At the turn of the Millennium, electoral assistance providers began to engage more consistently with donors to analyse, in greater depth, the impact of their support to elections in post conflict, transitional and emerging democracies in terms of their long term democratic and economic development. UNDP, in particular, undertook a review of a decade of its experience in electoral assistance, from 1990 to 2000, which can be considered the first comprehensive evaluation made in the field of electoral assistance. The result of this review revealed that elections were too often supported as isolated events. Electoral support was not linked to other aspects of democratic governance such as constitution building, as well as political and electoral system design, despite the fact that electoral assistance often offered an ideal entry point for assisting partner countries on other democratic governance efforts. The UNDP’s review presented the clear conclusion that the relationship between electoral systems and political party systems, and the need to involve stakeholders through dialogue, were often insufficiently understood or not fully considered in planning electoral assistance support, pointing for the first time to the responsibilities of the international community. UNDP followed up its 10 year review with more specific studies, while  a number of other development cooperation agencies like the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) undertook similar critical reviews of ad hoc support to electoral processes and the need to place electoral assistance more clearly within larger democracy and governance efforts.

Despite the gradual widespread acknowledgement of the need to move away from the event-driven support approach, the hard reality of foreign policy proved to be a difficult obstacle to overcome in planning longer term electoral assistance projects. At times, support to sudden elections or referenda after an unexpected regime change or a breakthrough in a long-drawn conflict was not necessarily compatible with efficient and effective planning, not even with the execution of an inclusive and transparent electoral process, unless massive international presence was deployed. In many other cases, a fundamental dichotomy persisted in the approach of many development agencies (and in the consequent formulation of assistance programmes) between the desirability of investing in capacity development and the political imperatives to achieve the best results within the shortest possible timeframe.  

The assumption made by many development agencies was that “democratization tends to unfold in a set sequence of stages”[1] , and that the institutional design that had been previously put in place with international technical assistance might eventually be found by the new rulers of the partner countries as not respondent to their needs. Many developing countries in between elections moved away from the initially established democracy trajectory and reformed their political and electoral systems. These changes were sometimes the result of a genuine democratic development process within the partner countries; at other times these changes were imposed by the new rulers in the attempt to consolidate their hold on power. The consequence in both cases was often a severe underestimation of the technical and financial implications that such reforms had in the organisation of new elections, and hence belated requests for support to the international community that had to be met at the political level in order to maintain the partner country on the “democratic path”. In these situations, the role of international politics may mean that electoral assistance was to unwittingly serve national political agendas rather than primarily assisting the partner country in improving electoral systems and processes within the framework of advancing democratic governance.

In the face of growing consciousness of its limited effectiveness, this type of assistance was repeated again and again, and the event-driven approach often frustrated the efforts of those development agency officials who had been advocating a different strategic course. Electoral reforms therefore became a double-edged sword: on the one hand they were advocated for and encouraged to enable the partner country to follow its own democratic development; on the other hand, they were also very much feared as often requiring an unforeseen amount of technical and financial assistance and increasing concerns about the sustainability of electoral processes.

Independent international observation missions played an important role in shifting the mindset of electoral assistance providers from the event-driven approach to a more cyclical one. Evaluations and reports produced by election observation missions represented a valuable tool for better assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the electoral process in a given country and of their reform processes. Electoral observation in the New Millennium had in fact already considerably evolved from the so called rubber-stamping missions of early 1990s to become a rather sophisticated and complex undertaking, especially due to the initiative of the European Union, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE (OSCE-ODIHR) and independent foundations like the Carter Center.

Observation missions organized by the above mentioned actors are now deployed after timely needs assessment missions and apply a tested and precise methodology as well as an internally agreed code of conduct modelled on the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation. Non-partisan election observation by international and domestic observer organisations can greatly contribute to enhancing the integrity of election processes by deterring irregularities and fraud, by promoting public confidence in the electoral process, by mitigating potential for election-related conflicts in the pre-electoral period, and most importantly, can provide grounded recommendations for improving the democratic reform process.  Today there is a growing tendency for international and domestic observer organisations to monitor second and subsequent legislative and presidential elections. Furthermore, missions are deployed to observe local elections and referenda, with the aim of promoting genuine, cost effective and transparent elections. This includes the strengthening of democratic institutions and respect for human rights and the rule of law, which also benefit from development cooperation programmes.  However, although observation missions produce detailed reports highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the electoral processes, such reports have rarely been used for defining and structuring future electoral support programmes. This is often due to a limited understanding by election observation missions of development cooperation mechanisms and its implications for the complexities of electoral administration structures in partner countries.

Next: Facing Electoral Realities: Too Much Assistance, Too Late