Common standards
for evaluating elections poses many difficulties. For one, international
standards, while clearly articulated and binding through international legal
instruments, are abstract and require interpretation and judgment before they
can be applied to specific instances. Furthermore, it can be difficult to reach
a general conclusion about an election on the basis of existing
standards alone: there is no established formula on how instances of violations
or irregularities relate to a broader quality assessment of an election or its
outcomes.
Experience shows that it is
not always easy to reach an overall conclusion. International observer reports
may disagree because different observer groups use different criteria or are
influenced by disparate interests or perspectives. The result is that such inconsistencies
may engender confusion in the country in which elections are observed.
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 observer
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 before the election.[1]
Similarly, during Zimbabwe’s
legislative elections in 2000 and presidential elections in 2002, contradictory
evaluations were issued by various international and national observation
groups.[2] Once
again, the reports were met with some bitterness by national participants.
Thus adoption of common
observation standards is increasingly viewed as essential to ensure the
credibility and legitimacy of election observation missions. One set of proposed
criteria is as follows:[3]
1) Observation should cover a
broad range of issues:
- administration and
functioning of the election process;
- legal and institutional
framework for the process;
- political context and
climate in which the election is held (exercise of political rights).
2) Observation should cover
the entire process from beginning to end, including:
- the pre-election period,
including candidate registration and the campaigning;
- election day and vote
counting; and
- the post-election period,
including vote tabulation and announcement of results, resolution of complaints,
and assumption of elective office by the winners.
3) Coverage should be as broad
as possible:
- sufficient observers
stationed throughout the country;
- including party and candidate
agents and monitors, national observers and official monitors and
overseers.
[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
