Original Question:

What methodologies are useful for an after-the-event assessment of elections, as distinct from electoral observation missions during campaign, polling and counting periods? Would a Commission of Inquiry, based on public submissions, be considered a legitimate and reasonable method for assessing whether an election was "free and fair"? Does any literature exist which looks at this type of issue?

Charles St Julian

Summary of responses:

Posted on 7 August, 2008

International IDEA and many other organizations in the field of electoral assistance have already confirmed the need for a cycle-based electoral support, where assistance would go beyond just Election Day, and focus on the electoral cycle in between elections. Post-election assessment is then an important component of this goal, which can be used to identify flaws and strengths of electoral processes ex post and provide vital information on limiting the former and consolidating the latter in preparation for the next election.   

There are several organizations and independent electoral experts which have come up with post-election assessment templates that are discussed in some detail below. All of these templates provide valuable insight in judging the quality of elections but it is important to remember that these methodologies are not an exact science in that they cannot be applied exactly in all contexts. Therefore, the need for flexibility in their application should always be kept in mind.

Many of the templates recommended below vary in the criteria they focused on but the following were some of the areas of assessment discussed in many:

There are several ways which have been used in practice while conducting an assessment of the quality of election within the criteria mentioned above. These include collecting information from a sample of polling booths and their staff about their Election Day experience and polling procedures, reviewing electoral materials used for the elections, interviewing political actors and EMB officials, and going over media reports. In some cases one of these information-gathering procedures may be more appropriate than other and very often all of them will be challenging. It is important, therefore, to prioritize the criteria according to the context, which will best reflect the nature of the elections.

One important difference between election observation and post-election assessment that should be kept in mind is the difference in focus. Where as observation involves identifying more procedural issues, post-election assessment is aimed at identifying systemic, organizational, and capacity development strengths and weaknesses. This contrast should be kept in mind during the information-collection as well as the analysis stages of the assessment.

There have been several cases in the past where an ex post assessment of an election has been conducted by a “Commission of Inquiry” or an equivalent body with its composition and role being deemed legitimate by most stake-holders. Specific cases include post-election (external and/or internal) audits and assessments in Botswana, South Africa, Guyana, the UK, and Sierra Leone. Some of these cases are discussed in detail below. 

Though the composition and exact role of these assessment commissions have varied, most experts believe that it is good practice to ensure that the members are detached, diverse, and knowledgeable and may include academics, civil society organizations, lawyers, and election experts. Internal reviews by an EMB might also be fruitful, and more comprehensive due to an EMB’s familiarity with a given electoral process. In any case, the neutrality of the members of any assessing body is essential for the assessment’s legitimacy. Also, most if not all of the stakeholders in the electoral process should be comfortable with the composition of the commission. If these criteria are met, the use of public submissions to vet public opinion can make the assessment process even more transparent.  

An important lesson to be learned about post-election assessment is that is that it should be set out as a priority from the very beginning of the electoral process. Experience has shown that if not given sufficient attention and resources, interest for a post-election assessment often dwindles or is sidelined by political actors.

Replies were received, with thanks, from: 

• Tim Meisburger
• Jørgen Elklit
• Carl Dundas
• Debashis Sen
• Magnus Ohman
• Ronan McDermott
• Ilona Tip
• Kate Sullivan
• Michael James Meadowcroft
• Laurie McGrath

Relevant Links:

International IDEA’s Handbook on Effective Electoral Assistance

ACE: Focus On Effective Electoral Assistance 

EU Election Observation and Assistance

The Carter Centre’s Democracy Program 

The Asia Foundation’s Election Program

To do a post-election assessment of the quality of the process I would start with a standard election monitoring assessment template like those used by the Asia Foundation, EU, OSCE, Carter Center or Commonwealth. Then gather and compile information from published sources relevant to each aspect of the template.

For example, you could have an expert do an assessment of the legal framework for elections, just as you would on for an observation mission. Review media coverage (printed and broadcast) and collect information on party access to broadcast media to determine if coverage and access were fair. Review media coverage for reported incidents of violence, intimidation, vote-buying, misuse of state resources, and other electoral malpractice to evaluate the pre-election environment. If media reports are not available you can interview police, party officials, NGOs, and others, then base your assessment solely on incidents reported by at least two independent sources. Same can be done for the process on election day and the counting.

After that you should have a pretty good sense as to the quality of the process, not as detailed as you would get from comprehensive domestic observation or a full blown international mission, but certainly useful and comparable to what we see in a medium mission.

On the Commission of Inquiry, this would work if the Commission were perceived to be neutral and impartial. If the Commission was connected to the government or election commission, and the country was politically polarized over a disputed election, it is doubtful the losers would accept the verdict of the commission.

Anyway, my thoughts on this issue off the top of my head. Hope they are useful in some way.

Tim Meisburger

As part of a research project on "quality of elections" and this factor's interaction with, i.a., political legitimacy, Andrew Reynolds (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill) and I have developed a quantitative framework for measuring the quality of elections and election administration, which might be useful as a general instrument.

Our pilot work has been reported in a article "A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election quality"), Democratization, vol. 12, no. 2 (April 2005), pp. 147-162), which can be used by others also with its more than 50 quality indicators.

We will appreciate feedback and assessment results from specific elections and will be eager to engage in exchanges on pros and cons regarding our methodology.

Please contact us directly if you wish to discuss further.

(To receive the contact details of Andrew Reynolds and Jørgen Elklit, please e-mail [email protected])

Post-election evaluation, or assessment, or  peer review or audit, is well-known and is indeed a trend which is catching on in new and emerging democracies. This development is useful in identifying strengths and weaknesses , not only in the organization of the election, but also in the organizational structure of the election management body (EMB) concerned. Post-election evaluation of whatever kind and intensity is best done by experts external to the EMB concerned, because that approach is likely to earn greater credibility.

An election audit or peer review by independent experts drawn from election and related disciplines, such as law, social science, and other psephological experts   offers the most comprehensive post-election study, if the terms of reference (TOR) are suitably framed. In order to get the most comprehensive post-election audit, the TOR should be framed very broadly to include the working of the  electoral legislative framework, the electoral system, the EMB's performance, electoral related constitutional provisions, boundaries of electoral districts, the various electoral processes (registration of voters, registration of candidates or political parties who contested the elections, management of election logistics for the elections and the polling and counting processes), as well as voter education programmes, relations between the stakeholders (EMB, political parties, candidates, monitoring of campaign financing, the media, government departments, and civil society organizations).

There are several examples of comprehensive post- general election audit, for example, Botswana in 2004, and in Local Elections, South Africa in 1995.

In India, the law provides for special courts that judge 'election petitions'  from persons aggreived in the electoral process. The petitions, however, have to be filed within a specified time period.

As a complement to the comprehensive type of post-election assessment described by Carl Dundas, it is sometimes possible to do a very hands-on election audit by examining the election materials themselves after the elections. This was done by IFES in Sierra Leone after the 2004 Local Government elections there. On the invitation of the EMB, we selected polling stations using a strategic random sample, and extracted all the materials from these stations (making sure to look into cases where the turnout had been suspiciously high).

An audit of this kind can serve several purposes, which can broadly be defined into three (not mutually exclusive) categories; a) legally oriented investigations where evidence is sought of electoral malpractice, and where the outcome of the audit may lead to legal challenges; b) investigations of electoral malpractices on a more general level, without the intention of exposing individual cases (but rather to learn how to avoid fraud in the future); or c) studies how electoral guidelines and procedures have been followed, which can influence training strategies etc.

An audit of this kind demands several things. The first is of course access to the electoral materials (ballot papers, voters register, tally sheets, etc from individual stations). You must also be confident that these materials have not been tampered with after the elections themselves (in the Sierra Leonean case, they were stored by UNAMSIL). For a successful execution, the EMB must also be willing to cooperate (as in Sierra Leone) or if not it must be hindered from interfering.

Finally, you need to be aware that this type of study is potentially sensitive, as even if it is not directly aimed at having legal consequences, its outcome may speak directly as to the "polling day quality" of an election. It therefore needs to be planned, executed and the results disclosed with care. Especially if the intention is to disclose the information to the public or to key stakeholders, the integrity of those carrying out the audit cannot be in question.

Hello,

It's important, if you've been working closely with an EMB to encourage them to conduct their own internal review. This can be a challenge - especially if things haven't gone particularly well - but often yields the most valuable inputs to reform of legislation, procedures, and, ultimately institutions.

IFES and the UN/EAD team assisted the elections management body in Sierra Leone to conduct a post-local government elections retreat in 2004. Once the ice was broken - largely by creating a safe environment where participating staff at all levels could share their opinions and critiques - the flow of ideas was positive and plentiful.

The then chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, Joseph Singh, commissioned an external Systems Review and Audit Report, carried out by IDEA - this was a comprehensive document that proved invaluable going forward. This report is available here.

Sincerely,

Ronan

Attached please find some information that EISA has in its library that may be of use in response to the question.

A further response is to convene a post election assessment with the various stakeholders, preferably in partnership with the Electoral Authority to assess the impact of the elections and identify strengths and weaknesses based on election observation reports. In some countries electoral authorities convene these meetings on their own initiative to strengthen their performance or conduct their own assessments and internal review. I would not see a Commission of Inquiry being held unless there is a total breakdown in the election process, or a violent or conflictual situation or a situation where the electoral authority is being charged for gross negligence and/or corruption.

Sincerely

Ilona Tip
Senior Advisor
Conflict Management, Democracy and Electoral Education
EISA

Here in the UK we have seen two different forms of post-election review.

Since 2001 the UK Electoral Commission has been statutorily required to compile a report on the administration of major elections and referendums in the UK. The Commission has reported on 9 elections in this manner. In 2007, following the widespread concerns at the administration of the combined elections to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authorities, the Commission set up an external review of the administration of this elections. This review published its report in October 2007 and the report and its terms of reference can be found at www.electoralcommission.org.uk

The Commission is tasked with such reviews because it does not itself run elections, but rather sets and monitor standards. The review is therefore underpined by electoral knowledge and experience, but not conducted by those with operational tasks. The Commission's reports have been accepted as a fair and accurate reflection of electoral administration in the UK.

If you're envisaging an external evaluation then you'll struggle! I've lost count of the number of electoral missions I've been on which included "follow up" in the Terms of Reference but which lost all interest in such post-election action the moment the results were announced!
In Zambia in 2001 my post-election follow-up paper was even agreed before polling day by the co-ordinating committee of local and international players and it still didn't happen! The problem is that everyone breathes a big sigh of relief after the elections and all the "extra" experts go home!
There needs to be a serious commitment to follow up. It is important. Some of these thoughts are contained in a paper I wrote for an EU conference in 2004 - it's on my website - under "Current Affairs", title "European Commission Conference on Electoral Assistance and Observation Projects, Paper written for the conference in Brussels on 28 & 29 September 2004."
If you're thinking of an internal review, then it should be up to the Electoral Commission. If it was independent for the election administration then it should be independent enough for evaluation! If not, then ...... !

In Australia the EMB conducting a Federal Election, the Australian Electoral Commission, has a compehensive review of the conduct of the Election. It publishes a report " Behind the Scenes" after each election. See www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2004/Behind_the_Scenes.htm for the 2004 election Report.

Additionally the Australian Parliament has a Joint House Committee which inquiries into the conduct of each National election. The Committee is called the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM). The JSCEM is currently seeking submissions on the conduct of the 2007 Election. The committee takes submissions, conducts hearings and reports to parliament on the conduct of the election. It frequently recommends amendments to Electoral legislation and how  elections should be conducted. Its website is : http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/index.htm