Domestic and
international observers often confer legitimacy of an election and constitute a
safeguard against electoral fraud. It is very common that the public places a
great deal of trust in their findings.
Authoritarian
regimes will, however, tend to limit international observers’ presence and deny
registration to domestic observation groups. In the case of domestic
observation, regimes may also resort to intimidation to influence their reporting.
Problematic accreditation can be perceived as a part of preparations to rig the
electoral results, which may in turn contribute to increased tensions,
rejection of the electoral results and/or outbreaks of violence.[1]
Empirical cases:
- Nicaragua municipal elections 2008. A number of
international bodies were
denied accreditation to monitor these elections. Furthermore, domestic
observers were also denied access to polling stations. Following the
announcement of the result, supporters and opponents of the Sandinista party
accused each other of electoral fraud (during the balloting and counting
processes). This ended in a violent clash resulting in six casualties and two
fatalities. The government was criticized for not letting international
observers monitor the balloting and counting processes. The party of incumbent
President Daniel Ortega won the majority of the votes, however, rejecting
criticisms and contending that observers were denied access due to the fact
that they were allegedly financed by ‘outside powers’.[2]
Interrelated factors: gender-based discrimination and
violence (external).[3]
