In general, an international observation mission cannot move
forward without the permission of the host government. The Declaration of
Principles states: “International election observation missions must actively
seek cooperation with host country electoral authorities and must not obstruct
the election process.”[i]
If there are serious doubts about the host government’s will to conduct a
transparent and democratic process from the outset, organizations should
consider whether a mission is helpful and appropriate. It is important to note,
however, that a decision to observe should not be considered legitimization of
the process.[ii]
As international observation became a norm,
governments with varying degrees of commitment to democratic principles came to
see the presence of – and, they hoped, validation from – international
observers as being to their advantage. Examples exist of governments (e.g.,
Zimbabwe in 2000 and 2002 and Peru in 2000) that believed they could invite
observers and restrict their activities and access without negative
repercussions. Others have strategically invited groups they presume will be
the least critical, even if they are less professional. A majority of those
that welcome observers, however, recognize that facilitating smooth access to
the process is required in order for a mission to be considered credible.
If both observers and the host government
are interested in observation, a memorandum of understanding with the relevant
authority, usually the electoral management body (EMB), is drafted. A
memorandum of understanding states the host country’s responsibilities toward
observers and observers’ responsibilities toward the host country. Host countries
agree to uphold the conditions listed in Part II, while observers agree to
maintain impartiality, publicly report their findings, comply with national
labor laws, act ethically, and respect national sovereignty by refraining from
interference in the electoral process. As discussed, the Declaration of
Principles asserts that host governments should facilitate access but should
not fund or provide in-kind support to monitors.[iii]
Further, the Declaration of Principles indicates that the host government should
issue accreditation in a timely manner to the observer organization as a whole
and to all individual observers whose credentials are submitted. The EMB or
ministry of foreign affairs is usually responsible for accreditation.
A mission’s most frequent government contact
is the EMB. Headquarters staff attend the central body’s meetings and LTOs
attend the meetings of its regional branches, as well as trainings. Observers
also should arrange periodic individual meetings with EMB members to follow up
on administrative decisions and request documentation of voter and polling
staff breakdowns. These meetings are indicators of the EMB’s transparency and
an important means of posing questions about candidate or party registration,
the election calendar, training of polling officials, and internal EMB
procedures.[iv]
Observers also often meet with other government
authorities whose work affects the electoral process, including the ministry of
foreign affairs, ministry of justice, ministry of interior (MoI) and police,
state media, and any national human rights body.[v] Open communication between a mission’s security
staff and the MoI or other body responsible for electoral security is essential
for mapping a sound deployment plan, tracking the potential for violence, and
obtaining assurances that observers will be protected
[i]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 10.
[iii]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 6.
[iv]
European Commission, Handbook for European Union
Election Observation, 126-9.
