Electoral integrity requires a
legal and institutional system that encourages and protects fair and equitable
elections as well as application of specific measures to protect integrity based
on democratic election standards and best practices. The appropriate measures
must be adapted to the social and political context of each country, but the
basic objectives are the same and stem from the need to ensure genuine and
credible elections. Some of the guiding principles that can help bring about an
election with integrity are:
- respect for principles of
electoral democracy;
- ethical conduct;
- professionalism and accuracy;
- institutional safeguards ;
- oversight and enforcement; and
- transparency and accountability.
Respect
for Principles of Electoral Democracy
Under the principles of electoral democracy, all citizens have equal rights to:
• participate as voters and candidates;
• all citizens must have equal voting power;
• the secrecy of the vote must be assured;
• voters must have meaningful access to electoral and campaign information;
• election administration must be conducted in a fair and non-partisan manner;
• elections must be held regularly;
• the results of elections must be decided by the freely cast votes of the citizenry.
For an election to be genuine
and credible, it is not enough for electoral administration to be conducted in a
relatively orderly and professional manner.
A free election also depends on freedom of speech, assembly, association
and movement, and freedom from fear. A fair election requires a
transparent electoral process, equitable electoral laws, regulations and
systems; equal opportunities for all participants, an independent and impartial
elections commission; lack of intimidation; proper procedures; and accurate
tabulation and acceptance of the electoral results.[1]
In fact, the extent to which the principles of elective democracy are
grounded in international law (primarily the ICCPR and its authoritative
interpretations) and related standards for implementation is usually underappreciated. To create stronger linkage between electoral
standards and international law, The Carter Center has created a Database of Obligations for Democratic
Elections – an online resource for tracking the basis for principles of
elective democracy.[2]
Ethical
Conduct
Integrity in elections depends
on ethical conduct by electoral administrators, election officers, candidates,
parties and all participants in the electoral process. This implies that all
participants should behave in a way that promotes a free and fair process, and
that discourages conduct jeopardizing the integrity of the process. To achieve
this, all participants must carry out their duties or roles in a professional,
transparent and impartial manner. This means that public officials (including
electoral administrators) must not use their position for personal or partisan
benefit. Candidates and parties must not misuse campaign
contributions and participants. Outside interests must not use
money or other incentives to improperly influence an electoral administrator or
public official, and must disclose their financing and spending as required by
law.
Ethical conduct also involves respect
for the political rights and activities of others; acceptance by citizens and
electoral administrators that everyone has the right to freely debate political
issues and promote different political viewpoints; and an understanding that no
one has the right to interfere with political parties’ efforts to spread their
message or with other citizens’ political activities.
Many electoral laws make
provision for codes of conduct that lay
out the behaviour expected of the various participants in an election – e.g., political parties and candidates;
election officials and workers; other government officials; and sometimes also
the media. Some systems also address
additional issues – such as “vote-buying” or “vote bribery” – through special
restrictions on related activities (such as providing cash or other benefits to
voters in a constituency or their communities), especially during the campaign
period.[3]
Professionalism
and Accuracy
Integrity problems are often
assumed to result from dishonest or fraudulent practices, but they can also be
the result of human error or honest mistake. It is essential for election
administration to be professional and accurate. Sloppy work or inaccuracies in tallying
votes can raise integrity questions and compromise the validity of the results.
The same measures designed to limit abuse of power and ensure accountability
can also help catch mistakes.
Although a deliberate attempt
to derail the electoral process or manipulate election results would constitute
a criminal act, problems resulting from mistakes and inaccuracies usually
remain a disciplinary or civil matter. Inaccuracies,
vagueness or ambiguities in the legal and institutional framework, as well as
in descriptions of the mechanisms implementing and enforcing it, can
inadvertently create many problems and even encourage unfair practices or fraud.
For example, election officials and workers are sometimes restrained
from actively upholding voter-identification standards or inquiring into other
voting/voter registration irregularities by the presence of provisions in law
that make them personally liable for infringements of the right to vote. (This
has occurred, for example, under the laws of former Yugoslav republics.)
Institutional
Safeguards
Institutional safeguards based
on checks-and-balances are sometimes used to protect the integrity of elections.
These involve dividing the authority to conduct various electoral operations among
different bodies, providing a counterbalance to the electoral administration. For
example, legal provisions can distinguish administration and enforcement of a
law in order to reduce conflicts of legal mandate. They can also separate the
powers of prosecuting authorities and courts that issue rulings. The powers
associated with oversight responsibility can be delegated to an inspector
general’s department or a court (sometimes a special electoral court).
When there is a division of
electoral powers between several bodies, it is important to develop effective coordination
so that organizations work together without duplication of effort or conflicting
approaches. It is also important to ensure that the public, politicians and
parties are informed about the roles and responsibilities of each agency to
avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
In New Zealand,
for example, different institutions have responsibility for specific electoral
tasks. The Chief Electoral Officer, an employee of the Ministry of Justice, is
responsible for running elections. The Electoral Enrolment Centre (part of the
New Zealand Post Office) handles voter registration and voter list maintenance.
The Electoral Commission is an independent body mandated to register political
parties and their logos, inform the public about electoral matters, allocate
public funds for campaign broadcasting, and receive campaign financing reports.
The police are responsible for investigating breaches of electoral law and
prosecuting offenders. The Representation Commission is an independent
statutory body that determines electoral boundaries. A Parliamentary committee
reviews election administration and recommends amendments to electoral
legislation. [4]
In countries that are in
transition or where there is no reliable civil service, one way to limit the
influence of existing institutions is to establish an independent electoral
commission with wide-ranging powers, similar to the Australian Electoral Commission. For example, many Commonwealth
countries have departed from the U.K. model of direct election administration
by civil servants in favor of establishing electoral commissions, with varying
levels of executive responsibility.
The Mexican electoral system, which underwent a series of reforms
between 1990 and 1996, is a good example of effective electoral reform using
separation of powers and a system of checks-and-balances. The administration of
elections was taken out of the hands of the Ministry of Interior and transferred
to a permanent, non-partisan and autonomous election management body, the
Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). A special judicial tribunal was created to
rule on electoral disputes. (There were also other aspects of the reforms).[5]
Oversight
and Enforcement
Legal and institutional frameworks provide for oversight and enforcement of election laws to make administrators and participants accountable. Continuous
oversight of the process by internal and external mechanisms can help detect problems
in the system and identify the groups or individuals responsible.
Application of legal and
regulatory measures is essential to control actions aiming to fulfill personal and special
interests. Enforcement activities are a deterrent to those contemplating
illegal or unethical behaviour, and serve to penalize those who have broken the
law. Otherwise, a sense of impunity and lack of enforcement can encourage a
climate of corruption and mediocre performance. Ongoing enforcement is a priority in rooting out corruption from the election process,
bringing those responsible to justice, and maintaining a sense of trust in the
system.
Transparency
and Accountability
Countries also adopt rules
governing transparency to protect electoral integrity. Transparency makes
institutional structures and their actions/decisions widely accessible
and better understood. It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system
that permits abuse and corruption. With the right legislation, electoral
administrators and election officers can be held accountable for decisions they
make when administering elections; legislators for the content of the laws they
pass and the level of funding allocated for elections; and candidates and
political parties for their conduct and that of their supporters during the
campaign.
Participants in an election will
generally have greater trust if they have access to detailed procedural
information and can understand how the electoral process works. Transparency,
along with the public scrutiny that follows, usually provides additional
motivation for electoral administrators and election officers to comply with
the rules and be prepared to be held accountable for their actions.
Regular consultations between
policy-making bodies, the electoral management body and election participants can
help build transparent electoral administration and greater confidence by the
participants. Regular consultation is especially helpful in countries that are
in transition, where procedures are still being developed and candidates may have
concerns about the capacity of the electoral agency and other bodies to conduct
free and fair elections.
Transparency also builds
understanding of the process, the difficulties encountered, and why electoral
administrators and election officers make decisions. Thus greater transparency
increases the credibility of the process and the legitimacy of the results. If
the electoral process is free and fair, accurate, transparent and well-monitored,
and if laws and regulations are duly enforced, it becomes more difficult for
participants and voters to reject the election results or the legitimacy of the
newly elected representatives.
[1] For more information on free, fair and democratic
elections generally, see Elklit, Jorgen and Palle Svensson, “What Makes
Elections Free and Fair?” Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 1997; Beetham,
David, “Freedom as the Foundation,” Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 2004,
p. 61-67; Inter-Parliamentary Union, Declaration on Criteria for Free and
Fair Elections, 1994; European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Code
of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report,
2002.
[3] In Armenia,
for example, there have been reports of attempts to influence voters through
benefits provided by candidates or their supporters to voters directly or to
their communities during election campaigns, especially in parliamentary
elections conducted through the parallel, majoritarian district system. The Election Code has attempted to address
such abuses through lowering the standard of proof (concerning the required
“intent” of these actions, the relationship of the perpetrators to candidates,
and including indirect attempts to influence voters through gifts to their
communities). Nonetheless, the
enforcement of these provisions has proved problematic, since voters are
reluctant to testify before the authorities about such matters, fearing that
they could be prosecuted for vote bribery; and anyway it has proved difficult
to prove that they were actually influenced sufficiently as to affect their
vote. See OSCE/ODIHR, Final Report, Republic
of Armenia Parliamentary Elections, 12
May 2007, election Observation Mission Report (Warsaw, 10 September 2007), pp. 12-13. See
the Case Study on Vote Buying later in this chapter.
[4] See
generally Electoral Commission of New Zealand, Everything You
Need to Know About Voting Under MMP, Wellington:
GP Publications, 1996.
[5] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The
Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico,
Mexico City:
FLACSO, 1999
