Not all stakeholders will be well disposed to the EMB. Some may be difficult for reasons that are legitimate, such as the EMB’s failure to treat them with fairness, respect, and impartiality. Others may simply be difficult for reasons such as personality clashes, past misunderstandings, or seeking political advantage. It is common for some candidates and political parties to threaten to boycott or withdraw from elections citing EMB incompetence or partisanship, or to blame the EMB whenever they have lost an election. This may occur because the EMB has not fulfilled its mandate to be fair and impartial, because of actions by bodies beyond the control of the EMB, or because of lack of public support for these political parties or candidates.

The EMB may need to decide whether it is wise to deal directly or indirectly with a difficult stakeholder, or whether to be on the offensive or defensive in dealing with this stakeholder. If a small political party with little following announces that it is boycotting an election, the EMB may decide to restate its position publicly and monitor the situation. If a large and influential party decides to boycott an election, the EMB may need to seek mediation by a third party. There may be advantage in approaching the courts for a binding determination if the differences between the EMB and a stakeholder relate to the interpretation of the law.

Liaison structures, such as working groups with civil society or suppliers, committees of the legislature, or political party liaison committees, may be useful in reducing or resolving differences between the EMB and its stakeholders. When a large majority in the liaison group supports the EMB’s views, the dissenting views of a difficult stakeholder may be muted or stifled. On the other hand, when a large majority in the liaison group supports the ‘difficult’ stakeholder, the EMB can recognize that it is not dealing with a ‘difficult’ stakeholder but with common perceptions of its performance.

Where differences between the EMB and a difficult stakeholder are nearly irreconcilable, the EMB can resort to a strategy of defending itself against attack. Media releases and appearances by the EMB’s spokesperson on news and other programmes, and other publicity opportunities such as the EMB’s web site, can be used to clarify the EMB’s position, so that the public understands the EMB’s side of the story. The EMB may seek to publicize areas of agreement, rather than emphasizing areas of difference, to demonstrate that the EMB can work with a difficult stakeholder.

By ensuring that it is irreproachable in all its conduct by maintaining a high level of transparency, impartiality, dignity, integrity, professionalism, service, and efficiency in all its dealings with stakeholders, the EMB can construct a good defence against detractors.