Common standards for evaluating elections poses many difficulties. For one, international standards, while clearly articulated and binding through international legal instruments, are abstract and require interpretation and judgment before they can be applied to specific instances. Furthermore, it can be difficult to reach a general conclusion about an election on the basis of existing standards alone: there is no established formula on how instances of violations or irregularities relate to a broader quality assessment of an election or its outcomes.

Experience shows that it is not always easy to reach an overall conclusion. International observer reports may disagree because different observer groups use different criteria or are influenced by disparate interests or perspectives. The result is that such inconsistencies may engender confusion in the country in which elections are observed.

Contradictory reports undermine the credibility and purpose of observation. For example, during the 1998 election in Cambodia, the election observers’ statements sowed confusion and resentment. Many observer groups seemed to give a passing grade to the election, based on their observation of the voting and the count; a few others took emphatic exception, citing the unhealthy political atmosphere before the election.[1]

Similarly, during Zimbabwe’s legislative elections in 2000 and presidential elections in 2002, contradictory evaluations were issued by various international and national observation groups.[2] Once again, the reports were met with some bitterness by national participants.

Thus adoption of common observation standards is increasingly viewed as essential to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of election observation missions. One set of proposed criteria is as follows:[3]

1) Observation should cover a broad range of issues:

• administration and functioning of the election process;
• legal and institutional framework for the process;
• political context and climate in which the election is held (exercise of political rights).

2) Observation should cover the entire process from beginning to end, including:

• the pre-election period, including candidate registration and  the campaigning;
• election day and vote counting; and
• the post-election period, including vote tabulation and announcement of results, resolution of complaints, and assumption of elective office by the winners.

3) Coverage should be as broad as possible:

• sufficient observers stationed throughout the country;
• including party and candidate agents and monitors, national observers and official monitors and overseers.