A critical element in maintaining election integrity is sound management of elections by a credible election management body. To be credible, the electoral administration has to be impartial and have the institutional capacity to hold free and fair elections.
In a well-entrenched democracy, the institution that administers elections is usually taken for granted. It has delivered elections for generations; if there are problems, they generally do not call into question the credibility or legitimacy of the institution. In such a country, the electoral management body often is part of the government, and electoral administrators are civil servants.
In a newer democracy, the electoral management body may still be developing and may face severe criticism and close scrutiny. In addition to the problems inherent in organizing an election, the body may have institutional problems—inadequate staffing, funding or experience. A viable solution to ensuring the impartiality required to earn voter trust is the creation of an electoral management body free of any political influence.
To safeguard integrity of the electoral institution and the election process, the following are essential.
Establish a credible and non-political management body
Election administration is a technical task. The administrative system adopted and the institution that manages the system should therefore be technical. This is true if the electoral management body is part of the government structure and electoral administrators are civil servants; it is equally true if the electoral management body is a separate, independent agency with its own personnel and policies.
However, it can be difficult to separate politics from technical administration. The politicization of election management can turn technical administration and problems into political issues. As political issues require political compromise and negotiation, reaching decisions may be time-consuming, making it impossible to stick to the electoral calendar. In extreme cases, politicization of decision making may paralyze the entire process.
A neutral and non-partisan administration enhances election integrity. Even when electoral administrators are selected for their political affiliation, they are still expected to fulfill their duties in a non-partisan, non-political manner. Almost every electoral law calls for neutral administration of elections. For example, South Africa’s electoral law requires all election officers to be impartial and to exercise their powers and duties independently.
Financial and institutional independence is another important factor that allows the electoral administration to work without political interference and without being beholden to special interest groups. In Mexico, the electoral reforms of the 1990s owed their success in part to rapid support for the principle of an independent electoral administration. [1]
In contrast, during the 2003 legislative elections in Cambodia, the National Elections Committee was part of the Ministry of the Interior and was dominated by members of the incumbent party. This dependence fostered a climate of distrust among opposition parties and created opportunities for dishonest practices, such as intimidating people trying to register to vote and blocking attempts to file complaints against the incumbent party. [2]
Create a good administrative, financial and operational system
Insecurity, fraud and corruption flourish in a chaotic environment. Sound management can remove many of the opportunities for subversion or graft. An electoral administration that ensures good planning, hires qualified personnel and provides proper oversight is better positioned to safeguard election integrity.
Proper financial management and audit mechanisms can contribute to maintaining financial integrity and deterring problems that might result from poor financial management. Sound and effective procurement management is also a part of maintaining election integrity when goods and resources are to be purchased.
Good operational systems—based on strategic planning—facilitate work and help avoid problems.
A good logistical system, for example, will help avoid problems that might arise when ballots arrive in a country but must sit at a port or air terminal because of a lack of transportation or storage. Such a system can also facilitate the tracking of sensitive materials, such as voter registration cards or ballots. Inadequate tracking will make it difficult to know whether ballots have been diverted or tampered with.
Operational systems usually include mechanisms for disseminating useful information to participants in a timely and systematic manner. Parties and candidates have to know when and how to register, and how to obtain funding that might be available for campaigning. Good procedures are easier to develop if there are feedback mechanisms for swiftly identifying problems, and for receiving and systematically addressing complaints from candidates and others.
Ensure effective information management
With the management tools and control mechanisms provided by modern technology, electoral administrators can develop and operate effective systems that protect election integrity. A computerized voters list can help identify duplicate registrations and underage voters. A printed list eliminates the problems created by illegible handwriting, and can be posted or distributed to political parties and observers.
However, for computers and other technology to be effective tools, the proper equipment and training must be available.
Use adequate control and oversight mechanisms
Electoral administrators are entrusted with public resources, which they are responsible for using efficiently and economically. These resources must be used in compliance with laws and regulations on the use of public assets, and with electoral legislation.
The electoral management body has to ensure that it has control systems in place, properly safeguarding financial and material resources. Public disclosure of the election budget and expenditures can increase the transparency of the process and in turn can help protect the integrity of the administration.
This involves ensuring that there are systems for inventorying and tracking public assets, that financial records are accurate and up to date, and that someone is mandated to enforce rules and regulations. Effectiveness will be enhanced if electoral administrators are held responsible for the actions of their staff, and if supervisors verify and certify their office’s compliance with all rules and regulations.
Oversight mechanisms also require a system for receiving and dealing with complaints. The electoral management body is usually responsible for ensuring that electoral legislation and related laws are followed, and that anyone who may have broken the law is reported to the proper authorities for investigation and prosecution if warranted.
Demonstrate transparency and accountability
Transparency lends credibility to electoral institutions and their activities, and confers legitimacy on the elections they administer. The electoral management body can achieve transparency in several ways, including:
- regular reporting to the public through the media by holding press conferences, releasing factual information, and identifying problems encountered and solutions;
- regular reporting to oversight bodies and parliamentarians on progress made, difficulties encountered and areas requiring additional effort, plus making the reports available to the public;
- regular meetings with political parties and candidates to provide information, answer procedural and other questions, and seek their input on draft protocols or regulations; and
- allowing the election decision-making process to be observed by representatives of political parties, civil society or the press.
Transparency is valuable because it makes clear who is responsible for what. Civil servants and others entrusted with handling public resources must be accountable to the public and to other levels and branches of government for their actions, and must report on how they used public resources to conduct elections.
NOTES
[1] Schedler, Andreas, “Democracy by Delegation: The Path-Dependent Logic of Electoral Reform in Mexico,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, September 2–5, 1999, p. 20.
[2] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Cambodian Elections: Lessons Learned and Future Directions - A Post-Election Conference Report, February 2004.
