The organisation and conduct of credible elections demand adherence to principles and rights, which in practice, impose significant challenges for ensuring effective security, including:
-
transparency requires that the steps of an electoral process be well advertised to the public;
-
elections must be held in compliance with national laws that usually create immutable timeframes;
-
freedom of speech and association can create a politically-charged atmosphere which may polarise communities;
-
the institutions responsible for the administration and security of an election must fulfil their mandates impartially, and may be constrained by the need to avoid perceptions that they are favouring a particular political competitor;
-
inclusiveness requires that an election be a highly decentralised operation, with massive logistical requirements involving the recruitment of tens of thousands of temporary staff, and the operation of polling places and offices.
To operate effectively within these electoral requirements, security forces need to be guided by their own principles, including:
Equitable and rights-based
Participants in an election must be treated in an equitable manner by both security forces and electoral officials. Reasonable and proportionate responses to actions must be consistent, which cannot be influenced by arbitrary factors, such as, political affiliation. An election is a mechanism by which people are able to exercise their political, civil and human rights. Security protocols must consider and acknowledge these rights, as well as the heightened sensitivity and scrutiny to the respect for these rights that occur during an election period.
National ownership
Elections are a sovereign process. However, in some circumstances such as, post-conflict or transitional elections, national security forces may need to be strengthened by international forces. To the degree permitted, the security of an election should fall within the ownership and control of a national authority to reflect sovereignty and avoid allegations of international interference. Advantageously, indigenous security forces are the most sensitive to their cultural practices and may therefore be best positioned to interpret and respond to emerging threats.
Strategic
Elections are normally planned 18 to 24 months before polling day and occur as a widely dispersed exercise requiring significant planning and preparatory activities. Security forces (police and/or military) rarely possess sufficient standing resources to secure an election, and simultaneously carry-out their regular duties. Integrated strategic planning by the electoral and security institutions is essential to prioritise, allocate and coordinate necessary resources.
Non-partisan and impartial
To be effective, security forces must avoid allegations of partisan bias. If security forces are found to behave in a partisan way, rather than defusing tensions they may heighten them and undermine their own function in the process. During the election period (especially during the campaign period) normal security actions may become the subject of analysis which evokes political dimensions. In politics in general, and in elections in particular, perception is as important as reality. As such, senior security managers must actively consider these political dimensions to preserve not only the reality, but the perception of impartiality.
Flexible and efficient
Electoral processes can face late-stage amendments to accommodate emerging legal, operational or political conditions that arise. In the first instance, security planning should include a range of contingency plans and resources to ensure flexibility. Alternatively, clearly defined constraints on security capabilities and resources based on efficient planning should be available to inform decision makers on the range of options that are feasible to accommodate. The efficiency of these operations, both in delivering substantive security services and adjusting to changes, is an important indicator for the confidence of the electoral participants.
Transparent and accountable
In security operations there is always a tension between operational security policies of ‘need to know’ and the public interest. In an election period, disclosure policies are normally best weighted towards the public interest, recognising the importance and value of transparency. In cases where it is necessary to protect information, extra accountability measures may be necessary to ensure post-event justifications. Transparency in this context also refers to enhancing consultative mechanisms with political groups, civil society and other organisations to ensure the role and functions of security forces are well understood in the process.
A favourite saying of this author is: ‘The best operational solution is rarely politically feasible’. In many cases, the political dimensions of an election can create obstacles to otherwise seemingly simple security decisions. This feature of the electoral process highlights the potential frustrations that can arise between security and electoral officials.
Ultimately, an operational solution cannot be considered desirable if it does not address the necessary political conditions. This discord emphasizes the need for strong communication and coordination between security forces and electoral institutions.
NEXT: Election Security Threats and Analysis
Case Study Nepal missing
I was looking for Case Study Nepal: Electoral Violence and Mitigation Assessment but the link given was different i.e. "Lesson Learned: Integrated Electoral Assistance in UN Mission Settings". Could you please update this and let me know.
Thank you
Best,
Diwas