Citizen observers have expanded beyond the monitoring of
election events to early warning mechanisms. These systems enable the
compilation of data and analysis on factors that could generate conflict and
violence with sufficient lead time for preventive measures to be effective.
Although a different activity from observation and one that can be carried out
by CSOs that do not observe elections, is some overlap in the scope of the
work. The potential for citizen observer groups to carry out or collaborate
with state bodies on early warning information gathering, analysis and
dissemination is very high.[i]
Early warning activities can also enable CSOs to establish
or maintain good working relationships with other stakeholders, improving
understanding regarding their commitment to democratization as well as
confidence in their motives, structure and work. The additional visibility
should also help to promote a positive public image. Furthermore, the nature of
the work, collecting information systematically, analyzing it and making
assessments, and then releasing public statements and recommendations, can also
benefit their election observation work.
Parallel Vote Tabulations
Statistical assessments of the quality of electoral result
tabulations are one of the oldest tools of citizen electoral observation. The
tabulation of votes at the different levels of an EMB’s own consolidation
structure is a critical part of any electoral process. It is a part of the
process where national observers’ access is often restricted, impeding direct
observation. NAMFREL developed as early as 1984 is a form of parallel vote
tabulation, which was refined significantly for the 1986 elections, in The
Philippines.[ii]
Other pioneering uses of PVTs by citizen groups took place in Chile in 1988,
Panama 1989, Bulgaria and Nicaragua in 1990, and Zambia in 1991.[iii]
The incorporation of statistical sampling methods has helped to create a solid
methodology for “quick counts”, whereby national observers can ideally, and
without the need to consolidate results from every polling station in the
country, arrive at a scientifically valid and representative conclusion
regarding the accuracy of official results.[iv]
National observers are better suited to carry out quick
counts than international observers. While some international missions have
enough observers for PVTs, national observers are more likely to be able to
deploy observers to a sufficiently large representative sample of polling
stations. In addition, these methodologies require that observers remain in the
selected polling stations for the entire process, which is how many national observer
groups operate normally. Beyond the results, these methodologies allow for the
collection of other statistically relevant data on the electoral process,
something that is far more difficult for international observers.
Although often a very sensitive proposition for authorities,
particularly regarding the timing of their publication vis-à-vis the
proclamation of official results, quick counts are among the most effective and
powerful tools at the disposal of national electoral observer groups. This tool
can play an important role in instilling confidence in the electoral process, or
provide evidence of fraud or malfunction. To ensure maximum effectiveness, the
methodology employed, and the relevant outreach and communication strategy must
be transparent and agreed upon with other relevant stakeholders, especially the
EMB.
The Declaration of Global Principles recognizes the value of
statistical assessments, but cautions that, “Decisions about the timing of
reports, statements and releases, concerning findings and conclusions based on
such methodologies must carefully consider the credibility of observer reports,
the sufficiency of the information received and the accuracy of analysis of the
statistical data, as well as electoral rules concerning the timing of reports.
Such reports should include information about statistical samples and margins
of error of the findings.”[v]
Whether information and communication-based tools will stand
the test of time as “liberation technologies”, to use Larry Diamond’s phrase,
has yet to be seen.[vi]
Technologies and methodologies are just tools: What really matters is how they
are used and what is made from the information they collect.[vii]
[i]
International IDEA, The Guide on Action Points
for the Prevention and Mitigation of Election-related Violence, Stockholm,
2013, p.37.
[ii]
Bjornlund; E.C., “Transition Elections as End or
Means? Lessons for Democracy Assistance from Domestic Election Monitoring”, in
McMahon and Sinclair (eds), Democratic Institution performance, Praeger, 2002,
p.3.
[iii]
Bjornlund, E.C., “Beyond Free and Fair:
Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy”, Woodrow Wilson Press, Washington,
2004, Chapter 13.
[iv]
Estok, M., Neville, N., and Cowan, G., The Quick
Count and Election Observation: An NDI Guide for Civic Organizations and
Political Parties, NDI, 2002.
[v]
Declaration of Global Principles for
Non-Partisan Observation and Monitoring of Elections by Citizen Organisations,
GNDEM, 2012, para. 14.
[vi]
See, Diamond, L., “Liberation Technology”,
Journal of Democracy, Vol. 21. No. 3, July 2010. p. 69-83. Also, Meier, P.,
“Ushahidi as a Liberation Technology”, in Diamond, L., and Plattner, M. F.,
Liberation Technology: Social Media and the Struggle for Democracy, A Journal
of Democracy Book, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2012.
[vii]
See, Citizen Participation and Technology. An
NDI Study, NDI, 2013.
