Nonpartisan Participation
Voter education is designed to be nonpartisan. To be effective in empowering and motivating voters, programmes must be impartial and not promote one contender - whether a candidate or political party - over another. This is an extremely important point that is often missed in transitional societies, where little distinction is made between voter education and campaign propaganda.
If voter education is a neutral activity, why then should election contestants be allowed any voice in developing the aims and parameters of a voter education programme? Ideally, all candidates and political parties should have an interest in making sure that voters understand what the elections are about in both a general and a political sense. Generally, it is in the interests of contestants to make sure that voters listen to all points of view, make up their own minds, and go out and vote with a sense of freedom and security. While this may not appear to be in the short-term interest of one particular candidate or political party, voters who understand the issues and make thoughtful choices based on them will, in the end, trust the results, confer legitimacy on elected officials and institutions, and allow the victors to govern.
Because elections are inherently competitive, however, candidates may be sensitive to the possible influence by other political parties or special interest groups over the aims and parameters of the voter education programme. This sensitivity may be most intense in highly polarised election environments where there is little or no trust between political parties or where no sense of loyal opposition exists. If a political party believes its opponents have been given undue influence over the voter education programme, it may set out to limit perceived damage to its own cause by undermining the programme, limiting voter access, intimidating educators, and setting up other barriers to a fair and successful outcome.
In many transitional environments, there may also be a strongly held belief among some contestants that an ill-informed electorate and a chaotic electoral process work to their advantage. In this case, efforts to open up and clarify the voting process, as well as make it more efficient, and to educate voters about their rights and how to properly exercise them may meet with hostility. This kind of mindset is also likely to result in the types of barriers noted above.
For this reason, voter educators will want to establish relationships with all candidates and their parties to assist in defining the role of a nonpartisan programme, its ultimate benefits to all contestants, the limits of the information being disseminated, and its relationship to party campaigns.
Beyond Political Parties
It is important not to assume that the candidate pool is limited to the officially registered political parties. First, political parties affiliate themselves with various special interest groups, think tanks, institutions, research groups and others who, because of their particular skills, expertise, or interest may be instructive in discussions about the voter education programme. Depending upon the legal provisions, other groups may also be in a position to nominate candidates. There may be self-nomination based on the collection of a requisite number of signatures, groups of voters may come together to put forward a slate of candidates, or public organisations may also be permitted to nominate candidates, or a coalition of political parties and other groups may be formed to contest a particular election. Because these groups may be more transitory in nature or their participation in elections more sporadic, they may be more difficult to reach. An assessment may have to be made of their relative importance. This will vary according to the particular election circumstances.
The Challenge Presented by Election Boycotts
Broad-based election boycott movements will present particular challenges to voter educators and must be taken into consideration. If a particular 'side' in the election contest, as represented by any number of political parties, special interest groups, and civil society organisations, opts to boycott - and encourages its support base to boycott - an election which it perceives to be illegitimate, then efforts to inform, motivate, and mobilize voters become less neutral. This is to say that any attempt to get out the vote may be viewed as support for the government and party (or parties) in power. This situation is most likely to affect international organisations and civil society groups, as election authorities may be legally bound to provide voter education despite the circumstances. Society groups may be divided about whether participation or boycott is the best means of affecting social, legal, or political change. As noted above, an assessment may have to be made about the relative scope and importance of the boycott. For those opting to proceed with voter education initiatives despite a broad-base boycott, attempts should be made to meet with both sides and clearly explain to voters the ramifications of their decision to vote or not vote.
