While organizations now draw their criteria from essentially
the same body of sources, some differences exist in how they translate them
into a comprehensive assessment framework for observers to use. In each case,
the goal is to define the essential characteristics of a democratic electoral
process based on international obligations and to develop criteria for
determining whether they are fulfilled.
The Carter Center and International IDEA, for example, have
agreed upon 21 obligations that form the basis of their methodology. Every
obligation is drawn from an international treaty (often the ICCPR) and
supported by other sources. “Genuine Elections that Reflect the Free Expression
of the Will of the People” is the framework’s overarching obligation, as it
defines the essence of democratic elections. This language comes directly from
Article 21 of the UDHR and was reinforced in the ICCPR. All fundamental rights
must be broadly respected for the overarching obligation of Genuine Elections
to be met. The Carter Center organizes obligations into three types:
“foundational obligations,” related to the state’s responsibility to protect
freedoms and rule of law; “process-focused obligations,” which deal specifically
with the electoral process, and “individual rights and freedoms.”[i]
In 2000, representatives of the Electoral Institute for
Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA) and the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) Electoral Commissions Forum began drafting a document that
outlined standards-based criteria for assessing each part of the electoral
process, with particular reference to African regional instruments. Principles
for Election Management, Monitoring, and Observation in the SADC Region (PEMMO)
(2003) identifies between five and 12 key principles for each sub-part of the
electoral process that taken together make up “free and fair, credible, and
legitimate elections in a climate of peace and security.”[ii]
Criteria for “Constitutional and Legal Framework,” for example, require that
it, “provide for the establishment of an independent and impartial electoral
management body,” “provide for the regular scheduling of elections,” etc.[iii]
The former corresponds in the Carter Center framework with “Freedom from
Discrimination and Equality Before the Law” and the latter with “Periodic
Elections.”
OAS starts with four key descriptors (“attributes”) of a
democratic process. According to A Manual for OAS Electoral Observation
Missions, they consist of:
- Inclusive Elections: All citizens
must be effectively enabled to exercise their right to vote in the electoral
process.
- Clean Elections: Voters’
preferences must be respected and faithfully registered.
- Competitive Elections: They must
offer the electorate an unbiased choice among alternatives.
- Elective Public Offices: The main
public offices must be accessed through periodic elections, and the results
expressed through the citizens’ votes must not be reversed.[iv]
Each attribute is broken down into two “components.” “Competitive
Elections,” for instance, comprises (1) “Right to run for office,” and (2)
“Basic guarantees for an electoral campaign.” Some break down further into
“subcomponents”: “Basic guarantees for an electoral campaign” includes freedoms
of association, assembly, expression, and movement; access to information;
equal playing field; and security. Each component or subcomponent is then
translated into a question (“issue at stake”) which, if answered in the
affirmative, verifies the presence of democratic attributes. The question “Are
there unreasonable hurdles to become a candidate?,” for instance, corresponds
with “Right to run for office,” which is one of two components of “Competitive
Elections.”[v]
ODIHR’s Election Observation Handbook excerpts clauses of
the Copenhagen Document that explicitly relate to elections. Because ODIHR’s
mandate largely derives from the Copenhagen Document, these principles can
stand alone as obligations to a large extent. ODIHR does, however, designate
eight criteria delineated in the Copenhagen Document and other source
documents: (1) Periodic elections; (2) Genuine elections; (3) Free elections;
(4) Fair elections; (5) Universal suffrage; (6) Equal suffrage; (7) Voting by
secret ballot; and (8) Honest counting and reporting of results.[vi]
“Free and fair” appear as only two of eight characteristics, and not as
all-inclusive descriptors. Each category comprises specific elements: “Free
elections” includes, e.g., freedom of assembly, association, expression, and
movement.
The assessment frameworks used by The Carter Center, EISA,
OAS, ODIHR, and other organizations differ primarily in their structure, not in
their criteria. Some organizations use a larger number of obligations linked to
specific treaty stipulations, while others synthesize the essence of the source
documents and assign qualitative labels. It is easy to identify the common
principles, however. For example, the elements of the OAS’s “Basic guarantees
for an electoral campaign,” a component of the “Competitive Elections”
attribute, roughly equate to the criteria assessed under ODIHR’s “Free
Elections” category, as well as to individual Carter Center obligations
(“Freedom of Association,” “Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” “Freedom of
Assembly,” etc.).
Just as it is not possible to establish a hierarchy of
importance for different parts of the process, “the relative significance of
obligations,” Carroll and Davis-Roberts note, “is inextricably tied to the
local context.”[vii]
In some cases an obligation may be violated without critically undermining the
integrity of the process. While the principle of secrecy of the vote, for
instance, is widely agreed upon as a democratic standard that protects voters
from intimidation, voters in some societies report a lack of concern about more
public forms of voting.[viii]
While observers should note the absence of ballot secrecy, they need not
underscore it as a detriment to the free expression of voters’ will. When
gauging the relative significance of violated obligations in any context, observers
also must consider whether the margin of victory is narrow enough that the
failure to uphold a given obligation could have spoiled the process.
Existing obligations-based frameworks cannot tackle every
issue related to the electoral process. Some standards are still evolving or
remain undefined. OAS notes abstentionism, compulsory voting, and certain
aspects of boundary delimitation and allocation of representatives as examples.[ix]
As the body of international law grows and observers and human rights groups
work more closely together, these issues may be addressed over time.
[i]
Carter Center, Election Obligations and Standards: A Carter Center Assessment
Manual (Atlanta: The Carter Center, 2014).
[ii][ii]
SADC Electoral Commissions Forum and EISA, Principles for Election Management,
Monitoring, and Observation in the SADC Region (Johannesburg: SADC ECF/EISA,
2003), 2.
[iv]
OAS, Methods for Election Observation: A Manual for OAS Electoral Observation
Missions (Washington, DC: Organization of American States, 2007), 7.
[vi]
OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook, 6th ed., 23-4.
[vii]
Carroll and Davis-Roberts, “The Carter Center and Election Observation: An
Obligations-Based Approach for Assessing Elections,” 93.
[ix]
OAS, Methods (2007), 9.
