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.