The Declaration of Principles stipulates that EOMs “should
seek and may require acceptance of their presence by all major political
competitors.”[i]
While ruling parties or incumbent candidates may view observation as a way to
confer international legitimacy or showcase their commitment to democracy,
opposition parties or candidates often seek out observers in the hope that they
will hold the ruling party, and the state, accountable, or bring attention to
perceived injustices. This assumes that opposition parties have sufficient
faith in the political process to participate. In environments of deep
mistrust, especially post-conflict, the desire for observers may be broadly
shared.[ii]
Apprehension can breed a demand for impartial international eyes to verify that
all sides are playing by the rules.
Impartiality is essential to the success of
election observation missions. Observers must be wary of an unintentional bias,
e.g., giving greater credence to opposition complaints than to more positive
reports on the process. Observers should seek evidence when receiving
complaints, as the goal of observation is neither to rubberstamp the process
for those in power nor to give voice to accusations from the opposition if they
are unsubstantiated. Impartiality is of particular importance, but can be
notably more difficult among citizen observers, as they have a vested interest
in the democratic process of their own states. Citizen observers must
demonstrate transparency and display of the highest standards of
professionalism and objectivity, both at the individual and organizational
level. Establishing, disseminating and enforcing a methodology through
systematic and objective observation tools, trainings and codes of conduct can
contribute to positive perceptions of citizen observers and support impartial
practices.[iii]
To report impartially and accurately on the
electoral process, observers must ensure that they are afforded equal access to
competitors. As early as a pre-election assessment, political parties and
candidates are crucial sources for determining whether a country’s key players
are able and willing to communicate freely and openly with observers. During a
mission, observers meet with parties and candidates across the spectrum and
gauge the extent of their confidence in the process. Candidates and party
representatives report whether they feel they have been treated equitably in
terms of registration restrictions, funding, media access, security, and the
right to public assembly and expression, which helps observers determine
whether the right of all citizens to be elected is fulfilled. Attending party
rallies can give them an understanding of how candidates present themselves to
their supporters, and whether they face overt intimidation. Some observer
groups also examine the extent to which political parties’ internal structures
and candidate selection processes reflect democratic principles.[iv]
The Declaration of Principles makes clear
that accredited political party and candidate agents should be allowed to be
present at polling stations on election day and have access to the entire
process from registration through tabulation and dispute resolution, just as
observers do.[v]
However, while party agents and observers follow procedures side-by-side, their
mandates are not the same. Party agents’ mandate is to ensure equitable
treatment of their candidates and may voice complaints to polling staff if they
witness violations. Observers must only observe and report.
[i]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 13.
[ii]
Kelley, Monitoring Democracy, 33.
[iii]
National Democratic Institute (NDI), How
Domestic Organizations Monitor Elections: an A to Z Guide, 1995, p.23-25.
[iv]
European Commission, Handbook for European Union
Election Observation, 133.
[v]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 14.
