The expression “codes of conduct” can refer to many different things.
Therefore, it is convenient to exclude three instances of such an expression
from the outset. Those three instances affect not only electoral agents but
also elections’ undertakings and cannot be seen as codes of conduct legally
included within electoral processes:
- Broadly speaking,
regulations of electoral management cannot be seen as codes of conduct.
Therefore, it is possible to distinguish general “codes of conduct”, such
as the ones regulating Australian electoral officials, from individual
codes aimed at particular individuals, such as many which have been
drafted by international organizations (electoral observers). Such rules
aim at establishing neutral practices for persons or organizations in
charge of undertaking elections. These rules can be easily seen as a kind
of managerial ones, similar to those drafted by public officials or
professional bars.
- The general codes enacted
by political parties cannot be seen as codes of conduct either. Such codes
are not mandatory for other political parties, but only for their active
members.
- Implicit codes for
electoral performance that exist in many different democratic regimes
cannot be seen as codes of conduct. Such codes establish rules regarding
the candidates’ acceptance of the final results or the agreement according
to which particular issues will not be discussed by the candidates.
Implicit codes for electoral performances are neither explicit, nor
public.
Which are the main features distinguishing a code of electoral conduct? There
are at least two:
- A code of conduct is a
product of an agreement reached by political parties. Such an agreement
can be in force for more than one election.
- A code of conduct aims at
complementing electoral rules. That is the reason why they play an
important role in transition elections. Their main objective is
two-fold. On one hand, they aim at reaching a peaceful development of
the election. On the other hand, they aim at preventing abusive actions
from powerful groups.
There are many differences distinguishing the two of them from each other.
Such differences are based on their distinctive features and on how strong the
obligations derived from them are.
Political parties can draft codes of conduct, which can include
international organizations among their signers. Codes can be promoted by
electoral authorities.
Codes of conduct promoted by electoral authorities can face a fundamental
challenge, which can be put as follows: can codes of conduct be mandatory? From
a speculative point of view, codes of conduct have to be voluntary. Some
interesting conclusions can be drawn from some studies, though:
- Some countries have
incorporated codes of conduct into the electoral legislation enacted by
the Parliament. Here, discussion must be started from a different perspective:
Is it still possible to talk about a code of conduct?
- Some other complications
are derived from those cases in which codes of conduct freely agreed by
the contenders set down punishments that have to be applied to anyone who
does not honor them. In such cases, codes of conduct get a more normative
status.
A majority of codes of conduct are by consent. They do not present any
punishment whatsoever if someone fails to honor them. Such a situation can be
considered as integrating the normative dimension of an electoral process. Effective codes of conduct do regulate very
important issues and they tend to become mandatory.
Regarding the codes’ content, it can be said that they are rules aimed at:
- Preventing any kind of
intimidation and violence.
- Establishing rules of
conduct on campaigning.
- Preventing any kind of
abusive conduct from powerful political parties.
A majority of codes of conduct promote cooperation between electoral
authorities and usually impose periodical meetings. However, they do not
empower electoral authorities to interpret them, nor to execute them.
