1.1 Changing Terminology and Contested Definitions
Most people have a personal understanding of democracy and a ‘good’ election but these terms are often difficult to describe, imprecisely defined, and often subjects of disagreement. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to “genuine elections” but does not provide a working definition of the phrase nor does it provide a breakdown of the indicators or means to achieve them. There is an extensive set of international public law dedicated to giving expression to the fundamental human rights bound in the phrase genuine democratic elections but its application varies considerably by country. Yet, while nearly all countries in the world describe themselves as democratic and defend the quality of their elections there are many different frameworks for evaluating the quality of elections. [1]
“Free and fair elections” is a common phrase employed to judge the quality of an election but it too is subject to a range of definitions and a lack of consensus as to its components and sub-indicators. In the absence of a shared definition or codification of a “good” election, various other phrases have been adopted in efforts to shape a definition (e.g. “open and transparent” or “credible”).
The phrase “electoral integrity” has also emerged as a concept to define electoral quality. [2] The Kofi Annan Foundation defines electoral integrity as "any election that is based on the democratic principles of universal suffrage and political equality as reflected in international standards and agreements, and is professional, impartial, and transparent in its preparation and administration throughout the electoral cycle.” [3]
The term “standards” is often misunderstood, suggests an imposition of external criteria, or is subject to multiple definitions. [4] In this article, the phrase international legal obligations is used.
The absence of consensus on the definition of democracy, electoral integrity and indicators or benchmarks to measure them does not invalidate elections and democracy as development goals, but their intangible and contestable terms make it challenging to offer measures that will be accepted (and meaningful to the country and institutions and individuals within it) and applied.
1.2 Framework for Measuring Electoral Quality
The concept of the electoral cycle helps to organize our thinking about elections since it locates election day within the full context of the many moving parts of an election, reminding us of the importance of electoral indicators such as election management, boundary delimitation, voter registration, the role of political parties, media and security forces and the judicial system as well as the participation of women, minorities or other marginalized groups and so on.
Many individuals who study democracy and elections opt for a procedural definition of democracy with strong emphasis on the electoral aspects and in particular the administration of elections. A procedural definition of democracy simplifies the task of measuring electoral quality since it is can be broken down into constituent parts, phases, events and specific actors. However, elections remain a complex political activity contingent not only on election procedures but also a bundle of human and political rights, the activities of civil society, the functioning of political parties, the administration of rule of law and justice and so forth.
The use of performance indicators - measures of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts – to assess elections holds appeal for many election stakeholders, especially for those with technical or managerial responsibilities in the electoral process. [5] Establishing performance measures helps individuals and organizations (especially EMBs and technical assistance providers) to set performance targets and assess their progress toward achieving them and to remedy problems when they are identified.
For example, IFES has developed an "Election Integrity Assessment Methodology" that innovatively blends qualitative analysis with a scoring system to measure a range of vulnerabilities and their possible impact in the conduct of elections. The methodology assesses distinct elements of the electoral process (e.g. voter registration, voter education, electoral dispute resolution) and provides assessments of the potential for fraud, malpractice or systemic manipulation. The resulting report can become a planning and management tool for an election management body, technical assistance provider, donor or other electoral stakeholders. [6]
Bridging this set of concerns – the full context of an election as summarized in the electoral cycle, the procedural breakdown of the sub-components of an election and an appreciation for the political context within which an election takes place – to arrive at an overall measure of electoral quality is perhaps beyond the reach of any single methodology. But before reviewing the prevailing approaches, there are other dimensions that bear mention.
First, democracy and governance, including the conduct of elections, have become important foreign policy goals for individual states and multilateral and regional organizations. For example, following the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, the EU is committed to “define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law.” Many other regional and multilateral organizations share similar goals and may provide various types of election assistance as well as deploy election observation missions. Assessment of democratic governance and the quality of elections has therefore become an important element of statecraft and foreign policy.
Second, international organizations, diplomats, donors and electoral assistance providers also have an interest in monitoring and evaluation of electoral quality to make judgments about how their time and money is being spent.
These two concerns indicate that political and technical considerations are both at play and not only tend to influence one another but they may be difficult to reconcile within a single methodology.
A final consideration is the degree to which an approach to measuring electoral quality balances the twin (and often competing) demands of being comprehensive and being concise. An election observer checklist with 10 questions is likely too few, while 100 questions may be too many to yield data that can be analyzed in the time when observation findings are most effective.
[1] For a useful effort to develop a more rigorous analysis in this regard see, Jorgen Elklit and Andrew Reynolds, “A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election Quality,” Democratization. 12:2, 2005.
[2] For a detailed ongoing research project on electoral integrity see The Electoral Integrity Project. See also Pippa Norris, Why Electoral Integrity Matters, Cambridge UP, 2014, Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martinez i Coma, eds. Advancing Electoral Integrity, Oxford UP, 2014, Daniela Donno, Defending Democratic Norms: International Actors and the Politics of Electoral Misconduct, Oxford UP, 2013.
[3] Report of the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security, Deepening Democracy: A Strategy for Improving the Integrity of Elections Worldwide
[4] See Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf, “Forget Standards: Why Election Observers Should Talk About ‘International Obligations and Commitments When Evaluating an Election” Democracy Reporting International, 2010.
[5] For a critical discussion of the uses and misuses of data in democracy promotion see Gerardo Munck, Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Available online at Google Books.
[6] IFES has conducted electoral integrity assessments in Afghanistan, Georgia, and Pakistan.
