Independent observers play an important part in maintaining election integrity. Whether domestic or international, these observers are supposed to monitor the process objectively. Since their interest is to ensure that elections are fair and above-board, they should not take a position on political issues in the election issues. As independent observers, they must also provide objective reporting on the electoral process.

Observing an election involves closely monitoring the process, collecting information on its aspects and making an overall assessment. International IDEA has identified several systemic advantages of including independent observers, including:

• legitimizing the election process;
• building confidence;
• improving the prospects for democratization;
• enhancing the electoral process; and
• reducing or preventing conflict.[1]

National Observation

A wide variety of NGOs and other organized civil society groups act as national monitors. Active monitoring by national observers provides feedback to electoral administrators and policy makers about problems encountered. This allows for corrections to be made during the process, when there is still time to act. In this connection, active monitoring (which can involve preparation of interim reports during the electoral process) can be more effective in maintaining election integrity than passive monitoring, which simply produces a report after the process is over, without much interaction with electoral administrators. Impartial national observers can thus promote free and fair elections. They may perform the following tasks:

• Detect and deter integrity problems by closely monitoring the process, and draw attention to any irregularity or integrity problem observed;
• Increase transparency by publicly reporting on the process, identifying problems and assessing their impact on the election results;
• Assess the integrity of the election. In newer democracies, this may mean assessing whether elections were “acceptable”, “competitive” or “free and fair,” and whether the results reflect the will of the voters. (In older democracies, domestic monitoring tends to focus on how money from interest groups influences the quality of the electoral campaign, rather than how elections are conducted.); and
• Recommend procedural or policy changes to improve election integrity.

International Observation

International observers serve as monitors in countries that receive international donor assistance for elections, and countries undergoing a democratic transition. International observation is performed by many different organizations, particularly by international organizations (such as the Commonwealth, Organization of American States, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the African Union and ECOWAS); and international NGOs (such as IFES, and International IDEA and The Carter Center), with support from national and supranational donor agencies.

The UN does not engage in election observation unless it is mandated to do so by the General Assembly or the Security Council. It has become rare for the UN to engage in observation: the most recent observation mandate was carried out in 2001. Observation is distinct from UN mandates to “certify” or to “verify” an election, but the latter two are equally rare. The organization does, however, sometimes provide logistical support for international election observers or other support for national observer groups.[2]

International observation can perform the following functions:

• Identify problems and bring them to the attention of the election management or policy-making body.
• Ensure action to rectify and follow up on problems, and see that this action is a condition for donor funding.
• Issue observation reports that help contribute to the transparency and legitimacy of the process.
• Help bolster voter confidence, thereby increasing the number of eligible voters who register and cast ballots.
• Facilitate the work of national monitors by asking the hard questions that they may hesitate to ask, recognizing that national monitors may only enquire about matters under observation and not attempt to intervene in the process.
• Provide reassurance to national monitors facing intimidation or other security problems, although the relative safety of international observers due to their status may not extend to national observers.
• Through their presence and attentiveness, act as a deterrent to those wishing to subvert the system; but it should always be recognized that even the most extensive international observation cannot possibly prevent all fraud, including at polling stations and counting centers.

However, international observation that is not impartial or balanced can itself create integrity problems.