The nature of the actions undertaken to respond to signs of impending or existing violence will depend on the specificities of the country context, the organisational mandate and the capacity to engage. One might distinguish between actions implemented by non-state actors, such as national and international civil society organisations (CSOs) and NGOs, and those implemented by state organisations, such as EMBs and SSAs, that have an official mandate to act in order to ensure that elections are held peacefully. Different actors that undertake electoral violence prevention and mitigation activities in the same national and electoral context will undoubtedly benefit from collaboration.[1]
Prevention by non-state actors[2]
A number of domestic and international CSOs are implementing programmes that aim to address electoral conflicts during their initial stages. The main strategies are monitoring and reporting on electoral violence, organising community-based prevention and mitigation actions and supporting EMBs. Monitoring is a well-established conflict prevention methodology. For example, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), through its Electoral Violence Education and Resolution (EVER) project, builds the capacities of CSOs to document incidents of election-related violence, including details of victims and perpetrators. Systematic monitoring and documentation of incidents, many of which represent criminal offences, serve to minimise the sense of impunity among perpetrators. The Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA) promotes the strengthening of political party liaison committees and community-based prevention and mitigation capacities that are harmonised with traditional dispute resolution mechanisms.
Community-based prevention is organised so that information on election-related tensions is conveyed to trained community mediators, who are selected from among reputable individuals in respective areas to engage in conflict prevention and mitigation. A similar approach is promoted in Nepal by the Department of Peace Operations of the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (PATRIR) through a multi-stakeholder strategic planning process that brings together community-development and peacebuilding organisations with local, national and international electoral organisations. These and other prominent non-state actors often implement capacity-building programmes designed to support the work of national EMBs and can also be involved in supporting local and national campaigns for violence-free elections.
Prevention by state actors[3]
EMBs are using early warning data to make better-informed and conflict-sensitive electoral decisions. As state actors, they are also well positioned to coordinate the efforts of other governmental agencies during elections, for instance in designing electoral security arrangements and prosecuting perpetrators of electoral crimes. Mexico’s IFE is well known for the quality of its electoral planning and security arrangements. IFE cooperates closely with major national agencies and institutions, including the army, navy, police, civil protection organisations and energy and water utilities through the ‘Group for Strategic Facilities Coordination’. The group coordinates operational planning and prevention/mitigation of conflicts in different areas, including electoral processes. The ‘Vulnerability Mapping Tool’ was designed by the Election Commission of India to address specific security challenges during elections through increased collaboration between EMB officials, SSAs and the judiciary.
Electoral prevention and mitigation efforts can take different forms and include different actors, even when implemented in a single electoral and national context. To conceptualise a practical framework in which electoral violence early warning can be utilised effectively, International IDEA has developed a three-layered approach for the prevention and mitigation of election-related violence.
