Original question:

What is the difference between:

• observing elections;
• monitoring elections; and 
• supervising elections?

Summary of responses:

Posted on 18 December, 2006

The most widely accepted distinctions between election observation, election monitoring and election supervision refer to the role and the mandate of the different missions in terms of the level of intervention in the electoral process: observers having the smallest mandate, monitors having slightly more extended powers, while supervisors are those with the most extensive mandate.

The mandate of election observers is to gather information and make an informed judgement without interfering in the process.

The mandate of election monitors is to observe the electoral process and to intervene if laws are being violated.

The mandate of election supervisors is to certify the validity of the electoral process.

Different organisations use different definitions for these terms (see some examples below) and in some cases the terms observation and monitoring are used interchangeably without any explicit distinction being made between the two.

The Electoral Observation and Monitoring Missions of the African Union normally decide the scope or mandate of their observation missions based on the findings of an assessment mission. The scope or mandate can include:

• observation, which involves gathering information and making an informed judgement;

• monitoring, which involves the authority to observe an election process and to intervene in that process if relevant laws or standard procedures are being violated or ignored;
• mediation, that is third-party intervention in electoral disputes, directed at assisting disputants to find a mutually acceptable outcomes and solutions to electoral disputes;
• technical assistance, which generally takes the form of technical support and advice to the Electoral Commission;
• supervision and audit, which involves the process of certifying the validity of all or some of the steps in election processes either prior to or after the election has taken place.

According to International IDEA's Code of Conduct: Ethical and Professional Observation of Elections any foreign presence at an election might, in popular usage, be referred to as “observation”. This can however be confusing, as this term has been used to refer to any of the following five different types of activity:

• mediation, which is a form of third-party intervention in disputes, directed at assisting disputants to find a mutually acceptable settlement.
• technical Assistance, which generally takes the form of technical support to the electoral process.
• supervision, which is the process of certifying the validity of all or some of the steps in an election process.
• monitoring, which involves the authority to observe an election process and to intervene in that process if relevant laws or standard procedures are being violated or ignored.
• observation, which involves gathering information and making informed judgements from that information.

According the International IDEA Code of Conduct, supervision and monitoring are sometimes confused with observation because all three activities are based on gathering information regarding an electoral process, and then making judgements about that process, based on the information collected. However, supervision and monitoring are significantly different from observation, for the following reasons:

• Supervisors and/or monitors have much greater authority than observers.
• Supervisors and/or monitors, by virtue of their greater authority, are usually governed by much stricter rules of conduct than those which apply to observers.

The functions of supervisors and monitors could implicate them in the election management process itself.

Supervision by foreigners of an election process has been necessary in some elections, for example, those in Namibia in November 1989 and Bosnia in September 1996. On the other hand, authority to intervene, which is part of the monitoring function, is rarely conferred on foreigners, although it is conferred in some cases on employees of the election management body. For example, the South African election experience in April 1994 demonstrated the importance of domestic monitoring of an election by officials of the electoral administration.

• Detecting any infractions in the electoral process.
• Providing concerned bodies with remarks on the progress of the electoral process and decisions taken.
• Guaranteeing the integrity and neutrality of the electoral process."

makes no explicit distinction between observation, monitoring and supervision and provides no definition of the terms.

Replies were received, with thanks, from:  

• Ayman Ayoub 
• Horacio Boneo 
• Michael Meadowcroft
• Alan Wall 
• Ilona Tip

Links to related resources:

• ACE Encyclopaedia: International Election Observation
  
• ACE Encyclopaedia: Roles and Rules of International Observers
  
• ACE Encyclopaedia: Main types of electoral assistance (United Nations Electoral Assistance Division, UNEAD)
  
• Election Observation in West Africa: The ECOWAS Experience
  
• Consolidated reply: International vs. Domestic Election Observation
• Election Monitoring
  

Ayman Ayoub:

Just a quick thought on the questions received regarding differences between observation, monitoring and supervision of elections. I could think of the following main difference:

Observation: a process by which elections conduct is assessed by specialised organizations, both local or international, to evaluate the freeness and fairness of the process, levels of access, performance of electoral officials and bodies, behaviour of stakeholders in the process, etc. This results in a general report that highlights strengths and weaknesses in the process and provides recommendations for improvement. Observers may be accredited as assigned to specific locations, although the common practice is that they have freedom of movement between electoral locations. They are not supposed to intervene in the development of electoral operations, nor to submit claims, notes or complaints.

Monitoring: a very similar operation, and the term is usually confused with observation and both used indistinctly. However, I would understand that this incorporates an additional element that refers to auditing the EMB capacities and the adequacy of procedures, at times requested and organized by the EMB itself, to identify black holes in its work and in the process for future reform. Like observers, they are not there to intervene in an y active way in the development of electoral operations, nor to present claims or complaints.

Supervision: is clearly different from the previous two operations, although supervisors usually perform similar tasks. Supervision is usually undertaken by participants in the elections (political parties, candidates, etc) through accredited agents, to make sure that electoral rules, regulations and procedures are fulfilled correctly by all stakeholders, mainly by the EMB and its personnel. Supervisors are usually assigned to specific polling stations and/or centres, and play a certifying role in the process, such as signing electoral protocols, etc. They also have the prerogative to submit claims and observations to election officials, to file complaints, and to obtain official copies of electoral documents (such as protocols on poll opening and closing, elections results, etc).

It is important to note that the three concepts should be regarded as referring to all phases of the electoral process, not only voting and counting, but also voter registration, nomination, campaign, dispute resolution, etc.

To see an enlarged picture of the electoral cycle click here.

Horacio Boneo:  

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that's all.

The Lewis Carroll quotation is probably the most accurate answer to the question posed: the answer depends on who is the master.

Eric Bjornlund recently wrote a book on the subject, entitled “Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy”.  According to him:

"accepted practice (unfortunately, he does not backup his argument about acceptance) vies the terms “observation” and “monitoring” as referring to different points of a continuum along two different dimensions: (1) the degree of involvement in the process, and (2) the period of time over which the activity takes place. With respect to involvement in the process, “observation” generally refers to something that is largely passive, whereas “monitoring” connotes an activity that is at least somewhat more engaged.  … With respect to the period of time, “observation” suggests a briefer involvement than does monitoring. The activity of international figures or organizations that focus principally on polling day itself, and thus are not present in the country for very long, is best termed “observation” and the individuals, “observers.” When domestic or international groups pay attention to an election process over time, their engagement might better be termed “monitoring,” but individuals representing such monitoring groups who witness only the balloting and counting might still be referred to as “observers.” Though much international attention to elections is superficial, particularly when it focuses  narrowly on election day, the term “observation” should not be considered a pejorative one."

I believe Eric's argument corresponds to NDI practices.  NDI uses both monitoring and observing in such a sense.  There is probable an influence from NAMFREL, which also uses the term monitoring. 

The UN uses the terms in exactly the opposite sense: monitoring involves a much lighter involvement than either observation or supervision.  The UN also introduces a fourth intermediate concept - verification.  The UN definitions (taken from documents specifying UNEAD criteria) are as follows:

Expert Monitoring: Expert monitoring entails the deployment of a small team of electoral experts to follow and review specific phases of an electoral process conducted by an electoral management body (EMB). Upon the mission’s completion, the team is required to produce an internal report to the UN Focal Point that may be transmitted back to the national authorities. In undertaking this activity, the role of the team is unobtrusive, impartial and focused on carrying out a technical assessment of the existing electoral procedures and processes. The team does not publicly express its view on the electoral process. Rather, its findings must be reported back to the UN Focal Point. At the latter’s discretion any recommendations formulated by the team for the improvement of the electoral process may be transmitted back to the EMB.

Observation: UN observation entails the deployment of a mission to oversee specific phases of an electoral process and report back to the Secretary-General on the election’s transparency, credibility and fairness. In undertaking this task, the UN observer mission must remain impartial. The mission records and collates its observations to produce a comprehensive statement for and on-behalf of the Secretary-General.

Verification: When undertaking verification operations, the UN is required to produce a final statement attesting to an election’s transparency, fairness and credibility. In order to issue such a statement, verification operations must cover all relevant aspects of an electoral process conducted by a national electoral management body (EMB). Verification therefore requires early intervention by the UN. In undertaking its activities, the UN may recommend the EMB ways in which the process may be improved. The EMB, however, is under no obligation to act upon such recommendations.

Supervision (in the ongoing case of East Timor the term certification has been used): An electoral supervision operation requires the United Nations (UN) to endorse and certify each progressive phase of an electoral process in order to attest to the overall genuineness, transparency, fairness and credibility of the election. Where the UN is not satisfied with the electoral procedures or their implementation in a particular phase, the electoral management body (EMB) conducting the process is required to act upon UN recommendations and make any necessary adjustments. In such operations, the progress of the election is contingent upon the UN’s certification of each phase.

The use of the term monitoring is not as common as that of observation and I would suggest that, if a choice is made, to use the more common term of observation.  Supervision and verification, as far as I know, are almost exclusively restricted to UN practice.  The UN also has some other forms of intervention, like the coordination of international observers and the support to national observation, that do not seem to be directly related to the question posed.

Alan Wall:

Horacio's quotation from Lewis Carroll in relation to observation and monitoring is apt - as his examples from the NDI and UN traditions show.

When talking about 'supervision' though, there may be distinctive legally defined features that distinguish 'supervision' from 'observation/monitoring'. Ayoub's comment on a distinction in the rights/powers assigned in many jurisdictions to those who independently watch election processes, and those assigned to election participants and their representatives, may be one difference. Though the powers of election participants/their representatives might not be legally named 'supervision'.

Another case where election 'supervision' is very different from monitoring/observation is where official national/sub-national bodies are legally charged with 'supervising' election processes. This could be a distinct supervisory body that employs a network of staff/organises volunteers to gather information on and that accepts complaints about election processes, and that acts on alleged breaches of election law/procedures, such as Panwas (Panitia Pengawas Pemilu - Election Supervisory Committee) in Indonesia. More usually it could be a 'supervisory' component of a mixed model EMB.

A further point on UN terminology. In a UN EAD paper issued in 1996, 'election supervision' in relation to UN electoral assistance activities was defined as requiring that the United Nations certify ail stages of an electoral process to assure its legitimacy, placing it in a hierarchy one step down from UN 'organisation' of elections (Cambodia 1992) and one above 'verification' of elections.

Examples of UN 'election supervision' activities noted in the paper were for the Namibian Legislative Elections of 1989 and the 1997 election in Eastern Slavonia.

Michael Meadowcroft:  

A comment on Alan’s “further point on UN terminology”:

I recall also that at the least the refugee voting in the Bosnia-Herzegovina election of 1996 had both observers and supervisors.

Ilona Tip:

A few ideas:

Observation - is to observe the process , (preferably, pre, during and after) noting the observations and making a finding based on the observations;

Monitoring - includes the above but provides for monitors to intervene if and where necessary. E.g. in the pre-election phase at a rally if conflict arises to intervene between the parties and try and resolve the dispute or try and keep the parties calm until relevant authority is available to manage the situation. Also during an election if problems arise at a voting station, intervene between parties and try and settle dispute or disagreement, as with observation record the event;

Supervision - usually linked to the electoral authority, often an additional body (as was the case in Zimbabwe prior to the recent elections where an independent body, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commissions has been appointed, or in Mauritius where you have the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Supervisory Commission. The Supervisory Commission overseas the work of the Electoral Commission, ensuring that all processes carried out according to the relevant legislation. If electoral staff are unsure of the process or execute the process incorrectly during registration, election day, counting etc, are able to actively engage with electoral staff to correct them.

Although all three require co-operation with the electoral authority, (invitation in the case of observers, partnership in the case of monitoring as well and with supervision a legislated process and both bodies have a distinct role and function).