Not all stakeholders will be favourably disposed toward EMBs. Some may be difficult for reasons that are legitimate, such as an EMB’s failure to treat them with fairness, respect and impartiality. Others may simply be difficult for reasons such as personality clashes, past misunderstandings or the seeking of political advantage. It is common for some candidates and political parties to threaten to boycott or withdraw from elections citing EMB incompetence or partisanship, or to blame an EMB when they lose an election. This may occur because the EMB has not fulfilled its mandate to be fair and impartial, because of actions by bodies beyond the control of the EMB, or due to lack of public support for these political parties or candidates.
When attempts at inclusion fail, an EMB may need to decide whether it is wise to deal directly or indirectly with a difficult stakeholder, or whether to be on the offensive or defensive in dealing with it. If a small political party with little following announces that it is boycotting an election, the EMB may decide to restate its position publicly and monitor the situation. If a large and influential party decides to boycott an election, the EMB may need to seek mediation by a third party. There may be an advantage to approaching the courts for a binding determination if the differences between an EMB and a stakeholder involve an interpretation of the law.
Liaison structures, such as working groups with civil society or suppliers, committees of the legislature or political party liaison committees, may be useful in reducing or resolving differences between an EMB and its stakeholders. When a large majority in the liaison group supports the EMB’s views, the dissenting views of a difficult stakeholder may be muted or stifled. Yet when a large majority in the liaison group supports the difficult stakeholder, the EMB can recognize that it is dealing not with a difficult stakeholder but with common perceptions of its performance — in which case it may need to reconsider its policies and decisions.
Where differences between the EMB and a difficult stakeholder are nearly irreconcilable, an EMB can resort to a strategy of defending itself against attack. Media releases and appearances by the EMB’s spokesperson on news and other programmes, and other publicity opportunities such as the EMB’s website, can be used to clarify the EMB’s position so that the public understands its side of the story. The EMB may seek to publicize areas of agreement, rather than emphasizing areas of difference, to demonstrate that it can work with a difficult stakeholder. In such a situation, it is especially important for the EMB to express itself in a neutral, factual, detached, dignified and conciliatory way: any perception that it is becoming a player rather than an umpire will be to its long-term (and possibly short-term) detriment.
By ensuring that it is irreproachable in all its conduct by maintaining a high level of transparency, impartiality, dignity, integrity, professionalism, service and efficiency in all of its dealings with stakeholders, an EMB can construct a good defence against detractors.
