This question was posed by an ACE user through the "Ask a question" function in Electoral Advice.
I am doing research on electoral management bodies (EMBs) and the evolution of the independent electoral commissions. At the moment I’m trying to understand who first adopted the model of an Independent EMB in the world. I know Latin America has a really strong and old tradition of independent EMBs, but reading the Indian debates for the 1950 Constitution I also learned that the Election Commission of India was build looking at the Canadian experience, especially the Dominions Act of 1920.
Any thoughts you might have on this topic are most appreciated.
Posted on 10 May, 2007. This question received 1 reply from Dickson Bailey. His contributions have been merged into the Facilitators' reply.
First of all it is important to define the term “independent EMB”. In the context of electoral management the term independence embraces two different concepts: structural independence and ‘fearless independence’, where:
(1) Structural independence: is about an EMB being independent from the executive branch of government. It is a formal independence that can only be found in the constitution or the electoral law and;
(2) ‘Fearless independence’ (or behavioural independence): is a normative independence of decision and action that is expected of all models of EMBs in that they do not bend to governmental, political or other partisan influences on their decisions.
It is important to remember that an EMB under the independent model does not necessarily act independently in its decisions and actions, and that an EMB under the governmental model may be independent in its actions, even thought it can be difficult and is more unlikely. A ‘fearless independence’ can not be guaranteed only by adopting a structurally independent model EMB, but to some extent the two forms of independence may however be linked as Independent Model EMBs are regarded as most likely to ensure an EMB’s independence of decision and action.
The electoral management model used by a country is an important factor in EMB behaviour, but far from being the only one. You can legislate structural independence, but you can’t legislate independence of decision and action. Fearless independence is part of an EMB’s institutional culture and it must be nurtured. Click here to see factors that influence EMB behaviour. Normally when the term independent EMB is used, it refers to the structural independence.
The origin of independent electoral management structures
Independent electoral management bodies were first developed during the 20th century in the Americas. In Uruguay, Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica, for example, the transition from oligarchic governments to more liberal democracy in the first quarter of the 20th century saw the emergence of new electoral structures which became known as the fourth branch of government because of their constitutionally guaranteed wide ranging powers and responsibilities which among other things included the resolution of electoral disputes. For example, the Uruguayan independent electoral authority, Corte Electoral, was created in 1924 and enshrined in the Constitution of 1934.
A similar structure was also established in Canada in 1920. A key measure of the Dominion Elections Act of 1920 was that it established the office of the Chief Electoral Officer to replace the Clerk of the Crown 
in Chancery. The Chief Electoral Officer was given substantial guarantees of independence and can since the introduction of the Act only be removed for cause on address of both houses of Parliament, in the same manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. This was a measure that among other things forged the independence of the office and allowed the CEO to carry out his work impartially, professionally, without fear and favour, and without immediate political pressures. In 1927 the Act was amended to specify a statutory appointment by resolution of the House of Commons. Instead of being appointed by the government of the day all incumbents since then have been appointed by unanimous resolution of the House of Commons.
As for the case of Asia, India was the first country to set up an independent Election Commission in 1950. Election Commission of India is a permanent Constitutional Body which over the years has become well known and gained good reputation for its ‘fierce independence’ and impartiality.
Other countries that established independent electoral commissions before the 1980s include Kenya and Malta (1960), Ghana (1968) and Bangladesh (1973). However, due to democratic retrogression in Kenya, Ghana, and Bangladesh, the independent EMBs were politically compromised and never exercised their independence until these countries introduced democratic electoral reforms in the 1990s.
The independent Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), for example, was established in 1984. Before that the Australian Electoral Office and was established as a branch of the Department of Home Affairs.
The second half of the 20th century also saw many former colonies around the world gain independence and hold first elections based on universal suffrage. Unfortunately, many such countries, especially in Africa and Asia, did not stay the democratic course and reverted to authoritarianism and one-party rule. Despite this democratic retrogression, these countries together with the communist-ruled Eastern Europe, continued to hold elections even under authoritarian regimes. But such elections were ‘show elections’ which only fielded and returned candidates from the governing party. Such elections were staged (or stage managed) to present the facade of popular support for the governing party when in fact fair elections could have ousted the incumbents. The executive, through the ministry of interior, was responsible for managing elections in countries which were under authoritarian rule as in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, the pacific and Africa.
Despite the democratic setbacks in said parts of the world, regions such as the Caribbean and also a handful of African countries such as Botswana, Gambia, and Senegal, have since independence in the 1960s remained under democratic rule and have held successive credible elections. Until recently, elections in these countries were run by the executive, such as through the office of the supervisor of elections in the case of St Vincent and Grenades, and Botswana, or the election directorate in the case of Senegal, Gambia, and Jamaica.
Beginning in the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War and the reduction of military and economic aid from developed countries brought a new wave of democratization, popularly known as the ‘third wave’ of transition elections, especially in parts of the African and Asian regions. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 also fomented political reform which led to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the establishment of democratically elected governments in Eastern Europe, the Caucus and central Asia.
Democratisation in many of the countries which for a long time were under authoritarian and military rule meant the introduction of, among other things, institutional reform, which included the writing of new constitutions, change of electoral systems, rules, and structures. Widespread citizen distrust in the ability of government ministries to administer elections without favoring the government parties – many civil servants were seen as corrupted by previous undemocratic regimes - led to persistent calls for independent bodies to run elections in these newly-founded democracies. This period saw the setting up of independent EMBs in countries such as:
Indonesia (1999)
Cape Verde (1999)
Nigeria (1999)
Antigua and Barbuda (2001)
Georgia (2001)
Yemen (2001)
Afghanistan (2003)
Iraq (2004)
South Africa (1994)
Uganda (1995)
Burkina Faso (1995)
Thailand (1996)
Fiji (1998)
Ukraine (1998)
Cambodia (1998)
The only part of the world which remained impervious to the wave of democracy and elections which hit the world during the late 20th century is the Arab World. With the exception of a few countries (such as Turkey, Albania, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, Niger, Djibouti, Afghanistan and recently Iraq).
With the exception of Yemen, Palestine, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan and Iraq, which set up independent electoral management bodies between 1992 and 2004, elections in the Arab World are run directly by the executive (governmental model). In Djibouti elections are run by the executive under the control of a supervisory commissions (mixed model of electoral management).
As for the rest of Asia, most of the countries have independent electoral management structures. Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste and the Maldives are the exceptions.
"Institutional or ‘structural’ independence can only be found in the constitution or law. The simplest way to promote independence of decision and action in an EMB is to create a legal framework that embeds EMB independence, as provided in the constitutions and principal EMB laws of many countries. This may or may not be feasible, depending on the EMB model, but to merely cherish and respect the independence of an EMB without further measures being taken to safeguard that independence is in critical times often insufficient.
