Integrity is a concept that can be hard to define, but is an essential component of a democratic system of governance. Electoral integrity involves both ethical behaviour and a legal and institutional system which promotes and protects free and fair elections. These systems may vary according to the social and political context of each country, but the basic objectives are the same: ensuring that all political actors who want to compete in the elections are able to do so on an equitable basis; ensuring that voters are able to vote freely for the representatives and parties of their choice; and ensuring that their votes are accurately reflected in the election results.
In general, election integrity requires:
Respect for the Principles of Electoral Democracy
Election integrity means that the Principles of Electoral Democracy are respected. In brief, these ensure that all citizens have equal rights to participate as voters and candidates, that all citizens have equal voting power even if they do not have equal political influence; that all citizens are free to organize for political purposes; that voters have the right of access to political information; that electoral law is administered fairly and in a non-partisan manner; and that elections are held regularly and decided by the freely cast votes of the majority.
Integrity requires a will to abide by the democratic governance system and the rule of law; to channel participation and complaints through the system; to work within the system to change it where needed; and to accept the decisions and official results of free and fair elections. The system protects the principles of an electoral democracy and a free and fair election through its Legal Framework and Institutional Framework and in its institutional values, ethical conduct and the decision-making of its electoral managers, law makers, overseers and participants.
Jorgen Elklit and Palle Svensson have identified a number of components that are required for 'free and fair' elections. Freedom is defined as 'the right and the opportunity to choose one thing over another' and fairness is defined as 'impartiality.' 1 Among the freedoms required for a 'free election' are the freedom of movement, speech, assembly, association and freedom from fear. Among the 'fair' factors required for a 'fair election' are a transparent electoral process, an equitable electoral law and system, equal opportunities for participation, an independent and impartial elections commission,
lack of intimidation, proper procedures and acceptance of the electoral results. 2
More information on fair and 'genuine' elections can be found in Parties and Candidates: Guiding Principles
Ethical Conduct
Election integrity implies an ethical code of behaviour (see Ethical Behaviour) for officials, candidates and parties, as well as the system of institutional mechanisms adopted to protect a free and fair election. Ethical conduct means that the behaviour of all participants should promote an open, fair and free process and avoids conduct that would jeopardize the integrity of the process. This means that public officials (including electoral managers) do not use their official position or facilities for personal or partisan benefit, and that they carry out their duties in a professional, transparent and impartial manner. It also means that candidates and parties should not misuse campaign contributions and should disclose the source of their campaign funding. It means lobbyists should not use money or other incentives to improperly influence an electoral or public official and should disclose their funding and spending as required by law.
Election integrity also requires a tolerance of the political rights and activities of others; an acceptance by the citizens and officials that everyone has the right to freely debate political issues and to promote different political points of view, and that it is not right to interfere with political parties trying to get their message out or with the political activities of other citizens.
The ethical conduct expected in an election by all participants is formalized in many systems through a code of ethics or conduct. Most public officials, including electoral managers, are bound by a professional Codes of Conduct/Ethics that may be legally binding. Many systems also use codes of conduct to regulate and enforce good behavior of political parties, candidates and their supporters.
Institutional Protections
One of the greatest dangers to electoral integrity is factional interest or action. The idea of a faction, or group of individuals who act in their own self-interest regardless of the effect on others, is an old one. In 1789, the Federalist Papers, written to persuade American voters to ratify the U.S. Constitution, defined factions as a group of persons who are united by a common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or the community.
Factions today are commonly called interest groups, although factions can exist within political parties. Factions can still attempt to influence and control the decision making process. Because the root cause of factions are 'sown in the nature of man,' the Federalist Papers argued that the only way to control factions is to control their effect: '... if men were angels, no government would be necessary.... (but) experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.' 3 The auxiliary precautions adopted by the framers of the U.S. Constitution included a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. Other systems try to achieve the same results in different ways.
These mechanisms are widely used today to protect integrity and to keep elections free and fair. To be effective, they must be part of the legal and institutional frameworks. Institutional protections ensures that the different powers inherent in the electoral process are divided among different entities. For example, the electoral law could delegate official oversight responsibilities and power to a separate office of an Inspector General or an Electoral Court. Or it could delegate enforcement powers for election law violations to the justice system.
These institutional mechanisms provide the official 'checks' on the administration of elections. It also provides checks over political party participation in such areas as campaign finance. Balances come from the power delegated among the different institutions as well as the roles played by political parties, civil society and the media in monitoring the elections and providing public reports. For more information on checks see Administrative Considerations, and for more on balances see Checks and Balances.
Accurateness
Integrity problems are usually thought to be the result of corrupt or fraudulent action. But they can also occur from human error or an honest mistake. It is essential for election administration to be professional and accurate. Sloppy work or inaccuracies in reporting such things as tally sheet totals, can raise serious integrity questions and threaten the validity of an election. The same checks and balances mechanisms that were designed to limit power and ensure accountability, can also catch mistakes. Although a deliberate action to derail the process or change the election results would be treated as a criminal issue, problems relating from mistakes and inaccuracies usually remain an administrative or civil matter.
Integrity problems can also arise from badly drafted laws or poorly designed systems. For example, laws and regulations delegate responsibilities to electoral managers to administer the elections. A badly drafted provision could delegate too much discretion to an individual officer, creating the opportunities for misuse of his/her position. Or, a badly designed voter registration system could enable dishonest persons to register multiple times or leave out large segments of the eligible population. Outdated laws could also let problems, such as computer-based fraud, fall through the cracks if they were drafted before the adoption of the new technology. For example, the use of the internet or modern campaign techniques might also not be covered under the provisions of an older system.
Inaccuracies in both the legal and institutional frameworks, as well as in their implementation and enforcement, can inadvertently create as many problems as deliberate fraud. They can seriously weaken the credibility and legitimacy of an election and must be addressed.
Continuous Enforcement
An atmosphere of impunity and a lack of enforcement encourage a climate of corruption and mediocre work. Transparency International found that '...many officials in the public sector believe that they not only can secure immunity for themselves against prosecution, but that the chances of their criminal activities being discovered are low.' 4. In a climate such as this, there is little incentive for individual electoral managers or candidates to follow the rules or play fair.
Enforcement of the legal and regulatory framework for the elections is essential to control the action of personal and special interests and to create the conditions for a free and fair election. It acts as a deterrent to those contemplating illegal or unethical behavior and punishes those who have broken the laws.
The integrity of the voting process stands at the very heart of our system of representative government. Where elections are corrupted, arbitrary and corrupt government inevitably follow. Rooting out corruption in the election process, and bringing those responsible for it to swift and sure justice, is an important national law enforcement priority.5
Transparency
Finally, a system with integrity is transparent. Transparency makes the institutional systems, actions and decisions open to the participants and the public. Under the glare of publicity, it is difficult to maintain or justify a system that permits abuse and corruption. Transparency helps ensure that the actors involved in the election are held accountable for their actions. That electoral managers are held accountable for the decisions made during election administration and for the public resources and assets used to conduct the elections; that legislators are held accountable for the content of the laws they pass and the funding levels allocated for the elections; and that candidates and political parties are held accountable for their conduct, and those of their supporters, during the campaign.
Having an open and transparent process helps public understanding of the process, of the difficulties encountered, and how and why the electoral managers made the decisions that they did. Transparency helps build public support for the elections, and increases the credibility of the process and legitimacy of the results. One of the problems with a lack of transparency is that is difficult to refute a loser's claims of fraud and manipulation as the reason for their electoral loss. This happened in Haiti in 1995 where many losing parties boycotted after the first round of the legislative elections, and in Cambodia in 1998, when the 'losers refused to believe that they had lost.' 6
A free and fair process, that is accurate and transparent, monitored and enforced, makes it difficult for participants and voters not to accept the election results or the legitimacy of the newly elected officials.
