The Question
This questions is posted on behalf of Erik Asplund, member of the Practitioners' Network.
 
How has inadequate electoral funding, financing and budgeting triggered or contributed towards election-related violence? Does anyone have experience of this or is aware of research published on this issue (I am particularly interested in hearing about first hand personal experiences and the experiences of EMBs).

Summary of responses
Although there is a wide range of factors that lead to and trigger election-related violence, matters of electoral finance can also play a contributory role. Direct causal evidence of this is hard to come by, but this does not detract from it being a subject that warrants more attention. A number of areas of inadequate electoral funding – related to resources and logistics - are highlighted as potential contributory factors to violence, e.g. inadequately trained and insufficient number of polling staff and security personnel; insufficient voter registration material and equipment, etc. Recent gubernatorial elections in Nigeria are cited as an example of such factors contributing to sporadic violence.

It is also noted that violence may be more likely if an election management body (EMB) cannot afford to put in place sufficient “confidence-building measures that can convince opposition leaders of the credibility of the process.”

One expert stresses that too much funding (of political parties for example) can also contribute to violence.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Focus on elections and security 

Consolidated Replies
• UNDP guidelines on prevention of election violence

Electoral Materials
• Electoral conflict and violence: a strategy for study and prevention (IFES)

Names of contributors
1. Carl Dundas
2. Monte McMurchy
3. Sam Rwakoojo
4. Erik Asplund
5. Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni
6. Magnus Ohman

This is a good question. Inadequate electoral funding can contribute to electoral violence in a number of ways, for example, through insufficient training of field officers during voter registration exercise and polling; insufficient voter registration equipment and materials; through insufficient security officers at polling stations on polling days; through inadequate provision of election logistics, such as too few polling stations causing overcrowding or shortage of transportation of polling materials; and also poor voter education programs. Being posted currently in Nigeria where INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) has been conducting a series of gubernatorial elections in States that are experiencing sporadic violence, some of which may be attributed to the election environment, I have witnessed many of the factors enumerated herein at play in many cases.

Notwithstanding the response above which indeed is with merit; I am unable to see the casual connection linking funding to violence as my civic electoral experience indicates the problem of civic electoral violence is much nuanced and contingent on a variety of other issues not directly related to [insufficient] support to local/national EMB's. These other collatoral problems might include national political instability--high unemployment--gross discrepancy in wealth and education among the population--weak civil infrastructure including a weak EMB who are not sufficiently trained in the normative elements of the civic electoral process which may lend to corruption and corrupt practice which can only have a corrosive effect on the social political public policy ethos.

To conclude the evidence directly linking weak EMB's to electoral violence has yet to be established 'a priori' as thus far the evidence in support is notional in kind which for me is not sufficient.

Interesting question which merits consideration and reflection.

It is important to identify what causes electoral violence and when it occurs in the electoral process right from the start before delving into answering this very important question.

Violence can occur at the beginning of the process as elections are announced, an argument or pronouncement that the elections are not going to be free and fair or the dates of the elections alone can triger violence. At this point money has not come in! For violence to occur  or "cook" you need afew ingredients in the recepe; there has to be an underlying basic problem known to all but never properly discussed "simmering", there has to be two or more opposing sides ready to use any means to win and other issues differecianting the parties not too distict. It is at this point that ignorance, lack of civic/voter education, tribalism and all the good things mentioned above come into play. A critical look at the Kenyan experiance would illustrate this point.

All politicians want to win, sometimes at any cost, but when the rules of the game are well established either in law or practice this instict is minimised, before this however those who know will take full advantage of those who dont know. the biggest calprit is the politician and the language he/ she uses. when he or she uses uncivilized language the supporters will abuse, when he fights the followers might kill. I'm not sure whether financing would help at this moment.

My personal belief on this issue would be that inadequate electoral funding, financing and budgeting during an electoral processes could contribute towards triggering electoral-related violence in X county rather than directly triggering violence. Providing any direct causality here would be a challenge, however it would be interesting to know if Carl’s hypothesis – in terms of contributing towards violence - can be supported, as I have not been able to find a reference or a case on this issue compared to other factors such as contested electoral law (Zimbabwe 2008) or poor management of election results (Mozambique 1999).

While I agree that the root causes of election related violence are usually out standing and unresolved social and economic problems and tension, I want to underscore that inadequate material and human resources may as well be a potential cause for election related violence. Lack of resources to put in place to good and transparent result transmission system in accordance with rules, lack of sufficient personnel and materials during the last week of voter registration to accommodate mass crowd of registrants, lack of skilled staff and resources to maintain technology on election day etc. All of these are potential reasons for violenec especially to losing parties.

All the comments above have great merit. I think a factor linking lack of funding and electoral violence would be when an EMB cannot afford to put in place confidence-building measures that can convince opposition leaders of the credibility of the process (whether or not the process actually is credible). When opposition leaders are not confident that they can (would be allowed to) win an upcoming election, they need to hedge their bets by using hostile language against the electoral process and the EMB, which can easily lead to violence. The Ghanaian elections in 1996 is a good example of how an EMB could reduce opposition suspicions and the risk for violence by putting in place a number of measures that may not have been technically necessary. The reverse of this is that increased demands on electoral spending to maintain confidence and avoid violence can make the electoral processes unsustainable (ten-finger biometric registration etc).

I want to emphasise that an abundance of funds can also be connected to violence when politicians can orchestrate disturbances by paying in particular youth to stir up conflicts. The link between money (too much or too little) and electoral violence needs much more attention.