Although the origins of election observation by international bodies can be
traced further back than those of citizen observation, the two have evolved
side by side over the past thirty years. However, it is worth briefly noting
some differences between the two types of observation.
Although the actual work of observers in the field is fundamentally the
same, the legal foundations are different. While both require accreditation to
observe, the enabling mechanism for citizen observation is based on the respect
for fundamental political rights and freedoms (primarily the right to
participate in public affairs), while international observation depends on the
willingness and invitation of the host state. This applies for both
non-governmental international observer organizations (such as The Carter
Center) and intergovernmental observer organizations (such as the European
Union (EU)) that observe in countries that are not members of their
organization. Some regional intergovernmental organizations, such as the
African Union (AU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), have created a “standing” invitation for international observation
missions by member states of their respective organizations, although host
states are still required to issue a formal invitation.
Citizen observer groups differ visibly from international observer groups in
number. International observer missions deploy smaller numbers of observers due
to a series of financial and logistical considerations that have in fact helped
to shape their own methodology, with a stronger focus on longer-term
observation. National observers, who are often more focused on election day
observation, can normally recruit larger numbers of observers at a smaller cost
per observer. Therefore, national observers can employ more robust
methodologies for widespread election day observation, including the use of
Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT). PVT is an election observation tool that is
normally based on a random, representative sample of polling locations and is
used to independently verify or challenge the results of an election.
National citizen observers tend to be “static” observers, whose deployment
is limited to observing the entire election day in one polling station. Their
continued presence throughout the opening, polling, closing and counting
processes is essential for the validity of any PVTs or a statistically
significant sample of polling locations to estimate an election outcome.
International observers, on the other hand, tend to be mobile. They observe
in a number of polling stations, remaining around 30 minutes in each, according
to the methodologies of most international observer organizations. This allows
individual observers to cover a larger number of polling stations on election
day. Nevertheless, in absolute numbers international observer groups will
rarely observe in a greater number of polling stations than their national
colleagues.
Although national observers are so-to speak always “present” in the country,
this does not necessarily imply that their deployment as observers is longer
than that of international observers. National observer groups often focus only
on election day, whereas international observers often opt for longer-term
observation. Nevertheless, national observers have greater potential to observe
the entire electoral cycle. Although national observers have been broadening
the scope of their work, including longer-term observation and, for example,
the observation of other phases such as voter registration, they rarely follow
the long-term observation methodology used by international observers. However,
by adapting the data collection methodologies used for PVTs and appropriate
transmission mechanisms, there is enormous potential for national observers to
observe other phases of the electoral cycle comprehensively. The
continuous presence of national observers in the country can also facilitate
their engagement in the observation of local elections, which international
observers tend not to observe.
The risks, both personal and organizational, are
also different for citizen observers. Whereas international observers may be
easily targeted for being foreign, they often are less likely to be
intimidated. Their status as “guests” of the host state and the more limited
numbers of international –as compared to national- observers as well as the
limited length of their deployment period generally contributes to the greater
sense of security enjoyed by international observers. The situation for
national observers can be dramatically different. National observers are by
definition far more exposed to national law enforcement mechanisms and to
national conflict dynamics. This greater vulnerability to threats is a concern
that CSOs have to address in every case.
