Even before the endorsement of the Declaration of Principles
in 2005, professional observer groups and critics of observation alike articulated
a critical need to define rigorous assessment criteria. While “free and fair”
remained the most frequently used benchmark, experts were uncomfortable with
its inability to express nuance. As Elklit and Svensson testified as early as
1997, “The phrase ‘free and fair’ cannot denote compliance with a fixed, universal
standard of electoral competition: No such standard exists, and the complexity
of the electoral process makes the notion of any simple formula unrealistic.” [i]
The Declaration of Principles conspicuously avoided use of the term. But while
it urged endorsers to harmonize their methodologies, it did not provide more
detail on what standards election observers should use.
The appeal of “free and fair” was that it was a blanket
assessment of an election that was easy for the public to digest. By distancing
themselves from “free and fair,” observer groups faced the challenge of finding
alternative formulations to express their overall evaluation. The move toward
long-term observation, and its pairing in most cases with short-term
observation, increased the amount and diversified the types of data that observers
collected. Carroll and Davis-Roberts (2013: 93) explain the fundamental
question with which observer groups continue to grapple: “The most difficult
challenge is to evaluate the extent and significance of observed problems
during various stages of the election, and to assess the degree to which they
fundamentally undermine the integrity of the entire election and the final
results. Such analysis raises the core question of how much weight or value to
give to various parts of the electoral process and the relevant obligations.”[ii]
Observers recognize that the quality of an election can be
compromised during the pre-election campaign period or during post-election
dispute resolution, just as on election day itself. To this end, the discrete
parts of the electoral process have been identified to ensure that reporting
addresses all aspects sufficiently. Acknowledging that any part of the process
can be compromised, the question remains: are all equally important? While the
models used differ slightly, observer groups avoid imposing a hierarchy,
recognizing that context will determine the challenges of each election.
Logistical and financial limitations often force
groups to make difficult choices about what to observe when they cannot observe
everything. To best allocate resources, they must evaluate where
vulnerabilities to manipulation or fraud are greatest and the relative degree
to which different types of potential violations would undermine the integrity
of the process. In some political or cultural contexts, observers may know in
advance to devote resources to past problem areas, but often these are hard to
predict.
[i]
Elklit and Svensson, “What Makes Elections Free and Fair?” 43
[ii]
David J. Carroll and Avery Davis-Roberts, “The Carter Center and Election
Observation: An Obligations-Based Approach for Assessing Elections,” Election
Law Journal 12, no. 1 (2013): 93, doi: 10.1089/elj.2013.1215.
