The nature and scope of electoral integrity issues are affected in great part by the type of governance within a country and the cultural practices and social norms of its people. Although the basic problems are the same everywhere-- the unethical or illegal use of money, power or influence to artificially affect the election results-- the social and political context determines in large part, how these problems will manifest. Has the government taken an active stance against corruption? Do the citizens understand the importance of elections and maintaining election integrity? Do the political parties know how to contest the elections, and do so in an honourable manner?
The integrity mechanisms adopted need to be responsive to local conditions. What can be a serious integrity problem in one country requiring strict protective measures, could be insignificant in another and therefore not require the same degree of attention or protection.
Governance
Each country has a unique type of governance, evolving from its political, economic and cultural history. The type of governance will affect the scope and nature of election integrity issues and the effectiveness of the different mechanisms which establish and enforce integrity. Countries with a history of governance based on the rule of law, with public officials that are accountable and procedures that are public and transparent, usually provide an environment that is conducive to maintaining electoral integrity. Violations of the electoral law can be identified and remedied, while prosecution and punishment of criminal actions can be processed through a working legal system.
In countries struggling with governance and rule of law issues, maintaining electoral integrity can be much more difficult. Here the electoral policy body and the electoral management body might need to establish their institutional and administrative credibility. Keeping election policy and administration neutral, professional and transparent can be difficult and might require additional mechanisms such as international technical assistance, or the presence of long term international observers (see International Election Observation). In the absence of credible legal and judicial systems, the election management body itself might have to be given wide powers to decide on complaints about the conduct of election officials, parties, candidates and others.
Political Culture
The political culture of a nation has been found to affect the conduct of its citizens and leaders, including their participation in elections. Political culture affects the public's perception of the electoral process and whether the elections and its outcome were legitimate. It is also a major factor in a national perception of what is and what is not an integrity problem.
Universal standards have been identified for free and fair elections (see Guiding Principles), but political culture affects how these standards are interpreted. For example, 'ethical behaviour' is a part of integrity yet definitions may vary about what is and what is not 'ethical'? Education, socialization, occupation, culture- all shape the way behaviour is perceived and judged. In countries with deep social and political cleavages, it can be difficult to agree on a national standard for integrity. Keeping elections 'genuine' is much easier when there is a national or widespread consensus on the rules of the game (see Policy) and the value of integrity.
Countries have taken cultural and political differences into account when drafting their electoral legislation and regulations. For example, in Mexico the electoral law makes it a crime for 'ministers of religious cults to induce voters to vote for or against any candidate or political party or who talk voters into abstention, all this in performing religious activities.' 18 In the case of India, candidates are told not to 'induce or attempt to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered the object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure.' 19 While in the other countries, such as the Philippines, it is illegal to buy, serve or sell alcohol on polling day. 20
Participation
Groups promoting their own self-interest are inherent in every society. Democratic pluralism includes participation by groups and institutions that have organized around different occupational, economic, religious, ethnic or other shared interest. But the type and nature of their activities are shaped by their political culture.
One of the primary participants in the elections is Political Party Organizations. Political parties compete in elections in order to win public office and run the government. The type of national system that has developed directly affects the nature of the integrity issues and the types of mechanisms needed to address those problems. For example, is it a two-party or a multi-party system? Is there a dominant party or parties that receive preferential treatment or access to public resources for election purposes? Are smaller parties excluded? Is the multi-party political party system so new that many parties are still in the formative stage? Each one will generate a different kind of integrity issue.
Another factor is Interest Group Organizations, which promote a particular interest or candidate. Although interest groups do not compete in the elections, they work to influence the outcome of the elections. Their methods and ability to influence the process vary by country and will determine the type of protective mechanisms required. In some countries interest groups are not politically active. However, in other countries, such as the U.S., interest groups have organized and proliferated to such an extent that they are known as 'pressure groups.' These groups actively carry out programs to influence candidates, voters and the government. (See Interest Groups). Here mechanisms have developed to help transparency by requiring disclosure of lobbying and campaign financing.
The nature and intensity of political participation by citizens is also a reflection of their political culture. Some nations have a history of mass action, such as demonstrations, requiring physical security mechanisms to maintain integrity during campaign events or voting. Other nations can have peaceful participation but voter turnout that is so low it can jeopardize the integrity of the election. In each case, the integrity mechanisms required to encourage and safeguard healthy participation would need to be adjusted to fit the particular problem and cultural context.
Monitoring
Monitoring the electoral process is one of the key mechanisms to ensure election integrity (see Monitors of Election Integrity). The scope and depth of domestic monitoring will depend on the political and social context of each country. In countries with a long history of the rule of law, there are usually institutional mechanisms for electoral oversight, such as legislative committees or government inspectors. There are also well organized citizen watchdog groups that closely follow the process and publicize irregularities, along with an active and free Media that plays an investigatory role.
In the newer democracies, these mechanisms may still be developing. 'Independent' oversight or domestic monitoring might be used more for partisan purposes than objective observation. In many countries, international assistance has been provided to help establish the institutional and objective monitoring capacity of domestic civil society organizations (see National Election Observation). The capacity of these non-governmental organizations (NGOs) vary considerably from the very well established NANFREL in the Philippines, to the nascent COMFREL in Cambodia.
In some of the more difficult countries, domestic monitoring can be a risky business. Domestic monitors who attempt independent monitoring can be threatened or in extreme cases, have been physically injured or killed. In such cases, international election observers (International Election Observation) can help increase the security of domestic observers through their physical presence, as well as provide an independent assessment of the electoral process.
Role of Money
Money has always been a factor in politics and elections. But the amount of money spent in pursuit of public office today has brought new dimensions to an old problem. In the U.S., $1.5 billion was spent on the 1998 congressional campaigns. 21 In Argentina, the ruling party Partido Justicialista, spent $13 million in the last national elections.22
Money, or things of material value, can be used as an incentive to vote for a particular candidate, to obtain a lucrative electoral contract, or to pay off a corrupt election official to tamper with the election results. Each political culture forms the way in which money is used. The fact that so much money is being spent on election campaigning and, with studies suggesting that the winner of an election is often the one who spends the most money23, makes campaign financing one of the key integrity issues for almost every election.
Money can be used for advertising and for vote buying. It can help organize voter registration drives or get voters to the polls. It can be used ethically or unethically. In a few countries, the use of large sums of money by criminal elements, including drug money, has added a sinister element to the problem of maintaining election integrity. For more information on this see Narco-traffic.
Elections involve money and power, and unchecked power and money can lead to corruption. Transparency International's 1999 international Bribe-Payers survey found that 33% of respondents felt that corruption was increasing. The major causes cited were:
- low public sector salaries: 65%
- immunity of public officials: 63%
- secrecy in government: 57%
- worsening public procurement practices: 51%
- privatization process: 37%
- increase in foreign investment and trade: 30%
- restrictions on the media: 24%
- financial liberalization: 19%
- multiparty elections: 18%
24
In each case finding a mechanism that can address the problem of money is a difficult one, and to be effective, has to be tailored to fit the particular economic and cultural context of each country. In Indonesia, efforts to diminish the importance of 'money politics' 'illustrate the difficulty of integrating legal restrictions with political and civil society awareness to promote compliance.' 25
Trust
Trust in the electoral system and its institutions is an important variable when discussing election integrity and the mechanisms needed to protect election integrity. In countries where there is a high degree of trust, the government routinely administers elections and there is little concern by the voters or candidates that the government will manipulate the process or election results. However, in countries with little trust in government institutions or in the other political parties to follow the rules, mistrust is a major factor. The degree of mistrust helps determine the institutional and administrative frameworks for the elections, and the additional safeguard mechanisms that will be needed to protect the integrity of the process.
As discussed in the following excerpt from Commissioner Maamong of the Philippines Elections Commission (COMELEC) , mistrust is one of the primary reason why candidates cheat, and why a comprehensive safeguard system needs to be developed.
Why do some candidates cheat? Perhaps their genetic structure has something to do with it, but an answer can be capsulized in one word: MISTRUST. Candidates really have no desire to cheat but because of mistrust some of them do. Those who cheat say: Do unto others before they do unto you. COMELEC will not allow candidates to cheat each other. As a result, we become paranoid. We do not trust the candidates. The candidates do not trust COMELEC and so the feeling becomes mutual. We do not even trust the voters. That is why we put indelible ink on their fingers by assuming that they will vote again unless they are prevented from doing so. In effect, the presumption of innocence has been effectively reversed.
The result of this mistrust is three fold:
One: We have grotesque provisions of law to prevent cheating and fraud. The funny thing is, the more we tighten our election laws, the more the few who are so inclined will finds ways to violate the law and avoid getting caught.
Two. The conduct of the elections become too expensive for the government. Ballot boxes which look like tanks, self-locking metal seals, paper seals, padlocks, special election paper, watermarks, voting booths, indelible ink, etc. costs millions of pesos which could be better utilized for the benefit of our less fortunate countrymen.
Three. Nobody admits defeat. As a result, pre-proclamation controversies and election contests abound, a continuing nightmare for the COMELEC, and ultimately, the Supreme Court. Thus candidates add four more to the Ten Commandments. These are: (1) Thou shall not lose, (2) Thou shall not concede, (3) Thou shall protest, and (4) Thou shall appeal.'
26
