The Question

This question was posted on behalf of Oliver Walton, from the Governance and Social Development Resource Centre

I am asking these questions to inform a short piece of research designed to inform decisions surrounding AusAID's election programming. I am interested in evidence from all contexts and sources (evaluations, academic studies, case studies). The report will be made publicly available on our website (www.gsdrc.org) once it is finished (in a couple of weeks’ time).

Is there any analysis on whether election monitoring reduces election-related violence? Does research point to any particular strategies that are more or less effective than others? Is there any analysis that compares the relative value of investing in voter education against investment in election monitoring to reduce election-related violence? Is there any analysis on the kinds of voter education that work best in different environments?

Summary of responses
A number of reports and projects related to election monitoring and violence are cited (see External Resources below).

It is recommended that for election monitors to help minimise the risk of election-related violence, there should be good coordination among the observers themselves, as well as collaboration with security actors.

Reference is made to research that shows a relationship between international election observation and an increased likelihood of political boycotts – and by extension the risk for violence. It is recommended that for observation missions to play an effective role in reducing violence, they should be longer, broader in scope and cognizant of the different dynamics of election-related violence.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Focus on Elections and Security 

Consolidated replies:
• Electoral violence  - early warning tools
• Impact of electoral finance on electoral-related violence 
• UNDP guidelines on prevention of electoral violence

External Resources
• Governance and Social Development Resource Centre 
• The Electoral Integrity Project
• National Association for Peaceful Elections in Nigeria

• Monitoring Electoral Violence in Sri Lanka, International IDEA 
• In the Shadow of Democracy Promotion: Strategic Manipulation, International Observers, and Election Boycotts, Emily Beaulieu and Susan D. Hyde, Comparative Political Studies 
• Do International Election Monitors Increase or Decrease Opposition Boycotts? Judith Kelley, Comparative Political Studies 

Names of contributors
1. Staffan Darnolf
2. Andy M.A. Campbell
3. Carl Dundas
4. Susana Dione Ngole Epie
5. Gabrielle Bardall

Greetings,

I would suggest you have a look at Prof. Norris' Elections Integrity Project. Under publications you'll find some interesting research done by her, as well as references to other sources too. https://sites.google.com/site/electoralintegrityproject4/home

best,

SD

This response will not deal with all the issues thrown up in your request, but it may assist in considering approaches to the mitigation of election violence. In Nigeria, IFES funds several CSOs hubs that monitor elections at three tiers, national (Federal), gubernatorial and local government level. I enclose the final report on the monitoring of election violence during the 2011 general elections. Also, there is a website: www.NEVR.org, which you might wish to visit. I also enclose a report on the website for information.

Apparently, the Final Report on monitoring election violence mentioned in my comments above was not attached, and so I enclose it here.

If you can try this link http://www.idea.int/elections/monitoring-election-related-violence-in-sri-lanka.cfm, it shall be of great help to you.

Just to play devil's advocate, I suggest you look at the work of Susan Hyde and Emily Beaulieu regarding the relationship between international election observation and political boycott. Beaulieu demonstrates that the presence of international observers creates an incentive for political actors to strategically manipulate an electoral process by twisting perceptions of its 'free-ness and fairness'. While she doesn't go further into electoral violence, its fair to suggest that, in many cases, political boycotts that effectively disrupt and electoral process may be accompanied by other forms of upheaval and violence.

The implications of this on assistance providers are important. If an international EOM will actually contribute to the likelihood of a boycott (and accompanying violence, presumably) does that defeat the purpose? What can an EOM contribute in such circumstances? What other approaches can be effective? Certainly this relationship does not defeat the purpose of an EOM but should influence how an EOM is conducted. Observation missions should be longer, beginning well before election day, and broader, taking into account more elements of the political context including the civil and human rights contexts, and access to political resources. They should be conscious of the different dynamics of potential violence (indeed, election day during boycotts is often quite peaceful) but the risks for pre- and post-election violence are much higher.

The worst possible outcome is for an EOM to turn a blind eye to the dynamic that Beaulieu identifies by maintaining an overly narrow focus on the election process. If the election itself is of reasonable quality but the political conditions surrounding it are deeply unfair (as Beaulieu recognizes), the EOM can find themselves on the wrong side of the fence – legitimizing one-party rule, marginalizing opposition from constructive debate, weakening popular acceptance of the electoral process in the future.

 http://cps.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/10/27/0010414008325571.abstract 

and a rebuttal http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/44/11/1527 

Dear all,

Thank you for your very helpful contributions, which will be acknowledged in the report. The report should be available some time next week on our website: www.gsdrc.org

Best wishes,

Oliver