Institutional Framework of Electoral Integrity

Election Integrity Institutional Framework

The election integrity framework is built on the institutional foundations set out in the legal framework. It is composed of a number of agencies and organizations.

The main institutional players in an election are:

• those responsible for election policy and administration – that is, the electoral policy body and the electoral management body
• oversight agencies
• political party organizations and candidates competing in elections
• groups that attempt to influence the election outcome
• independent observers of the process
• the press
• enforcement agencies, including investigating agencies, prosecutors and the courts

The roles of these institutions in maintaining election integrity are discussed in each of the following subsections.

It is important for the roles of each institution to be clearly defined in the legal framework. In addition, separation of powers and a rational checks-and-balances system can help maintain integrity. As discussed in Guiding Principles, for instance, if an electoral management body is given too many roles—such as drafting electoral legislation, applying and enforcing the law, and then acting as a court of last resort for electoral matters—there are few institutional checks on its actions.

Institutional arrangements and agreement on these structures are important factors contributing to election integrity. One of the primary institutional questions is whether or not to have independent electoral policy and management bodies. In countries in transition with a history of one-party domination or authoritarian government, the creation of an independent electoral commission today is widely viewed as a vital measure to ensure impartial administration of elections and to win the trust of voters and parties. [1]

If the main political and civil society players agree on the type of institutional framework to be adopted, the result will be a more credible election body. Without agreement, discontent and distrust can at once spring up and continue to fester throughout the process.

Whether the institutional system adopted is “balanced” through inclusion of political party representatives, or whether it is officially independent or part of a government institution, it must have the political and financial autonomy necessary to administer a free, fair and competitive election. It must also be capable of ensuring that all political parties and candidates can participate equally and fairly.

NOTES

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

Electoral Policy Body

An electoral policy body is responsible for developing both policies of principle and decision-making policies regarding the conduct of elections. The scope of its mandate will vary in different countries, but each must make policy decisions relating to the administration of elections. In some cases, an electoral policy body is also responsible for drafting electoral legislation and providing electoral oversight.

Various players may be involved in the policy- and decision-making process. For instance, if the mandate lies with Parliament, the electoral policy body may recommend legislative provisions and may help draft legislation. Electors, the media and other participants in the electoral process may also contribute by making known the values and principles that matter to them.

The electoral policy body’s role in protecting election integrity includes:

Adopting policies that protect election integrity

The electoral policy body must be able to fulfill its primary role in an independent and non-partisan manner. It must deal with questions concerning integrity policy.

• Are the elections competitive and free?
• Are the dates set by the electoral calendar reasonable?
• Do the legal and institutional frameworks guarantee equal treatment and equal opportunity?
• Are electors able to register and vote freely without problem?
• Are all the votes that have been cast counted correctly and reflected in the official results?
• Are political parties able to register and participate in elections? Are they free to campaign and get their message out?
• Do all parties and candidates have equal access to the media?
• Are electoral districts delineated fairly?
• Is the formula for distributing public resources (e.g. free broadcasting time or public funding for campaigns) fair and implemented honestly?

 

 

Drafting electoral legislation that protects election integrity

If the electoral policy body is also responsible for drafting laws, it must ensure that any legislation includes provisions for protecting election integrity. Among other things, legislation should specify the role and mandate of each institution involved, the powers it will have to fulfill its role, and the control mechanisms to which it is subject at each stage of the process.

Providing oversight to ensure that integrity mechanisms function correctly

When the electoral policy body is also responsible for acting as an oversight body, it must ensure that the election process is conducted in a neutral and transparent manner, and that the results are an accurate and faithful expression of the will of the voters. It may also ensure that public resources provided for the holding of elections are sufficient and used properly, and that election officers are held accountable for the way they manage funds, conduct the election and administer the process.

Electoral Management Body

The electoral management body is responsible for administering elections. It must honestly and impartially implement the procedures specified in the legal framework. This involves dealing with technical issues and making decisions. In some cases, it must also draft electoral regulations, and it usually develops procedures for voter and candidate registration, voting, and vote counting.

To fulfill its primary role of holding free, fair and reliable elections, an electoral management body must carry out the following tasks.

Administer the process in accordance with the law

Electoral administrators are supposed to administer the process impartially and according to the legal requirements. Laws are designed to protect citizens’ rights and the basic principles of a free and fair election, as well as to limit the discretionary power of administrators. The laws must be upheld and the election body must be accountable for following them. If there is a problem with the law, the electoral management body must bring it to the attention of the proper authorities for correction rather than selectively implementing the law, which can lead to serious integrity problems. For example, in the 1998 election in Cambodia, [1] the country’s electoral management body did not comply with all legal provisions, thereby undermining many of the safeguards that had been built into the law (e.g. the complaints procedure).

Maintain a professional, neutral and transparent administration

Professional and transparent administration of the process is essential for free and fair elections. Decision making and operations should be as accurate and transparent as possible. The electoral management body must also be perceived as neutral; otherwise, it will have no credibility. To avoid the perception of favouring a particular outcome, the administration must be transparent and must provide as much information as possible in a timely fashion to political parties, the media and the public.

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has developed a model code of conduct for electoral administrators [2] to help them maintain election integrity.

Adopt procedures to protect the integrity of its operations

The internal management and operational procedures adopted by the electoral management body have a significant impact on the integrity of the process. The procedures must be written down and systematically made available to the public. The procedures usually cover every aspect of electoral administration, including election management, internal management, recruitment and supervision, and operating procedures, including rules for procurement. For a more detailed discussion of mechanisms to protect integrity at every stage of administering an election, see Integrity in Election Administration.

Identify and assess integrity risks, and take corrective action where necessary

Internal management and operational procedures should have mechanisms for identifying integrity risks, assessing the risks involved, and ensuring that the proper persons or oversight agencies are contacted and corrective action is taken at once. The electoral management body needs to ensure it also has a mechanism for receiving and dealing with complaints made by political parties, observers or oversight agencies. This is an important factor contributing to the integrity of the system and promoting accountability on the part of administrators and participants.

Promote voter awareness of electoral integrity issues

As far as possible, the electoral management body should provide information to citizens about the electoral system, the mechanisms safeguarding its integrity and the need for citizens to take an active role in the protection of their electoral process. Information may be distributed through press briefings, voter education programs and civic education programs in schools.

NOTES

[1] Neou, Kassie and Gallup, Jeffrey C., “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 1999, p. 152.

[2] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Code of Conduct for the Ethical and Professional Administration of Elections, 1997.

Oversight Agencies

Oversight of the electoral process is an important way of safeguarding integrity. In most electoral systems, a particular agency is mandated to oversee the electoral process. This agency may be located within the electoral management or policy body, or in a separate institution, such as an auditor general’s office or an independent commission. In Canada the Commissioner of Canada Elections bears this responsibility; in Mexico the Federal Electoral Tribunal has the same role. Official oversight plays an important part in checking that election integrity is maintained. However, it is important to ensure that oversight is non-partisan and is used only to enhance integrity, not to obstruct or manipulate the process.

Oversight agencies may look for integrity problems in:

• election administration and management;
• voter and candidate registration;
• election campaigns and candidates’ financing;
• voting and vote counting.

Oversight agencies may provide routine oversight of the electoral process or undertake investigations when formal complaints are made. To be effective, oversight agencies may need to have:

• freedom to decide what must be reviewed;
• access to information needed for reviews;
• the ability to publish review findings and recommendations without censorship or political interference;
• no personal or institutional stake in the outcome of the electoral oversight.

To protect election integrity, oversight agencies have the following tasks.

Provide independent oversight of the electoral process

This must 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 improving public accountability and facilitating decision making and corrective action.

Audit compliance with legislation and regulations

Oversight agencies review electoral and administrative policy to check compliance with legal requirements. They also check whether the administration complies with performance requirements and submits financial reports as stipulated by law. These measures promote accountability on the part of the 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 promote the effective and economic use of administrative assets and systems; they 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 in the 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 oversight reports makes the election process more transparent, and builds the credibility and legitimacy of the results. The public must be able to check whether the decisions made by the electoral management body comply with procedures and legislation, and whether they 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).

In countries in transition, 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 its objective work.

Ensure compliance with the legal framework

Oversight agencies may play the same role as enforcement agencies if they have the power to determine accountability for actions, as well as punitive powers. The actual enforcement power of an oversight agency depends on its mandate but may include imposing sanctions, such as fines or suspensions, on violators. In serious cases, the oversight agency may recommend termination of employment or refer the matter to the criminal justice system for prosecution.

Monitor compliance with codes of ethics

Some electoral systems have 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 U.S. 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 set 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.

NOTES

[1] Elections Canada, Investigators' Manual, 2004, p. 5.

Political Party Organizations

Political parties set out their platforms and select candidates to represent them in elections. They compete in elections to win the support of voters. They provide balance in safeguarding election integrity by working to ensure that other parties or candidates do not abuse the process, manipulate the election results or receive preferential treatment. Their vigilance plays an important role in maintaining an honest electoral process.

Positive Effect on Integrity

To ensure that their political interests are protected, political parties and candidates can observe the electoral process. Most political parties closely monitor the entire process, including how the election management body is established, how candidate and voter registration is conducted, how other candidates and parties campaign, how voting and vote counting proceed, and how results are announced. This enables them to identify cheating, discrimination or other deviations from the regulations. Monitors usually have authority to intervene in the process if they believe laws or regulations are not being followed. Sometimes they may certify election documents (e.g. vote tallies) with their signatures. If they find they are not allowed equal access to the process, they can file a complaint with the electoral body; this helps electoral administrators or policy bodies to identify problems and increase the credibility and transparency of the process.

Through monitoring, political parties and candidates play a checks-and-balances role throughout the election process. Reports that bring to light a large number of irregularities may spark public debate and trigger public support for electoral reforms or corrective measures. Positive reports may allay public concerns about integrity issues and foster public trust in the system.

Negative Effect on Integrity

However, because they have a stake in the outcome of elections and compete with each other during campaigns, political parties and candidates may also give rise to integrity problems. They may attempt to bypass the system or use unethical methods to win an election or challenge the election results. For example, a dominant party may monopolize the media and receive preferential media treatment. A ruling party may misuse government resources for campaign purposes. Smaller parties might boycott the process, claiming it was not fair or above-board.

This is why some electoral systems use a code of conduct to regulate the behaviour of political parties, candidates and their supporters during an election. Codes of conduct should be adapted to the special circumstances of each electoral system. In older democracies, where campaign financing may be an issue, ethical codes contain detailed instructions on what should and should not be done during campaigns. In countries in transition, the codes focus mainly on ruling out the use of violence and promoting acceptance of election results.

Code of Conduct for Political Parties

Voluntary Code of Conduct

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has developed a model Code of Conduct for Political Parties Campaigning in Democratic Elections. This voluntary code establishes ground rules for ethical behaviour. It can be applied to political parties and candidates around the world.

Mandatory Code of Conduct

Some electoral systems adopt a mandatory code of conduct that all parties and candidates must follow if they are competing in elections. Such a code may form part of the legal or regulatory framework, and violators may be subject to administrative and legal sanctions. A candidate who fails to comply could be disqualified and face legal action.

An example of a code for a country in transition is the 1995 South African Electoral Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The Code is binding on any party, candidate or party representative submitting an application to compete in elections. The following is a summary of the Code:

• Publicly condemn violence and intimidation.
• Do not engage in violence or intimidation, or in language or action that might lead to violence or intimidation.
• Do not allow weapons to be carried at political meetings, marches, demonstrations, voting stations, etc.
• Do not publish or repeat false, defamatory or inflammatory allegations about political opponents.
• Cooperate with other political parties to avoid holding political activities at the same time and place.
• Do not prevent eligible voters from having access to political opponents.
• Do not destroy, disfigure or remove other political parties’ campaign materials.
• Do not plagiarize other political parties’ symbols, colours or acronyms.
• Do not try to bribe eligible voters.
• Do not abuse positions of power, influence or privilege.
• Do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, social class or religion.
• Facilitate equal participation for women, and their access to political activities and to voting.
• Cooperate with the electoral authorities in investigating issues and allegations in connection with the election.
• Take all reasonable steps to protect election officers, voter registration officers and their representatives from insult, hazard or threat in the course of their official duties.
• Reassure voters that the secrecy and integrity of the ballot will be maintained, and that no one will know how any other person has voted.
• Take necessary and reasonable steps to instill discipline in party/candidate representatives, employees or supporters, and guide them to follow the Code, comply with laws and regulations, commit no election irregularities, and adhere to election regulations.
• Establish and maintain communication with the government, voter registration officers, returning officers and election committees, and with parties and candidates at provincial and local level. This includes exchanging names, addresses and telephone/fax numbers of their agents, supervisors and representatives. [1]

NOTES

[1] Electoral Commission of South Africa, “Electoral Code of Conduct for Political Parties,” Election Administration Manual of South Africa, 1995, Ch. 5, p. 29.

Interest Group Organizations

Interest groups are not directly involved in electoral contests. Their purpose is to influence public policy and the election results. These groups may be interested in a particular election issue, or in a candidate or political party sharing their views. Groups vary in size, resources, power and objectives, but all use the same methods to influence public opinion and promote their position—including lobbying, campaigning, advertising through the mass media, and providing information to candidates, lawmakers and policy makers.

This section discusses interest groups that champion personal, economic or material interests. Public interest groups that act on behalf of the public are discussed in Non-Governmental Organizations.

Interest groups may play a positive role in maintaining election integrity since they monitor the process to ensure that opposing interests do not receive preferential treatment. However, the vast amount of money that interest groups today spend to sway public opinion raises many integrity issues. These are discussed in greater depth in Campaign Financing.

Most interest groups hire professional lobbyists who focus on promoting the priorities of the group that hired them; these do not necessarily coincide with the public interest. Lobbyists spend money to influence decision makers; they also help candidates and parties supporting their views to win election. Lobbyists may entertain candidates and policy makers at expensive restaurants or weekend getaways. They may use money to place advertisements in the media supporting a particular campaign or position.

The amount of money spent and how it is spent can raise concerns that interest groups are buying influence and special treatment. As a result, most countries require interest groups to register and disclose their activities and spending.

Although interest groups may be highly partisan and interested solely in promoting their own priorities, they must still abide by the same standards of ethical conduct as other participants in the electoral process.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Some interest groups are non-profit organizations—referred to here as non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—that work on the public’s behalf to improve the quality of elections and the democratic process. NGOs act as independent observers.

During elections, these groups’ observation and reporting activities help make the process more transparent. NGOs may increase the transparency of campaign financing by closely monitoring and publicly reporting on contributions and spending. They may undertake voter education programs and help distribute election information. They may lobby policy makers and electoral administrators for better policies and electoral legislation protecting individual rights and freedoms, or for stricter legislation on campaign financing.

Independent Observers

Independent observers play an important part in maintaining election integrity. Whether domestic or international, these observers objectively monitor the process. Since their interest is to ensure that elections are fair and above-board, they must not take a position on election issues. As a matter of principle, they must provide objective reporting.

Observing an election involves closely monitoring the process, gathering information on how the event unfolds and making an overall assessment of the election. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has identified several roles for observers, including:

• legitimizing the election process;
• building confidence;
• improving the prospects for democratization;
• enhancing the electoral process; and
• reducing or preventing conflict. [1]

National Observation

A wide variety of non-governmental organizations and other organized civil society groups act as domestic monitors. Active monitoring by domestic observers provides feedback to electoral administrators and policy makers about problems encountered. This allows for corrections to be made during the process, when there is still time to act. As a result, active monitoring can be more effective in maintaining election integrity than passive monitoring, which simply produces a report after the process is over, without any interaction with electoral administrators. By highlighting an integrity issue when it is first observed, monitors allow for the problem to be corrected before it undermines the electoral process.

National observers can promote free and fair elections. They perform the following tasks:

• Detect and deter integrity problems by closely monitoring the process, and draw attention to any irregularity or integrity problem observed.
• Increase transparency by publicly reporting on the process, identifying problems and assessing their impact on the election results.
• Assess the integrity of the election. In newer democracies, this may mean assessing whether elections were “acceptable” or “free and fair,” and whether the results reflect the will of the voters. In older democracies, domestic monitoring tends to focus on how money from interest groups influences the quality of the electoral campaign, rather than how elections are conducted.
• Recommend procedural or policy changes to improve election integrity.

International Observation

International observers serve as monitors in countries that receive international donor assistance for elections, and countries undergoing a democratic transition. International observation is performed by many different organizations, particularly the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, IFES, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

International observation can perform the following tasks:

• Identify problems and bring them to the attention of the election management or policy-making body.
• Ensure action to rectify and follow up on problems, and see that this action is a condition for donor funding.
• Issue observation reports that contribute to the credibility and legitimacy of the process.
• Help bolster voter confidence, thereby increasing the number of eligible voters who register and cast ballots.
• Facilitate the work of domestic monitors by asking the hard questions that they hesitate to ask.
• Provide reassurance to domestic monitors facing intimidation or other security problems.
• Through their presence and attention, act as a deterrent to those wishing to subvert the system.

International observation that is not impartial or balanced can create integrity problems.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Code of Conduct for the Ethical and Professional Observation of Elections, 1997.

Media

The free flow of information is essential to a free and fair election. The media disseminate election information and play several roles that may affect election integrity. On one hand, journalists monitor elections. They may act as national or international election observers. They may uncover election-related fraud and corruption, and provide information to the public. Their work adds transparency to the process, thus helping to safeguard election integrity. On the other hand, incorrect or biased reporting may distort the truth, give the public an unfair perception of a candidate or the process, and thereby undermine election integrity. Such actions are inconsistent with the media’s primary responsibility to objectively inform the public.

Media Oversight of the Electoral Process

The media safeguard election integrity by uncovering fraud and corruption, and reporting irregularities in the electoral process. They help to ensure that decision-makers are accountable for their actions, and also help to deter unethical or illegal conduct.

Transparency works to improve the system since defects, problems or other weaknesses are detected and made public; this forces electoral administrators or policy makers to take correction action.

Responsibility to Provide Fair and Balanced Reporting

Voters learn about the electoral process from media coverage of elections, candidates and their platforms, as much as they do from political advertisements in the media. Given the power of the media to reach voters and citizens’ faith in what they read in the newspapers, hear on radio or see on television, the media have a responsibility to the public. They must offer fair and balanced reporting, and ensure that everyone is treated equally. If they do not, the media pose a serious threat to electoral integrity.

• Inaccurate reporting may give voters and policy makers the wrong impression. This may happen if the media carry false statements, use facts selectively or simply do not meet professional standards—for example, if they do not check information sources or report rumour as fact.
• Irresponsible reporting may be deliberate. The press may seek to sway public opinion through the stories it covers and the tone it uses. It may stir up nationalist sentiment by targeting recent immigrants or a particular political party. It may destroy a candidate’s credibility through unsubstantiated allegations of illegal or unethical activities.
• Biased media may give preferential treatment to large advertisers. Most political parties, candidates and interest groups use paid advertising in the media. The advertisements earn money for the media, and that can undermine the principle of equal treatment for all. Also, journalists may show their political preference by favouring a particular party.

To lessen the danger that inappropriate reporting will compromise the integrity of the electoral process, media practices may be regulated by law. For example, France, Italy, South Africa and Canada place various legal restrictions on the publication of election-related opinion polls. In addition, the media’s obligation to provide fair, accurate and balanced reporting is entrenched in law in a number of countries. Newspaper or broadcasting companies usually insert a code of conduct in the employment contract that their journalists sign.

Media Code of Conduct

The following are principles of ethical behaviour for the media, based on the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, [1] the Associated Press Managing Editors’ Statement of Ethical Principles [2] and Gannett Newspaper Division’s Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms. [3]

Report the truth

• Be a watchdog of the political and electoral process.
• Ensure accurate, balanced and impartial coverage of the news. Make sure the news content is substantiated, accurate, complete and in context.
• Do not make assumptions. Check facts, and make a good-faith effort before publication to get comments from the persons or organizations involved.
• Seek solutions along with exposing problems and corruption.
• Use neutral words to ensure impartial, dispassionate reporting. Be careful with technical terms, statistics, estimates and election results. Be careful with headlines and make sure they reflect the facts of the story.
• Avoid inflaming emotions over controversial issues.
• Label opinions and personal interpretations as such, and limit opinions and editorials to the editorial pages.
• Label advertising clearly so it is not confused with the news.
• Be honest and fair in the way the news is gathered, reported and presented. Do not lie or fabricate. Do not pretend to be a police officer, public official or anyone other than a journalist in pursuing a story. Do not plagiarize. Do not alter photographs or graphics to mislead the public.

Minimize harm

• Be transparent and honest with the reader.
• Act honourably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and colleagues.
• Do not expose the private life of a private citizen without reason.
• Be sensitive when interviewing, and recognize that gathering news can cause harm or discomfort.
• Respect the rights of persons involved in the news. Observe common standards of decency, and treat people with dignity, respect and compassion.
• Balance the right of an accused person to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.

Act independently

• Avoid conflict of interest by refusing to accept gifts, favours or other benefits from anyone being covered in an article or from newsmakers, politicians or other journalists.
• Avoid being influenced by advertisers on the content of your reporting.
• Do not give favourable rates to one political advertiser and not others.
• Do not give money for sources or stories.

Be accountable

• Be accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of what you write.
• Honour pledges of confidentiality to a news source; otherwise, identify sources.
• Be accountable for how you behave and collect news. Obey the laws and the standards of ethical journalism.

NOTES

[1] Society of Professional Journalists, Code of Ethics for Journalists, 1996.

[2] Associated Press Managing Editors, Statement of Ethical Principles, 1994.

[3] Gannett Newspaper Division, Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms, 1999.

Enforcement Agencies

Agencies that enforce the law, including electoral legislation, play an important part in safeguarding election integrity. Enforcement deters those thinking of subverting the system, and it identifies and punishes those who have broken the law.

Different agencies usually share responsibility for enforcement, depending on the nature and severity of the problem. An investigation may be launched by an oversight agency but later entrusted to an enforcement agency. For example, criminal cases uncovered during a routine audit may be referred to the justice system. If the prosecuting authorities decide to pursue a case, they could charge and prosecute the alleged perpetrator, and the courts may pass sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

Effective enforcement requires a functioning legal system and respect for the law. To ensure the integrity of the enforcement system, its independence must be safeguarded. In countries where the criminal justice system is inadequate, an electoral court or similar body can be empowered to enforce election laws. Following are the principal institutions in enforcement to maintain election integrity.

Election Management and Policy Bodies

Election management and policy bodies may be given enforcement powers. In Mexico, for example, the Federal Electoral Institute and the Federal Electoral Tribunal are mandated to oversee the enforcement of election legislation, consider challenges and apply sanctions in cases of administrative error.

In South Africa, the Chief Electoral Officer may institute civil proceedings before a court, including the Electoral Court, to enforce provisions of the electoral law.

Regulatory Agencies

Regulatory agencies have the power to enforce the regulations they issue. They may sanction individuals found guilty of violating the regulations and, depending on the circumstances, may levy fines or recommend criminal prosecution.

Investigative Agencies

Each country has institutions and procedures for investigating allegations of electoral wrongdoing or other misconduct. Investigators:

• investigate incidents and complaints to determine the facts and collect evidence against individuals or organizations; and
• report on facts found, evidence collected and investigation results to the administrator responsible for election investigations.

Prosecuting agencies use the investigation report, evidence and findings to determine whether to initiate civil or criminal proceedings against a person or group of persons. This task may be entrusted to a law enforcement agency or a specialized election investigation body. In Canada, for example, it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, while in New Zealand it is the responsibility of the police.

Security Forces

Election security is the responsibility of the government and is usually handled by the police. Good security is essential for safeguarding election integrity. It assures voters and candidates that the campaign will be conducted in an open climate free of fear or intimidation. Good security can support voter turnout and the exchange of information. The primary roles of security forces are to:

• protect the physical safety of individuals, electoral sites and materials involved in an election;
• investigate crimes and, where applicable, arrest the suspects; and
• deter anyone thinking of resorting to violence or fraud as an electoral tool.

Prosecution

Prosecution of electoral wrongdoing is an essential part of enforcement. It tells those interested in manipulating or subverting the process that such actions will not be tolerated and will be punished. To maintain election integrity, the prosecuting authorities:

• initiate investigations (depending on the system);
• determine whether the evidence warrants a prosecution, and who should be prosecuted;
• establish priorities among pending cases for prosecution; and
• on behalf of the government, prosecute individuals accused of having violated election-related laws.

In most countries, the prosecutor is a government employee or elected official. If elected, the prosecutor is more sensitive to public opinion and the political context of each case. The prosecutor has some discretion in determining which cases to prosecute. The potential for abuse of this discretion can raise questions about the integrity of the enforcement process.

Courts

The judiciary must ensure that laws are enforced on the basis of impartial standards rather than political bias, and that those found guilty are punished. The role of the courts in safeguarding integrity varies according to each country’s electoral system and level of trust. In countries where there is little trust in the electoral management body and the justice system, specialized courts may need to be established, as they were in Mexico and Kenya. The specialized courts may play an active role in adjudicating electoral disputes that might otherwise be settled by an electoral management body.

In general, to safeguard election integrity, the courts:

• provide a non-political forum to hear cases on election law violations, whether criminal or civil;
• help resolve electoral disputes through recounts or certifying who won;
• interpret the election laws and determine their constitutionality; and
• depending on the system, determine guilt and sentence those found guilty.