The Question

This question is asked by an official of the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The recent Practitioners' Network discussion "Less talk about ”free and fair” elections?" concluded that a shift has taken place in the discourse of terms used to characterize the conduct of elections, and that there is a rising awareness among analysts that election observation should increasingly be an effort to monitor and evaluate the process of an election, against international and regional obligations and commitments voluntarily undertaken by countries. The following is a complementary question to the recent discussion:

Is there a way to shortly describe the most solid internationally agreed normative base for free, fair and credible elections?

Summary of Responses

Several members of the Practitioners’ Network concluded that a normative base for free, fair and credible elections could not be summarized in a short description. Members stressed that assessments of complex electoral processes should be based on Public International Law and that a number of elections related processes as well as a number of fundamental rights and freedoms should be considered for an election to be characterized as genuinely democratic and credible. One member also noted that every electoral area is vital to consider since the electoral process can be subverted in each of these areas.

To contextualize the prevailing normative base (identified further in this paragraph), one member recalled the promulgation of the seminal General Comment on Article 25 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights in 1996, and emphasized that a large number of new instruments applicable to elections have been adopted since then. The range of international and regional instruments have expanded to such an extent that all key components of electoral processes can be substantiated, to varying degrees, in obligations and commitments found in international human rights treaties¹, several members agreed. These treaties, one member noted, form the most solid, internationally agreed normative base for understanding credible elections. Moreover, the evolution of Public International Law applicable to elections has developed the discourse in favor of characterizing elections based on “international and regional obligations and commitments for democratic elections.”²

Several members referred to norms commonly attached to descriptions of free and fair as well as credible elections, and one member summarized the treaties that form the basis for an understanding of credible elections as follows: 

“The right and the opportunity for every citizen to vote and be elected, free from discrimination, in regular, genuine and competitive elections, that uphold fundamental human rights, including universal and equal suffrage, security of the person and the right to a timely and effective remedy. Fundamental electoral rights cannot be divorced from election processes, procedures and institutions.  As the Inter-American Court has pointed out, the enjoyment of these rights is simply not possible absent things like a legal framework, polling procedures, polling stations, dates and times for the vote etc.”

¹More information on the content of the treaties and how they relate to elections can be found in The Carter Center’s database of obligations

²These developments are further elaborated in the discussion: Less talk about ”free and fair” elections? 

Examples of Related ACE Articles and Resources

• Less talk about ”free and fair” elections? 
• Election Observation Portal

External Resources

• Meyer-Ohlendorf, Nils, 2010, Forget ‘International Standards’: why election observers should talk about ‘international obligations and commitments’ when evaluating an election, Democracy Reporting International. 
• The Carter Center’s database of obligations
• International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights
• General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service

Names of Contributors

• Lemou Pilakani
• Vladimir Pran
• Hadija Miiro
• Tim Meisburger
• Khalid Waheed
• Orrette Fisher
• Muhammad Musa Sokoto
• Avery Davis-Roberts
• Francisco Barrera
• Neel Kantha Uprety
• Hedi Trabelsi
• Domenico Tuccinardi
• Daniel Finn

1- Les éléctions sont régulières et périodiques au suffrage universel

2- Les élections gérées par un organisme indépendant, avec partis politiques en concurrence 

3- La liberté d'expression des médias et le secret du vote sont garantis

4- Publication des résultats rapide

Bref, les électeurs doivent pouvoir exprimer leur préférence sans ptession dans un processus électoral ou le décompte des voix se déroule honnetement et ouvertement.

FORGET ‘INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS’: WHY ELECTION OBSERVERS SHOULD TALK ABOUT ‘INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS’ WHEN EVALUATING AN ELECTION.

http://www.democracy-reporting.org/files/internationalstandards_discussionpaper_2.pdf

Easy access to all aspects of the electoral process, level playing ground for all candidates, an accurate and complete voters' list and a secure environment where every one is comfortable to express his/her choice.

Parties and candidates have a fair opportunity to compete, and the electoral outcome accurately reflects the will of the people.

The first phrase covers legal framework, access to media, etc; while the second recognizes that a perfectly legal and correct process doesn't necessarily provide free and fair elections if there are other constraints on participation and competition, and that a process riddled with procedural irregularities is only illegitimate if the irregularities affect the outcome. For example; poor training and a lack of procedural definition might create a chaotic process with long lines for voting; but the process might be transparent and the results conclusive enough that observers will be convinced the result accurately reflects the will of the people regardless of irregularities.

A comprehensive legal framework with effective mechanism of enforcement of regulations and the strong independent and empowered EMB are the prerequisites for fair and free elections. Complete error free voter's list, transparent procedure to conduct elections and timely/easy mechanism to resolve election disputes/complaints is second step towards this goal. Level playing field and foolproof result management followed by acceptability of results is the third step.

Christine NDAYISHIMIYE du Burundi

Les critères d'évaluation d'une élection pour pouvoir conclure qu'elle est libre, transparente et crédible sont connus de tous les praticiens : environnement politique qui laisse la liberté à tous les candidats de battre campagne  et qui permet aux électeurs d'exprimer librement leurs choix, un cadre légal clair qui respecte les normes internationales comme le secret du vote, la prise en compte du genre et de toutes les personnes à besoins spécifiques ( les prisonniers, les vieux, les femmes enceintes, les minorités ethniques et autres..), un organe de gestion des élections entièrement indépendant, la gestion équitable des conflits liés aux élections,  un processus inclusif, transparent... Mais tout cela n'est que théorique, l'important est de mettre tout cela en pratique. L'application de ces bons principes doit être remarqué et évalué par les observateurs nationaux et internationaux, le problème qui se pose à ce niveau est   que la diplomatie s'en mêle et des fois les observations sur terrain sont diluées dans dans des rapports diplomatiques. L'observation, à mon avis devrait être la plus indépendante possible

There is no short answer. Every stage of the process is vital. So one starts with the voters list then move to other areas like access to polling stations, enviornment (voter intimidation), polling procedures, competence of officials, the counting process and access to redress. any single area can subvert the process. the bottom line therefore would be if the will of the people is reflected in the outcome.

Free and fair election entails many variables, but the most important is free access to the electoral process to all citizens be they are voters or candidates. Media freedom is also important in the attainment of free and fair elections. Media play an important role in educating the voters on how to make an informed choice. Repressive regimes cannot and will not be able to conduct credible elections. Effective legal mechanism of redress is also important when discussion free and fair election. Candidates that lost must have confidence on the judiciary.

As you know, the electoral process is enormously complex, and in order  for an election to be considered genuinely democratic and credible, a number of processes must take place and a number of fundamental rights and freedoms must be upheld.  These obligations, found in international human rights treaties that have been voluntarily signed and ratified by states, form the most solid, internationally agreed normative base for understanding credible elections.  You can find more information on the content of the treaties and how they relate to elections by visiting The Carter Center’s database of obligations - http://www.cartercenter.org/des-search/des/

In short, I would summarize them as follows:

The right and the opportunity for every citizen to vote and be elected, free from discrimination, in regular, genuine and competitive elections, that uphold fundamental human rights, including universal and equal suffrage, security of the person and the right to a timely and effective remedy.  Fundamental electoral rights cannot be divorced from election processes, procedures and institutions.  As the Inter-American Court has pointed out, the enjoyment of these rights is simply not possible absent things like a legal framework, polling procedures, polling stations, dates and times for the vote etc. 

Las bases legales y practicas esta en determinar y observar si los elementos que contienen cada uno de los subprocesos es adecuado, necesario y funcional, veamos pues algunos casos: El actuar de los partidos y de los políticos, los usos de las herramientas por parte de los representantes del gobierno de turno, la neutralidad del estado y los gobiernos en todo el proceso, especialmente en el uso de las comunicaciones y promulgaciones, seguidamente se debe contar con reglamentos precisos para la función y actuación del organismo electoral, en temas como la inscripción de candidatos a las elecciones, conformación del registro electoral, conformación de los miembros de mesa o jurados, conformación de los testigos de las elecciones y los observadores, conformación de las comisiones oficiales de escrutinios y la logística de adquisición y distribución de los materiales electorales, todo lo anterior debe contar con un debido proceso de pedagogía, capacitación, entrenamiento según la actuación, en segundo término fijar la participación de las fuerzas armadas y de policía del estado, o de seguridad en la logística y en el proceso electoral. Para el evento de la votación se deben tener en cuenta muchas variables, por citar alguna, la identificación de los participantes, los accesos, los mecanismos de protección al elector, las facilidades, la capacitación etc., al igual que para el proceso de escrutinios.

Finalmente tal vez a lo que se le da mayor importancia es a la obtención de resultados electorales, su protección, seguridad y divulgación, en lo que se insiste en que sean veraces, oportunos  y de fácil acceso, tanto para la opinión como para los actores de la contienda electoral.

Teniendo normado y documentado el proceso, pues realmente es más fácil del monitoreo o de auditorías técnicas y/o políticas  

Democratic electoral legislations, all voters ensured of their right to vote,  political parties behave democratically in the preparation and conduct of elections  and EMB is fully independent, impartial and competent to managing elections per the provision of electoral law. However there is no common international standard of election. There is great deal of differences between elections in established democracy and fledging democracies. Different lenses are required to wear in seeing and evaluating elections in different state of democracies.

In short:

Freedom of expression, non discriminatory legal framework, impartial administration, secret ballot and accurate results

Or 

Elections without significant mistrust in legitimacy of results 

Great and pertinent way to continue a previous discussion! Coincidentally, the question is also very relevant for the survey I recently launched through this network to gather data on a new project I am managing for IDEA, the update of the International Electoral Standards Guidelines, whose first version dates back to 2002.

At the time, many of those so called standards had not yet been connected to Public International Law, since the watershed General Comment on ICCPR’s Article 25 had only been promulgated in 1996 and not yet systematically utilized in electoral assessments. After that, so many new regional instruments applicable to elections have been adopted over the last decade, as the field of election administration, legislation, observation, and of technical assistance has evolved. It is thus that the notion of “standards” has been recently discarded in favor of the legally more accurate “international and regional obligations and commitments for democratic elections”.

In brief, the ambit of international and regional instruments has recently expanded to such a degree, that all the key components of an electoral process (mentioned in many of the previous contributions) can now be substantiated ( with a varying degree of cogency) in obligations or commitments directly arising out of UN conventions, their official commentaries and related documents. As Avery described in a previous intervention, the Carter Centre did an brilliant work in cataloguing all these obligations in a database which is now accessible and available for everybody.

In conclusion, I am convinced that all the obligations that can be extracted from the UN conventions and their commentaries form nowadays an “International Legal Framework for Democratic Elections”. The primary aim of the new publication we are working on at IDEA will be to offer all levels of national stakeholders an instrument to link the mentioned international obligations for democratic elections to their own legal framework so that they can easily understand for themselves, firstly what the eventual shortfalls are and secondly, identify manners to improve them. We also want to provide the network regular updates on the development of this project.

Frankly, I don't know how the phrase "free and fair" came to represent the gold standard for assessing elections; maybe it was popularized mainly by Guy Goodwin-Gill's influential book by that name.  Efforts to adopt more flexible measures have always run the risk that they would detract from this absolute standard.  While working with the US Congress, I always found it amusing that Democratic politicians and staff were always calling for free and fair elections in "authoritarian" states (right-wing dictatorships), but met calls from Republicans for a similar standard to be applied to "totalitarian" states (left-wing dictatorships) by suggesting alternatives, such as "competitive" elections!

Pardon me an(other) humorous aside by recalling the many times OSCE representatives at press briefings were asked - usually very loudly and assertively by a BBC reporter - whether the elections they had observed were "free and fair".  It is said that the OSCE representative responded by muttering "Oh Dear ...", leading to ODIHR's acronym. When they (as usual) failed to answer directly, the reporter would march out with a look of scorn and disgust. 

(More) seriously, recent work on the Electoral Integrity topic of the ACE Encyclopedia convinced me that the basic single description of an election which meets universally-recognized electoral and human rights standards is that contained in the universally-recognized International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 25(b): "genuine periodic elections ... guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors".  In addition to a number of more specific formulations in Article 25, there are also other relevant mandates in Articles 2.3 (effective remedy) and 14.3 (equality before tribunals and fair trials); these have been expounded upon by the UN Human Rights Committee, formed under the Covenant, in its General Comments Nos. 25, 30 and 31.

Aside from this universal legal basis, there is a hierarchy (or perhaps congeries) of other normative formulas generated in various ways:  Obligations (legal); commitments (political); standards (aspirational); guidelines (recommended); and best practices (suggested).  While many in number, their relevance is often reduced by the nature of their source, geographical scope and other factors.

So the answer to the main question is "No".  Aside from a few legally-recognized and generally-applicable norms, identifying the criteria for a particular election requires carefully sifting through various available standards in terms of their relevance, applicability and usefulness.

Dr Daniel Finn

Consultant, International Law & Public Affairs