Any effort to make electoral assistance more effective must also tackle the issue of the increasing use of technology in electoral processes. The accelerating development of ICTs applications available for electoral purposes and the appeal that such applications have for partner countries’ EMB are factors to be considered by all EMBs, development agencies, electoral assistance providers and practitioners. ICTs have already dramatically changed the way elections are conducted in many developed countries.
This process is likely to continue and affect more and more emerging democracies, regardless of their level of preparedness to introduce such applications, and despite the fact that the cost implications can be enormous. It seems that post-conflict and emerging democracies, in particular, are making, with donor funds, the biggest leaps in technology, with sometimes serious deficiencies in sustainability. There is a great demand from partner countries, in which suppliers of ICTs solutions often play a role, to development agencies to invest in ICTs applications for electoral processes, which should consider the level of capacity already attained by the respective EMB. Among others, recent examples are Benin, Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania, Togo, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, DRC and Nigeria.
The biggest challenge is how to ensure a sustainable, appropriate, cost effective and transparent use of technology, particularly in postconflict elections, and in fragile and emerging democracies. There is no fixed solution that can be applicable everywhere: different situations require different solutions. As a general rule, the level of technological upgrades suitable for a given partner country should always be directly related not only to the capacity, but also to the trust and independence enjoyed by its EMB. These elements – trust and independence – are decisive to the acceptance of the use of ICTs by the public and, as a consequence, influence the level of trust in the electoral process.
Provided that technologies are legally supported, operationally appropriate, accurate, cost-effective, timely implemented, transparent and sustainable, they can build credibility by improving the speed and efficiency of the electoral process.
However, too much attention to technology applications may divert the EMBs from other important matters and may drain development agencies’ or EMB budgets. Costs associated with purchasing and distribution, system defects, poor design or testing may leave development agencies captive to increasing costs in order to save what they have already invested in. There is a need to “skill up” staff to implement sustainable systems, and this may not be easy given the short timetables that are often involved. Finally, undue influence in favour of one solution or another may be exerted by interested vendors or even by development agencies who wish to introduce a technology similar to the one in use in their own country. Also, it might be so that political groups in power view the use of technology as the ultimate and the most effective method to control the electoral process.
Within this framework of possibly conflicting interests, EMBs, development agencies, practitioners, academics and electoral assistance providers have an important role to play in influencing the technological choices to be adopted in a given electoral process, so that it meets the appropriate needs of the country. Added conflicting interests appear when developing technical specifications, validation testing, allocating budgets and deciding on available timelines for appropriate implementation.
