A strong relationship between international
observers and their citizen counterparts has great potential to enrich the
overall quality of election reporting but must be navigated with sensitivity to
both groups’ independence. While both employ similar methodologies, the basis
of their mandate differs. Citizens’ right to observe the electoral process in
their own country derives from the guarantee in Article 25 of the ICCPR that
every citizen has the fundamental right to participate in public affairs. In
contrast, states are not obligated under public international law to invite
international observers. They do so because it can lend credibility, which in
turn yields higher status and more aid. Because this salient motive for
accrediting foreign observers is less powerful in regard to citizen observers,
the benefits of facilitating citizen observation can be less obvious to states
not wholly committed to democracy.
For international observers, an integral
part of assessing states’ fulfillment of international obligations is
monitoring the rights accorded to their citizen observer counterparts. Indeed,
in some contexts, the presence of international observers can reduce threats
against national observers. They track reports of intimidation and follow
closely the degree to which authorities provide accreditation and access to all
parts of the electoral process. Beyond evaluating and reporting on the status
of citizen observation, the Declaration of Principles establishes a
responsibility of international observers to “advocate for the right of
citizens to conduct domestic nonpartisan election observation without any undue
restrictions or interference.”[i] By
drawing attention to governments’ failure to facilitate citizen accreditation
as a violation of international commitments, international groups can press
governments to change their policies.
In addition to advocating for citizen
observers’ right to access, they can complement the latter in potential areas
of weakness. As voters, for example, citizen observers may be prone to be more
politicized in their assessment, or at least may be perceived as less impartial
than their counterparts from abroad. International observers often play an
important role in amplifying the substance of their findings, assuming they are
compatible with those of international groups and based on sound,
evidence-driven methods. International groups generally have more extensive
comparative experience and greater visibility, which results in a larger impact
on domestic and international opinion alike. Yet by drawing attention to the
efforts of citizen groups and demonstrating the consistency of their findings
with those of accredited international organizations, international observers
can lend credibility to those citizen groups for future elections, when there
may not be an international presence.
Standards for international observation also
have had significant influence on the crystallization of citizen observation
methodology. The Declaration of Global Principles (DoGP) was modeled on the
international Declaration of Principles and explicitly makes reference to the
common principles shared by the two groups and outlined in both documents. In
pursuit of consensus, the DoGP reprises two Declaration of Principles articles
on genuine democratic elections establishing the authority of government
through free expression of the people’s will. Thirteen international observer
groups signed the DoGP in solidarity with the GNDEM partners. This forged a
closer link between two communities that had been operating in parallel since
the 1980s, a relationship that recognizes the differences in scope and profile
but commits to shared methodological standards.
Just as international observers’ visibility
and comparative experience can boost the impact of citizen observation, citizen
observation has important advantages which can improve the depth and breadth of
international missions. First, citizen observers live in the host country.
While their formal deployment may be much shorter than international LTOs, they
can place election day observations within the context of the entire electoral
cycle. While international observers generally depart within a few weeks of
voting, and often move on to observe in another country, citizen observers are
able to focus their time, resources, and attention year-round to a single
process.
In addition, citizen observers have valuable
contacts and knowledge of politics, language, geography, and logistics.
International observers who absorb the contextual knowledge of their citizen
counterparts, while recognizing the influence of partisanship or special
interests, are best positioned to make informed and nuanced assessments of the
pieces of the electoral process they observe themselves. The longevity of
citizen observation projects also can position them to pursue follow-up to EOM
recommendations, advising government authorities how to resolve gaps in
national law or its implementation relative to international standards, and
monitoring the progress of steps taken to do so. Compared to international
observation, citizen observation has far greater potential to build national
momentum for sustainable democratization. Citizen observer groups can
contribute to national capacity building and mechanisms for national dialogue
and can act as advocates or focal points for electoral reform movements. Finally, because the cost of deploying
observers locally is much lower than deploying them internationally, citizen
groups can field many times the number of international observers. Their
findings, gathered from a larger percentage of polling stations nationwide,
should corroborate the targeted sample monitored by foreign observers.
The best forms for cooperation between
citizen and international observers is still a topic for debate. The
Declaration of Principles establishes that international EOMs “should identify,
establish regular communications with, and cooperate as appropriate with
credible domestic nonpartisan election monitoring organizations.” It further
states that international groups should verify but value information provided
by national civil society organizations (CSOs), and that “international
election observation missions must remain independent.”[ii]
Meeting with local civil society (including groups working on human rights,
good governance, and media) and sharing findings is essential for any
international EOM, as they represent the most informed citizens and can brief
international observers on political developments. Open and frequent
information-sharing differs, however, from outright financial support or
training for citizen groups. Some groups that engage in international
observation, including NDI, EISA, The Carter Center, and others also run civil
society capacity-building programs between elections. Yet if the international
groups also decide to deploy observers for elections, they must ensure the
independence of both parties. Professional observation requires the
independence of both citizen and international groups not only to avoid the
undue influence of local political biases, which should be minimized by
adherence to the DoGP’s professional standards, but also because it can lead to
a strained balance of power or threaten the external credibility of either
group. Perceptions of impartiality matter nearly as much as impartiality itself
in determining observers’ effectiveness. Moreover, international groups
operating jointly with citizen groups may receive more attention and overpower
the voices of their local partners instead of amplifying them.
That said, capacity-building programs for
citizen observers have grown over the last decade, resulting in fewer resources
available for international observers. Civil society-building activities tied
to elections stem from the recognition that international recommendations for
improving democratic processes cannot be put into practice without sustained
monitoring and advocacy beyond the time horizon, capacity, or mandate of
invited EOMs. NDI, for example, which has been a leader in this area since its
PVT support for national observers in the late 1980s, now frequently embeds international
experts with local civil society groups for extended periods to develop not
only their methodology but also organizational skills (e.g., fundraising,
communications, planning, etc.) that will make their programs sustainable.[iii]
A different model is The Carter Center’s
political transition monitoring work in Nepal following the 2008 Constituent
Assembly elections. Between 2009 and 2013, teams made up of a citizen and an
international observer jointly produced thematic reports on issues such as local
governance and party youth wings. When the time came to transition from a
long-term political monitoring effort to an election observation mission for
the 2013 Constituent Assembly elections, however, Nepali nationals had to
assume a different role as regional coordinators to ensure compliance with
Declaration of Principles criteria for an independent international EOM. When
the international observers left, Nepali observers built on the methodological
rigor and technical expertise cultivated over four years of collaborative
monitoring to form a new organization, Democracy Resource Center Nepal, to
continue the work they had begun together.
NDI and
The Carter Center’s activities, among others, suggest that close collaboration
between international and citizen groups may be most viable where international
organizations have a long-term presence. A sustained relationship outside of
the immediate election cycle provides the opportunity to build trust, equality,
and reputation with civil society groups, citizens, and host governments,
giving them a chance to understand the role of each type of observer.
[i]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 16.
[ii]
U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 17.
