The actors who help in the conduct of out-of-country voting programmes and the parties that sign formal agreements with the country conducting the election vary. Agreements can be signed with host governments, UN missions, local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or third parties.
When external voting is taking place in multiple countries, host country agreements often vary from country to country. A certain level of standardization between agreements is critical to ensuring the transparency and integrity of the electoral process, particularly regarding sensitive issues such as elector eligibility and registration. However, when an election is conducted in multiple countries which are at varying levels of development, some procedural and logistical differences may be unavoidable.
Examples of host country agreements include those signed in connection with the 2004 presidential election in Afghanistan—the largest external voting programme to date in terms of numbers of registered electors and external turnout. The government of Afghanistan and the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) signed two MOUs with the governments of Iran and Pakistan, respectively. These MOUs stipulated that the two host governments would provide widespread support for the external voting programme, including security for registration and polling centres, escorts for the transport of election material, and support for civic education and public information campaigns.
The role of third parties
Often, external voting can be arranged through agreements directly between the host country and the electoral management body that is conducting the election. However, in cases where the country of origin may only have a few democratic elections under its belt or may not have sufficient infrastructure, third parties can be contracted to help in implementing the external voting programme. The IOM has played this role in Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor, Kosovo and, most recently, Afghanistan and Iraq. Where a third party is involved, the agreement with the host country must provide for this participation. In addition to serving where there may be a gap in infrastructure, particularly when an election timetable is short, third parties can also be an important safeguard against any possible political or governmental influence from any host country. It is imperative that third parties serve as implementers only and ensure that all questions of a political nature are left to the appropriate governments. The use of third parties can add significantly to the costs of external voting programmes.
General guidelines for host country agreements
When negotiating host agreements to facilitate external voting programmes, there are a number of important criteria that must be recognized and protected.
First and foremost, all parties must ensure the secrecy, neutrality and transparency of the external voting programme, without local political or governmental influence or interference. Host country agreements must also protect the integrity of the constitution and electoral laws of the country holding the election. External voting programmes should be designed to mirror the administrative activities of the country of origin as closely as possible.
In addition, host country agreements should ensure that participation in external voting in no way affects the political, social or economic inclusion of participating persons within their country of residence. Some host country agreements from the January 2005 Iraqi elections state clearly that the eligibility of an individual living outside Iraq to vote, or the exercise of this right, in no way affected the individual’s legal status in the host country.
As is mentioned above, it may also be necessary for some components of a host country agreement, particularly those that protect any data collected during the process, to remain in force after the expiry of any agreement or MOU. Such a clause would be particularly appropriate to protect against the sharing of any information gathered during the external voting programme for purposes other than facilitating the vote.
Where external electors are refugees, agreements can also ensure that electoral participation does not become a means of forced or premature repatriation of these populations before conditions to support their return are in place. Agreements can specify that the external voting programme will neither prevent nor delay the voluntary repatriation of refugees living in the host country. A number of MOUs between the IOM and countries hosting Iraqi refugees included language along these lines to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement—the principle enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that no state shall expel or return a refugee to a territory where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion—was respected. In contrast, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where external voting was largely by post, the Dayton Agreement stipulated refugee repatriation during the electoral period by stating that ‘the exercise of a refugee’s right to vote shall be interpreted as confirmation of his or her intention to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina. By election day, the return of refugees should already be under way, thus allowing many to participate in person’. When an electoral process defines the end of a peace agreement (and an end to corresponding humanitarian and refugee assistance programmes), there is a risk that obliging refugees to return to their country of origin in order to vote will violate the principle of non-refoulement.
External voting in consulates, in embassies or by post
Some host countries, such as Canada and some European countries, only allow external voting in embassies or consulates, or by post. When external voting takes place at a country’s consulates or embassies, agreements with host countries are often not necessary. Similarly, when external polling is to take place by postal registration and voting, the need for agreements with host countries is less pressing. However, agreements can still be essential in ensuring critical host country support.
In the case of the 1996 Bosnia and Herzegovina elections, registration for external voting was carried out almost exclusively by post, and voting took place through a combination of postal and in-person polling, depending on the number of refugees within each host country. Coordination offices were set up in 17 countries and served to disseminate information and facilitate registration and voting. These offices were established through a serious of MOUs between the RESG and the major host governments. The nature of these agreements and the roles and responsibilities of each host country varied considerably. In the United Kingdom, refugee agencies were used to disseminate information. In the United States, an NGO, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, was used (Gallagher and Schowengerdt 1998: 206–7). In Germany, the government funded and administered an office that facilitated the registration and voting processes.
