In broad terms, ‘electoral integrity’ refers
to, “agreed international principles and standards of elections, applying
universally to all countries worldwide throughout the electoral cycle,
including during the pre‐electoral period, the campaign, and on polling
day and its aftermath.” [i]
This definition highlights a couple of notions that have been present
throughout discussion of the legal framework, namely; that no country can
export its legal framework to another country, as context plays an important
role in the application of international standards and, that elections must be
understood as comprising all the components of the cycle and not just election
day or the election campaign. In this
sense, election integrity is a daily obligation to be strived for.
Election integrity is closely related to moral
integrity and responsibility on the part of the various political actors,
election officials and public opinion makers acting together in order to
achieve free and fair elections. Generally speaking, as in several Latin
American countries, the fundamental ethical principles and values regarding
electoral democracy are guaranteed by various legal orders and therefore
violations may entail liability. However, there are other ethical values and
principles which, even if they are not necessarily prescribed by law, have
governed -or should have governed- the transition and democratic consolidation
processes. This is especially the case
in Latin America during the last two decades.
The establishment and consolidation of a
democratic system requires constant learning and reinforcement of the values of
participation, stability, plurality and peace, as well as the exercise of
rights and legality, the deployment of self-interest and auto-limitation,
competition, cooperation and tolerance.
This learning process leads to the recognition of mutual rights and
obligations, to the acceptance of the values of plurality and diversity, and to
the renunciation of dogmatic principles and political Manichaeism. This
learning process also leads to the formation of political parties and
tendencies that are aware of the scope and limits of the proper democratic
competition, in which no one can be above the law or invoke privileges over the
majority. Indeed, eventual majorities should always be perceived as a part, not
as a whole, and, therefore the rights of minorities must be fully respected,
including their right to become a majority.
A serious view of the role of integrity in
politics leads to the belief that not only should the electoral institutions
and political actors (parties and candidates) take on an ethical role, fully recognizing
democratic rules, but also the media have an ethical responsibility towards the
society. After all, society is informed
about politics and assesses democracy through media such as radio, especially
through television and increasingly through the internet.
The place of the media has a universal
dimension and is present in all modern democracies. Thus, questions about the role
of media in democracy and in election integrity are not random or secondary
issues. In fact, reflecting on the relationship between media and politics is
an essential task in order to consolidate democratic change and improve the
quality of our democratic coexistence. These matters should undoubtedly be
taken into consideration by the legal instruments.
The need to establish codes of ethics or
conduct, which would complement the respective legal orders, has arisen in
practically all fields of human activity. At the international level, there are
several collective efforts aiming to prevent the misuse of the professions
through the implementation of codes of conduct and universal application by
various international organizations and professional associations.
In Latin America, several countries have
adopted codes of ethics or conduct related to electoral processes such as:
Argentina (applicable in two of its provinces: Code of Ethics for Judges and
judicial officers of Córdoba and Code of Ethics of the Judicial Authority of
the Province of Santa Fe, taking into account that electoral petitions in
Argentinian provinces are usually resolved by the respective judicial
authority); Colombia (Oath of Ethics, which is applicable to the National
Registry of Civil Status, which is in charge of voter registration); Costa Rica
(Code of Ethics of the Judicial Authority and Professional Code of Conduct
of Lawyers, considering that as a
complement to the relevant functions of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal of Costa
Rica, which is autonomous, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of
Justice has jurisdiction to protect certain fundamental political and electoral
rights and to rule on other relevant constitutional issues); Guatemala (Ethical
Standards of the Judiciary of the Republic of Guatemala, considering that the
Supreme Court hears objections on grounds of unconstitutionality against
decisions of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal which organizes elections and
resolves electoral disputes); Honduras (Code of Ethics for Civil Servants and
Judicial Employees, while the Supreme Court Justice also hears certain
challenges against rulings of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal which has
administrative and judicial powers in this regard); Mexico (Code of Ethics of
the Federal Judicial Power and Statute of the Professional Electoral Service
and the Federal Electoral Institute Staff ); Nicaragua (Electoral Ethics
Regulation); Panama (Code of Ethics of the Electoral Tribunal of Panama); Peru
(Democratic principles for officials and employees of the National Office of
Electoral Processes); Puerto Rico (Regulation of Government Ethics and Norms of
Judicial Ethics for the Supreme Court) and; Venezuela (Draft Code of Ethics for
Venezuelan Judges) and; the Statute of the Ibero-American Judges (approved by
the VI Ibero-American Summit of Presidents of Supreme Courts and Tribunals; as
in several countries in the region its jurisdiction in electoral matters
prevails over the respective national Supreme Courts or the corresponding
specialized courts like in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico , Paraguay and Venezuela).
International organizations may similarly
adopt codes of ethics or conduct. The
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International
IDEA) has adopted both a Code of Ethics and a Code of Conduct for Ethical
Election Observation. International IDEA’s Code of Ethics sets out
"universal minimum standards" regarding "election administration
and professional ethics." This code of conduct aims to systematize the
principles that should guide the conduct of election officials. In addition,
this code establishes ethical principles that form the basis of the electoral
administration and aims at ensuring both the appearance and the actual
integrity of the electoral process. Thus, it is stated that election
administration should conform to the following fundamental ethical principles:
a) Respect for the law b) Impartiality and neutrality c) Transparency d)
Accuracy and e) Voter-oriented.
In addition, there is the, “the indispensable role
of public confidence in democratic elections.”[ii] The extent of integrity, and perceived
integrity, in the electoral process will heavily influence public confidence. From time to time it may be expected that
challenges and scandals will emerge. This is true in consolidated and
transitional democratic countries alike although in consolidated democracies challenges
to electoral integrity may be less damaging than in less consolidated
democracies where such challenges may be more corrosive and potentially
destabilizing.[iii] Having
said this as a broad outline, certainly consolidated democracies may also face
very significant challenges such as was the case for example with the Watergate
scandal.
Electoral laws should
recognize and encompass ethical principles and regulate in a way that contributes
to the integrity of the electoral process because, “Only upon its firm foundation can legitimate
elections be built and in its absence voters can have little trust in their
representatives or government.”[iv]
[ii] Patrick Merloe, Promoting Legal Frameworks for Democratic
Elections, 21.
[iv] Georgetown
University, Democracy and Governance Studies, “The Chinese Electoral Framework
Project.” Website, Executive
Summary.
