct
Some electoral systems include
oversight committees that monitor the conduct of electoral administrators and
candidates. These committees or agencies may be citizen bodies or a government
office/inspector. They monitor the enforcement of codes of ethics included in
the electoral system.
The US
city of Seattle,
for example, has created an Ethics and Elections Commission. This citizen body
interprets, administers and enforces the Seattle Elections Code, Code of Ethics
and other related codes. It investigates complaints received about code
violations, and can settle a complaint either directly with the employee or
through a public hearing. The Commission can prescribe sanctions for any violation but it
has no disciplinary powers. (It can only recommend disciplinary action to the
employer, which may then report back on the action taken.)
[1] Elections Canada,
Commissioner of Canada
Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004, p. 5
