The actors
who help in the conduct of out-of-country voting programmes and the parties
that sign formal agreements with the country conducting the election vary.
Agreements can be signed with host governments, UN missions, local
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or third parties.
When
external voting is taking place in multiple countries, host country agreements
often vary from country to country. A certain level of standardization between
agreements is critical to ensuring the transparency and integrity of the
electoral process, particularly regarding sensitive issues such as elector
eligibility and registration. However, when an election is conducted in
multiple countries which are at varying levels of development, some procedural
and logistical differences may be unavoidable.
Examples of
host country agreements include those signed in connection with the 2004
presidential election in Afghanistan—the
largest external voting programme to date in terms of numbers of registered
electors and external turnout. The government of Afghanistan
and the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) signed two MOUs with the
governments of Iran and Pakistan,
respectively. These MOUs stipulated that the two host governments would provide
widespread support for the external voting programme, including security for
registration and polling centres, escorts for the transport of election
material, and support for civic education and public information campaigns.
The
role of third parties
Often,
external voting can be arranged through agreements directly between the host
country and the electoral management body that is conducting the election.
However, in cases where the country of origin may only have a few democratic
elections under its belt or may not have sufficient infrastructure, third
parties can be contracted to help in implementing the external voting
programme. The IOM has played this role in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, East Timor, Kosovo and, most recently, Afghanistan and Iraq. Where a third party is
involved, the agreement with the host country must provide for this participation.
In addition to serving where there may be a gap in infrastructure, particularly
when an election timetable is short, third parties can also be an important
safeguard against any possible political or governmental influence from any
host country. It is imperative that third parties serve as implementers only
and ensure that all questions of a political nature are left to the appropriate
governments. The use of third parties can add significantly to the costs of
external voting programmes.
General
guidelines for host country agreements
When
negotiating host agreements to facilitate external voting programmes, there are
a number of important criteria that must be recognized and protected.
First and
foremost, all parties must ensure the secrecy, neutrality and transparency of
the external voting programme, without local political or governmental
influence or interference. Host country agreements must also protect the
integrity of the constitution and electoral laws of the country holding the
election. External voting programmes should be designed to mirror the
administrative activities of the country of origin as closely as possible.
In
addition, host country agreements should ensure that participation in external
voting in no way affects the political, social or economic inclusion of
participating persons within their country of residence. Some host country
agreements from the January 2005 Iraqi elections state clearly that the
eligibility of an individual living outside Iraq to vote, or the exercise of this
right, in no way affected the individual’s legal status in the host country.
As is
mentioned above, it may also be necessary for some components of a host country
agreement, particularly those that protect any data collected during the
process, to remain in force after the expiry of any agreement or MOU. Such a
clause would be particularly appropriate to protect against the sharing of any
information gathered during the external voting programme for purposes other
than facilitating the vote.
Where external
electors are refugees, agreements can also ensure that electoral participation
does not become a means of forced or premature repatriation of these
populations before conditions to support their return are in place. Agreements
can specify that the external voting programme will neither prevent nor delay
the voluntary repatriation of refugees living in the host country. A number of
MOUs between the IOM and countries hosting Iraqi refugees included language
along these lines to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement—the principle
enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that no
state shall expel or return a refugee to a territory where his or her life or
freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality or
political opinion—was respected. In contrast, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where external voting
was largely by post, the Dayton Agreement stipulated refugee repatriation
during the electoral period by stating that ‘the exercise of a refugee’s right
to vote shall be interpreted as confirmation of his or her intention to return
to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
By election day, the return of refugees should already be under way, thus
allowing many to participate in person’. When an electoral process defines the
end of a peace agreement (and an end to corresponding humanitarian and refugee
assistance programmes), there is a risk that obliging refugees to return to
their country of origin in order to vote will violate the principle of
non-refoulement.
External
voting in consulates, in embassies or by post
Some host
countries, such as Canada
and some European countries, only allow external voting in embassies or
consulates, or by post. When external voting takes place at a country’s
consulates or embassies, agreements with host countries are often not
necessary. Similarly, when external polling is to take place by postal
registration and voting, the need for agreements with host countries is less
pressing. However, agreements can still be essential in ensuring critical host
country support.
In the case
of the 1996 Bosnia and
Herzegovina elections, registration for
external voting was carried out almost exclusively by post, and voting took
place through a combination of postal and in-person polling, depending on the
number of refugees within each host country. Coordination offices were set up
in 17 countries and served to disseminate information and facilitate
registration and voting. These offices were established through a serious of
MOUs between the RESG and the major host governments. The nature of these
agreements and the roles and responsibilities of each host country varied
considerably. In the United
Kingdom, refugee agencies were used to
disseminate information. In the United
States, an NGO, the League of Women Voters
Education Fund, was used (Gallagher and Schowengerdt 1998: 206–7). In Germany,
the government funded and administered an office that facilitated the
registration and voting processes.
