Several measures have evolved in different countries to enhance security during an election. The applicability of these measures varies given the unique circumstances. Listed below is a non-exhaustive list of special measures or arrangements that might be considered by election and security officials:
Joint Operations Centre (JOC)
The establishment of a Joint Operations Centre (JOC) has become a common feature of efforts to coordinate security and electoral operations. Normally established some months before an election, the JOC contains representatives from a range of institutions and acts as a nexus for information sharing, planning, briefing and monitoring the electoral process.
Dedicated Training on Security
The development and delivery of a training package for security officials involved in an election. Normally this step is reinforced by the distribution of ‘Election Cards’ to security force personnel – outlining key points about the process, their expected behaviour and lawful authorities. Similarly, the training delivered to electoral staff should include a component that outlines the role and integration of security personnel into their activities.
Weapon Exclusion Zones
During registration, campaigning, polling and counting exercises, special legal provisions may come into force that create a ‘weapon exclusion zone’ around these sites. Normally, the only persons legally bearing arms within these zones are appropriately authorised security personnel.
Coordination of Campaign Rallies
Under relevant Public Law and Order provisions, electoral and security officials may require political parties to register the date, time and place of campaign rallies. In these circumstances officials may impose schedules, to ensure opposing rallies do not occur in a proximity that could create conflict. Arguably, this may be deemed to be a restriction on the right of freedom of association in some circumstances; however, this constraint can be justified if public law and order issues are a valid risk.
Campaign ‘Cooling-Off’ Period
Several countries impose a “cooling off” period between the end of the campaigning period and polling day. This cooling off is intended to reduce the amount of political rhetoric and tension between opposing parties, as their respective supporters go to vote together at polling stations.
Security Media Component (Proactive and Reactive)
In the course of an election, security forces may become the subject of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns may seek to misinform voters about the role, behaviour or credibility of security forces. In the first instance, a proactive information campaign seeks to explain the role of security forces in the process, which can deter disinformation efforts. In reactive circumstances, security forces should have the capacity to respond quickly and effectively in the media to journalist enquiries or disinformation.
Enhanced Communications Network
An effective communications system is well recognised as a ‘force multiplier’ for operational activities. For an election, ensuring that both election and security officials have appropriate communications equipment and interoperability at key levels – significantly enhances responsiveness and efficiency, as well as avoiding misunderstandings.
Security Consultative Meetings and Liaison
In certain circumstances, it may be necessary for security officials to pursue liaison and consultation with local communities to explain their role in an election. Offering an opportunity to exchange expectations, these meetings can be highly productive in alleviating concerns. If follow-up is necessary, a reliable security focal point (or team) may be appointed as a dedicated channel for election related security issues. It is strongly recommended that if this type of engagement is initiated, representatives of the electoral authorities are directly involved to avoid inconsistent messages.
Rules of Engagement or Use of Force Policies
Security forces often outline a policy framework termed a ‘Rules of Engagement’ (RoE) or ‘Use of Force Policy’ (UoF) to guide the actions of their personnel in certain circumstances. Usually, these policies guide security forces on what action is considered to be a reasonable and proportionate response to certain types of threats. During an election these policies may need to be reviewed with an emphasis towards ensuring that security forces are not ‘baited’ into actions that may later be politicised. In the case that security providers are contracted by an electoral institution, a use of force model should be clearly outlined in the contracting arrangements.
Code of Conduct
As has been mentioned earlier, several different groups, such as political parties and the media may enter into a Code of Conduct to guide their behaviour during an election. Security forces may also enter into a Code of Conduct to administer the behaviour of their personnel during an election.
Investigation Taskforce
Irrespective of the forum to which an electoral dispute is brought, the ability to rapidly and competently investigate the asserted facts is essential to defusing uncertainty. The awareness that any allegation will be thoroughly and competently investigated, can in itself, deter frivolous or malicious disputes from arising. Assembling a credible, impartial and competent investigation taskforce, solely for electoral matters may therefore pre-emptively defuse unnecessary disputes.
The measures outlined above offer a sample of the range of security solutions that might be considered during an election process. The desirability and suitability of certain measures, or their combination, should stem from the threat analysis and strategic planning stages.
NEXT: Conclusions
