The Structure of International Election Observation Missions
The Declaration of Principles emphasizes long-term
observation with enough depth and breadth to meet certain criteria: it must be
“process oriented”; report periodically, accurately, and impartially; publicly
announce its mandate; and employ observers without conflicts of interest.[i]
A mission must be “of sufficient size to determine independently and
impartially the character of election processes… and must be of sufficient
duration to determine the character of all of the critical elements of the
election process in the pre-election, election-day, and post-election period.”[ii]
At the same time, the Declaration of Principles makes clear that observer
groups might decide to deploy limited missions. In this case they must identify
appropriate foci and neither overstate their parameters nor draw conclusions
about parts of the process they did not observe. As long as groups fulfill
these conditions, the Declaration does not require that a specific mission
model must be used.
Financial resources, organizational size and support
capacity, and group profile are the most important factors that drive
organizations’ mission structure and methods. Each organization has a
comprehensive election observation mission model when conditions are conducive
to a robust observer presence throughout the country and for an extended period
of time. When considering deployment of a mission, observer groups generally
send a small assessment mission of headquarters staff and/or country experts a
few months to a year before elections to investigate the pre-electoral
environment. They determine whether a mission would be a smart investment of
resources and gauge the host government’s willingness to welcome observers.
Intergovernmental organizations usually have existing diplomatic ties in the host
country. In the EU’s case, European Commission officials based in the host
country are able to lay the groundwork for a mission before observers arrive,[iii]
and ODIHR has a standing invitation to observe in all member states.
A standard comprehensive international observation mission
comprises a core team of managers and topic experts based in the host country’s
capital, long-term observers, and short-term observers. The size of delegation,
division of responsibilities, and average duration of stay vary. ODIHR deploys
some of the largest missions, with a core team of 10-15 international experts.
The team, which begins operations in the host country six to eight weeks before
election day, includes a head of mission and deputy, reporting officer,
election analyst, political analyst, legal analyst, media analyst, statistical
analyst, LTO coordinator, and occasionally a specialist in women’s participation,
national minorities, e-voting, or campaign finance.[iv]
Particular to ODIHR as an arm of the OSCE is the parliamentary liaison officer,
who coordinates with parliamentarians from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly,
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or European Parliament who
also are observing.[v]
EU missions appoint a chief observer who is a member of the European
Parliament, though the mission is independent from the EU.[vi]
Otherwise, EU teams have a similar composition to those of ODIHR, and sometimes
include a human rights expert to cover women, minorities, and disabilities
together.[vii]
All organizations require operational support in the areas of security,
logistics and procurement, and finance, usually provided by both international
and local staff.
The Carter Center, as a smaller, nongovernmental
organization, deploys core teams with a similar composition but fewer members:
at minimum, a field office director, observer coordinator, legal analyst, and
security manager. Experts may play multiple roles, e.g., an LTO coordinator
with a statistical background who is able to analyze as well as collect data from
observers. The Carter Center, NDI, EISA, and OAS all recruit former heads of
state or similarly eminent individuals from the host country region to lead
their missions on election day. This brings visibility to observers’ findings
and demonstrates keen international interest in electoral conduct.
The OAS model largely employs its own specialist staff from
the OAS General Secretariat Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation
(DECO) as core team members instead of consultants. Aside from the non-staff
chief of mission, core teams include a deputy chief, general coordinator, press
specialist, electoral organization specialist (the EMB liaison), legal
specialist, electoral technology specialist, electoral analyst, indicators
specialist, and operational support.[viii]
International observation missions nearly always employ a
handful of staff who are citizens of the host country. While national staff
cannot be accredited as observers, they often play an integral role in advising
international experts on local context and laws, interpreting, and monitoring
media.
Most organizations deploy long-term observers (LTOs) to the
host country shortly after the core team establishes itself, sometimes as soon
as one week. There is no set number of LTOs that must be present to constitute
a comprehensive mission. However, the combined number of short- and long-term
observers needed for sufficient coverage ranges from 10-50 (EISA) to “16 or
more” (Carter Center), to more than 100 (ODIHR and EU missions). The precise
number generally is contingent on factors such as country size, number of
polling stations, political structure, and electoral system. LTOs must commit
to as long as several months in country and deliver informed, analytical weekly
reports based on daily meetings with candidates, political parties, regional
electoral officials, civil society actors, and security personnel during this
period. They also often scout a deployment plan for STOs assigned to their
areas of responsibility.
Observers may be recruited through open calls seeking
country expertise, civil society background, or elections experience, or
through rosters of trained individuals maintained by the intergovernmental
organizations that use them. In ODIHR’s case, OSCE member states second
observers to missions, though efforts are made to recruit and fund a diverse
pool of observers from states that do not participate regularly in this
process.[ix]
Organizations usually deploy LTOs in pairs of mixed nationality and gender to a
representative sample of regions nationwide. Leading groups define the duration
of long-term observation as averaging between six weeks and six months (though
it may last longer if elections are delayed or results are disputed), with some
organizations such as The Carter Center preferring a minimum of three months
for long-term observation.
During a comprehensive mission, short-term observers
complement long-term observers’ analysis by collecting data from a large number
of polling stations on election day. As with LTOs, efforts are made to recruit
STOs with diverse nationalities and with a gender balance.
In many cases, short-term observation is also an opportunity
to bring citizen observers from neighboring countries or those with upcoming
elections to observe with an international mission. EISA, for example,
frequently recruits representatives from African civil society organizations
and members of EMBs to serve as STOs.[x]
Unlike LTOs, STOs are not present long enough to establish relationships with
stakeholders. Instead, they must be accurate, efficient, and able to evaluate
what they observe in and around polling stations using mission checklists. They
remain in the host country for one to two weeks immediately surrounding an
election. After training with the core team, they often have one day to
familiarize themselves with their areas of responsibility (AORs) and meet with
nearby LTOs. STOs remain a few days for counting and tabulation but do not stay
indefinitely if the announcement of final results is protracted.
Comprehensive missions demand extensive financial and human
resources to support a robust long- and short-term presence. Limited missions,
in contrast, adapt rigorous obligations-based methodology on a smaller scale,
often with a more modest number of observers who have a clearly delineated
regional or topical mandate. For example, in some instances, NDI and others
observe pre- and post-election developments, eschewing direct observation of
polling. ODIHR’s Limited Election Observation Mission (LEOM) model has the same
duration and structure as a comprehensive mission without STOs. One might
deploy if “serious and widespread problems on election day at the polling-station
level are unlikely, but… observation of the entire long-term process throughout
the country might still produce useful recommendations” or, conversely, when
major flaws are expected but key political forces express interest in
recommendations to move their country forwards.[xi]
ODIHR’s other limited model is the Election Assessment Mission (EAM), which
focuses on a specific issue such as minority or women’s rights, campaign
finance, technology, electoral dispute resolution, etc. In this case, the organization
does not deploy observers outside the capital, but core team members (of whom
there may be as many as 12) leave headquarters in pairs to collect information
from the provinces. [xii]
The duration can be as short as two weeks and the mission will issue only a
final report.[xiii]
Again, the impetus to deploy an EAM may be positive or negative: either
confidence in political pluralism is already strong and does not merit the
expense of a large delegation, or a genuine choice among candidates is clearly
absent but ODIHR wishes to maintain open dialogue with major stakeholders.[xiv]
Organizations sometimes employ other variations of a small,
“limited” mission. For example, The Carter Center’s Election Experts Mission
and ODIHR’s Election Expert Team (EET) rely on the analysis produced by a small
team of experts in the field. These missions may last no more than a couple
weeks or may be an outgrowth of an established field office monitoring a
protracted transition. EISA’s model is the Technical Assessment Mission (TAM),
which lasts a minimum of 10 days. A TAM consists of six or fewer analysts with
specific topics of expertise. Generally, these individuals are permanent EISA
staff or on the group’s expert roster.[xv]
EISA TAMs issue a final report but no preliminary statement.
The Structure of Citizen Election Observation Missions
Citizen observers are also employed in election monitoring;
although guidelines for citizen observation models are less well developed than
the mission parameters described in the previous paragraphs – partly due to the
greater flexibility inherent to citizen observation. Citizen observers can be
organized by a variety of civil society groups within a country and have
observed elections in more than 90 countries since 1980[xvi].
While citizen observers initially focused on election day, citizen observation
missions have expanded in duration and scope. Citizen observation is carried
out by NGOs or CSOs. The National Democratic Institute (NDI) has guidelines for
citizen observers on reporting findings,[xvii]
planning for future observation missions[xviii]
and recruiting and training observers.[xix]
These same guidelines outline strategies for maintaining strict non-partisan
observation behavior and in “monitoring and mitigating” electoral violence.
Citizen observers also cooperate with international NGOs, as described in
section 4.1.2.
[i]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 6-7.
[iii]
European Commission, Handbook for European Union
Election Observation, 108.
[iv]
OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook:
Sixth Edition, 37.
[viii]
OAS, Manual (2009), 26.
[ix]
OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook, 32.
[x]
EISA, “EISA Election Observation Mission
Models,” in e-mail to author, 2.
[xi]
ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook, 30.
[xv]
EISA, “EISA Election Observation Mission
Models,” in e-mail to author, 2.
