Past
external voting programmes, particularly those in post-conflict contexts, have
been funded through widely differing mechanisms. Many consider it important
that the costs borne by host countries be kept to a minimum, for a number of
reasons. First, minimizing the costs borne by host countries will contribute to
ensuring that cost is not a factor in host countries’ decisions on whether or
not to allow foreigners to vote on their soil. Second, it will help to protect
the electoral process itself from any potential interference by others who may have
a stake in the outcome of the election.
Generally,
countries that have a longer history of democratic elections and have a more
established electoral process tend to fund external voting programmes
themselves. In the cases of post-conflict societies, costs tend to be
shouldered by the international community, either through direct assistance to
the electoral commission or government conducting the election or by other
means. For external voting in Bosnian elections, for example, host countries
have both funded and administered electoral activities. For these elections in
the United States,
the US Department of State made a grant to the League of Women Voters Education
Fund to facilitate absentee voting.
The
majority of costs are borne by the country of origin or the international
community. An important exception is that host countries typically assume the
costs of providing security for the registration and polling activities. A
second cost typically borne by host countries is the provision or loan of certain
election materials, such as ballot boxes, for use in the election. External
voting programmes can increase their appeal to host countries when implementing
partners agree to purchase any materials and equipment from domestic markets
wherever possible. This was a component of Syria’s MOU with the IOM during the
2005 Iraq National Assembly elections.
For the
January 2005 Iraqi elections, some host countries provided security at their
own expense, while others did so only with the financial support of the IOM.
For example, Turkey’s MOU
with the IOM for the Iraqi external voting programme stated that the government
of Turkey
would provide appropriate places for the establishment of election centres, but
the costs of these locations would be borne by the IOM. It also specified that
the IOM would pay in advance a specified amount per election centre for
security (65,000 US dollars (USD)) and issue an additional advance for the
transport of election materials (10,000 USD).
Where
external electors are refugees under international protection, international
law does provide some guidance regarding the costs of refugee assistance. It
embodies a principle of ‘equal burden-sharing’, recognizing that all states
have a duty to provide assistance to refugees. This principle is designed to
prevent the ‘burden’ of refugees from falling disproportionately on states
neighbouring a conflict, which could possibly cause them to close their
borders. The principle of equal burden-sharing is also designed to prevent
refugees from becoming a source of tension between states. (The use of the word
‘burden-sharing’ is unfortunate as there is a growing literature that explores
essential contributions of refugees to their host countries, but the basic
principle of the international community sharing responsibilities to minimize
tension is an important one. See Bouchet-Saulnier 2002: 338–9.)
In the view
of the present author, these costs of refugee assistance should be considered
to include the facilitation of political participation. The application of this
principle would prevent the costs of enfranchisement from falling
disproportionately on less developed nations which tend to be those that host
large populations of refugees who are potential external voters. The
application of equal burden-sharing within the international community would
prevent cost from being a source of disenfranchisement, contributing to greater
overall political participation, and would remove a heavy financial burden on
some less developed states.
