The level of an EMB’s power concentration or devolution depends very much on the system of government in the country. In unitary countries, the responsibility for elections will be determined at the national level. Federal countries may have separate EMBs at the national level and in each state/province, which often operate under different legal frameworks and may implement different electoral systems.
The nature of the EMB will usually be defined in the electoral law, whether this takes the form of a single omnibus law — as in the Philippines — or a separate law specifically relating to electoral administration — as in Indonesia. The legal framework may distinguish between powers and functions that are given to a central or national EMB and those given to regional or lower-level EMBs. In unitary countries, such vertical divisions of power and functions may be between different branch levels of the one national EMB, or between national and local EMBs, as in the UK.
Decentralized EMB structures can ensure continuity in the EMB’s work, especially where it has responsibility for recurring tasks such as continuous voter registration.
Decentralized EMBs, even if only temporary at the lower levels, can enhance inclusiveness and transparency in electoral management. However, decentralized EMBs may face a management challenge in maintaining consistent quality in service delivery.
The sustainability and relative costs of permanent vs. temporary EMBs at the regional and/ or lower levels need to be considered, as well as the advantages.
It is common in a unitary system, as in Costa Rica, Ghana and the Philippines, to have one central EMB that is responsible for all elections, which has subordinate offices at both the provincial and local levels. Countries with laws that define separate, hierarchically accountable EMBs at national, regional, administrative district and even village level often assign devolved or different powers and responsibilities to each level. Many countries, such as Indonesia, Lithuania and Slovakia, have a central EMB that devolves responsibilities for implementing some electoral functions.
Countries that use the Governmental or Mixed Model may rely on local authorities to conduct all or part of the electoral activities. For example, Sweden operates a highly decentralized electoral management structure that consists of a national EMB for policy coordination and local authorities that manage elections, and Hungary and Switzerland devolve some powers to local EMBs. Devolving electoral powers and responsibilities to local authorities without appropriate oversight may make it more difficult to maintain electoral consistency, service, quality and—ultimately—the freedom and fairness of elections. The United States is a good example of this difficulty.
