The lessons that several development agencies learned through the various evaluation processes described above, balanced with the constraints faced by assistance providers in applying these conclusions in practice, have been the subject of further detailed initiatives and studies promoted mainly by International IDEA, the EC and UNDP, with the aim of making electoral assistance effective beyond the technical delivery of the electoral event. The aim of these initiatives has been to clearly state the issue to those stakeholders and development agenciess still not facing the reality that they are providing too much assistance too late, when their contributions only serve as “quick fixes” and do not address structural problems.
In this respect, the Ottawa Conference organised by International IDEA and CIDA in May 2006 represented a defining moment in the establishment of a new approach to make electoral assistance effective and meaningful for the overall democratic development of partner countries. It was formally acknowledged that even though concepts such as ‘effectiveness’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘capacity building’ had been recognised as the way forward, turning the concepts into reality in implementation had proven difficult. Support for institution building is by its very nature a longer-term exercise, and therefore less visible or perhaps less politically attractive in the event that elections may be some years in the future. Furthermore, progress in institution building is difficult to measure, easily influenced by external factors and unforeseen events, and not always fully informed by or linked to wider governance programmes. The potential consequence of neglecting the strengthening of institutions between electoral events is that “open and democratic” elections can take place in semi-authoritarian states in which the opposition is given space only during that brief period while the world is watching. Similarly, institution-building activities must be supported by corresponding improvements in pluralism and the rule of law, if they are to generate real changes.
Such practices might also have led in some cases to the misuse and abuse
of development agencies support. For example, development agencies’ officials
could be pressured to apply available assistance funds 
to immediate but
unsustainable expenses, rather than to long-term beneficial investments (see
paragraph on embracing technology). Moreover, delays in development agencies
reaction in identifying assistance needs and planning their responses could be
used by recipients to exercise yet more pressure.
To move towards sustainability - an important and often underestimated step - is to engage stakeholders in defining what needs to be done after and between electoral events. There should be full consultation and as much consensus as possible among all stakeholders (including governments, political parties, the media, civil society organisations dealing with democratic governance, academics and think-tanks) with regard to political frameworks, legal frameworks and electoral systems and related activities. This will encourage commitment and compliance by political and electoral stakeholders at all levels both during an electoral event and after it.
To this end, development agencies have the responsibility to ensure that the objectives of electoral assistance programmes support the longer-term objectives of a democratisation strategy in the partner countries. In turn, democracy and good governance programmes need to be in line with the priorities and plans as articulated in national programmes of development assistance (poverty reduction/poverty eradication programmes) and should be an integral part of the development agencies–partner government dialogue.
Next: The Electoral Cycle Approach
