For an EMB to operate effectively, its members need to have a status that entitles them to respect from and a relationship of equality with the government, the legislature and society. In India, the three EMB members—the chief election commissioner and the two election commissioners—have the status of judges of the Supreme Court. The head of an EMB especially needs a status that affords her or him access to the highest levels of government and ensures adherence to the EMB’s decisions. The chair of the EMB in Pakistan (the chief electoral commissioner) has the same conditions of service as the chief justice, as do his counterparts in numerous other countries.

While it is important that EMB members have a high status, it is also important that members do not behave as though they are bigger than the EMB institution they serve, or come to be regarded by society as ‘the EMB’. Personality-based institutions can be highly polarizing. A good-practice model for EMB members to follow is to personalize the institution they serve, rather than institutionalize the person or persons leading the EMB. For example, decisions may be described as the ‘decision of the commission’ rather than ‘the decision of the commissioners’.