The issue of common standards for evaluating elections poses many difficulties. There is a generally agreed upon set of principles that define free and fair elections, including: equal voting power for all citizens; freedom to organize for political purposes and the right to campaign; the right of access to political information; and regular holding of elections that are decided by the freely cast vote of the majority. Applying the concept of free and fair elections can be difficult in practice, however, especially in a transitional election when parts of the process may go well but other parts are seriously flawed. If one candidate is denied media access but the rest of the process goes smoothly, is the election free and fair? If the process goes well but a prominent politician boycotts the election, are the results acceptable?

Experience shows that these concerns are warranted and that it is not always easy to reach consensus. International observation reports may disagree because different observer groups use different criteria. The problem is that inconsistencies may give rise to confusion in the countries being observed. What’s more, contradictory reports undermine the credibility and purpose of observation. For example, during the 1998 election in Cambodia, the election observers’ statements sowed confusion and resentment. Many groups seemed to give a passing grade to the election, based on their observation of the voting and the count; a few others took emphatic exception, citing the unhealthy political atmosphere that had existed since long before the election. [1] Similarly, during Zimbabwe’s legislative elections in 2000 and its presidential elections in 2002, contradictory evaluations were issued by various international and national observation groups. [2] Once again, the reports were greeted with some bitterness by local participants.

This is why adoption of common observation standards is becoming essential to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of missions. The criteria [3] are as follows:

1) The observation should cover a broad range of issues:

• the administration and functioning of the election process;
• the legal and institutional framework for the process;
• the political circumstances and climate in which the election is held (extent of political rights).

2) The observation should cover the entire process from beginning to end, including:

• the pre-election period of the official and non-official campaign;
• election day and the beginning of vote counting;
• the post-election period with the announcement of the official results, dealing with complaints and the forming of the new government.

3) Coverage should be as broad as possible:

• sufficient observers stationed throughout the country;
• candidates, national observers and public officials.

NOTES

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

[2] Bjornlund, Eric C., Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

[3] The criteria are taken from Beyond Free and Fair.