Accountability to its stakeholders promotes EMB transparency and good governance, and positively influences the general public’s perception of its professionalism and impartiality.
Informal accountability through regular communication with stakeholders and formal performance and financial accountability mechanisms are all necessary, complementary measures for ensuring that an EMB is accountable for compliance with the law, financial probity, operational integrity and effective customer-focused activity.
Performance accountability is both internal and external. Internal measures include management monitoring and the use of internal audits to examine performance issues. External measures include external reviews and requirements for reporting to stakeholders such as the legislature. Wide distribution of EMB reports can make a broad range of stakeholders aware of the EMB’s challenges and achievements.
Similarly, an EMB is internally and externally financially accountable. Internal measures include financial reporting and control mechanisms, and regular internal audits. External measures include external audits and the regular provision of audited financial statements to stakeholders such as legislatures and donors, and review by an appropriate body.
The use of technology-based systems, especially for voting and counting votes, places additional accountability requirements on EMBs, as these systems may not be transparent to or easily understood by stakeholders. High levels of quality and integrity assurance, including evidence of transactions, must be maintained.
In order to assure stakeholders of the effectiveness and probity of its performance, an EMB may use a variety of measures including pre-implementation and real-time quality assurance controls, and later audit, evaluation and external oversight mechanisms. The use of peer review processes can give added credibility to audit and evaluation findings and recommendations.
The development of a formal, well-considered and integrated fraud mitigation and control plan, which covers both financial processes and electoral operations, can be a useful tool for improving the quality of elections and enhancing stakeholders’ confidence in them.
Evaluation is the analysis of the electoral framework as a whole, while audit is a method used to analyse/evaluate specific issues within the framework. Evaluation can encompass an audit, but an audit cannot encompass an evaluation.
Performance and financial audits can identify good practices being used by an EMB; deter and detect fraud, corruption and malpractice; identify how an EMB can improve its methods of complying with financial requirements; and improve its operational performance and institutional integrity in order to meet the objectives of its strategic plan.
Performance audits assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of an EMB’s activities, and can have a significant impact on improving its quality of service, make its resource use more cost effective and strengthening electoral management. Financial audits can improve internal financial controls, and promote compliance with the relevant rules and the efficient use of financial resources.
In addition to audits, an EMB may undertake programme evaluations of specified parts or all of its activities. Programme evaluations examine not just how well the EMB has done what it intended to do, but whether its strategic objectives are appropriate for its environment and meet its stakeholders’ needs. They assess how an EMB’s activities could be improved to better meet these needs in an economical, efficient and effective manner. They are an effective way of helping EMBs meet the challenges of a changing external environment.
Well-planned post-election reviews are particularly useful to EMBs. Recommendations from these reviews can feed into internal EMB policy and procedural reform, and EMB advocacy for electoral framework reform, throughout the electoral cycle.
Independent external oversight of an EMB may be through external audit or evaluation, by a standing committee of the legislature, or by a specially appointed ad hoc body. To be effective, the body performing the oversight needs access to all relevant materials and personnel; a strongly independent, impartial and professional culture; and rigorous quality controls.
