A fair process is an another essential component of election integrity. To be fair the process must provide equal treatment and opportunity for all participants.
However, what is 'fair' requires a subjective judgement which can vary according to the political and cultural norms of each society.
Despite these cultural differences, as with Ethical Behaviour, there are basic standards of 'fairness' that must be met in order to have a genuine election. These standards include:
Acceptable Legal Framework
The Legal Framework is the basis for the electoral system. A good legal framework that allows for free, fair and competitive elections is the foundation for election integrity. It must be nonpartisan and cover all of the legal requirements for an election, including the institutional mechanisms to protect electoral integrity (oversight, enforcement and other checks and balances).
A legal framework that is written in a clear and precise manner helps ensure that its provisions are unambiguous and can be interpreted according to the intention of the drafters. An up to date legal framework which reflects the actual status of the country, such as the deliniation of electoral districts, can avoid many integrity problems.
Neutral Administration
The legal and Institutional Framework is only as good as its implementation. The electoral policy and management bodies have a responsibility to implement the electoral process as prescribed by law. They must be able to fulfill this responsibility impartially and objectively, and without political interference.
A neutral administration treats all political parties and candidates equally without discrimination or favourable treatment. The perception of a partisan administration, or the belief that an administration is dedicated to a certain election result, can destroy public trust and confidence in the system as well as that of the political parties participating in the elections.
Electoral systems can adopt a variety of mechanisms to ensure a neutral administration. In nations where citizens trust the government to provide impartial public services, election administration is usually done by the government. Where there is a history of ruling party domination and manipulation of the process, an 'independent' electoral commission system can be adopted which separates election administration from the ruling party's influence. Although the Election Commission is supposed to be an independent institution, it is still a public institution dependent on the government for its financing.
In other countries, a 'balanced' system may be adopted where each party is represented in the electoral administration. This representation serves as a check and balance mechanism on the action of the other commissioners and the election management body. Yet other systems adopt a combination of these mechanisms, some having an independent commission with political balance.
Some systems try to ensure the neutrality of the key electoral administrators by removing them from politics. They may be appointed for a set number of years, without the government being able to remove them except through extraordinary circumstances, such as a judicial hearing. An example of this is India, where the Election Commission is a permanent Constitutional body. The Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners are appointed by the president for 6 years or up to 65 years of age. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only through impeachment by parliament. 65
Other systems do not allow the key electoral administrators to participate in politics. In Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer are not allowed to vote in federal elections. Returning officers are also not allowed to vote unless a judicial recount confirms that there is a tie in the vote, in which case they may cast the deciding vote. 66
Electoral officials may also be required to give up political party positions during their tenure on the election management or policy bodies.
Neutrality and nonpartisanship of electoral administration is an essential integrity factor. In many countries, especially those in transition, some political parties are still convinced that they only way they can win an election is to control the electoral machinery. If political parties and voters believe that an election management body has not acted impartially, even if this is not true, it can tarnish the credibility of the election and reduce the legitimacy of the results. And it can also provide a reason for the losing candidates and parties to reject or boycott the results.
Equal Treatment
Equal treatment, including equal opportunity and equal access, are also parts of a fair election. This means that participants receive the same treatment by electoral managers and have the same opportunities to participate. They have equal access to information as well access to the election management and policy bodies, oversight and enforcement agencies, and to the media and the voters. Voters also have access to voter registration, and voting facilities as well as the mechanisms developed to process complaints.
A related issue is the concept of a level playing field-- that all sides can compete on an even basis. In most countries, there are dominate parties or candidates and there are the smaller or newer ones, struggling to get established and get their campaign messages to the voters. They have different level of human and financial resources, as well as different degrees of organizational development and outreach strengths. Even if there is equal opportunity, the inequality of resources can create a sense of inequity, as the strong parties are able to take advantage of opportunities, while this may not be possible for the smaller ones.
In Mexico, for example, opposition parties use 'the vocabulary of fraud to denounce not fraud, but inequitable conditions of inter-party competition. For instance, the left-wing opposition party PRD, still tends to denounce 'fraud' anytime it loses at the polls; and when pressed to be precise, its leader comes forward with allusions to unfair practices and inequitable resource endowment of political parties.' 67
The question of how level a field is required for the process to be considered fair is discussed in depth in Level Playing Field, Fairness.
Transparent Process
Transparency of the electoral system, including its legal and institutional frameworks, is essential. Participants need to have access to all of the procedural information so that they can understand how the process will work, what they need to do, and where to go for redress if required. Transparent decision making and procedures usually build trust in the process and demonstrate that everyone is being treated equally according to the rules.
A system that is opaque, where the rationale for decision making is unknown, can feed mistrust in the system and the perception that the process is being manipulated for partisan or personal motives. Closed systems can provide cover for those interested in subverting the system and makes detection of their actions difficult. Transparency International found that government secrecy was cited by 57% of the respondents in their 1999 Bribe-Payers Survey as being one of the major reasons for an increase in corruption. 68 Transparency, and the public scrutiny that comes with transparency, usually forces electoral officials and others involved in the electoral process to comply with the rules and account for their actions.
To be effective, transparency usually requires good communications with both the public and the candidates and parties competing in the elections. Regular consultations between the electoral policy and management bodies and the political actors can help build a transparent electoral administration and a framework that is acceptable to the participants. This is especially useful in the countries undergoing a transition, where procedures are still being developed and candidates have concerns over the capacity of the electoral management and policy bodies to organize and hold free and fair elections.
Keeping the public informed is an essential part of voter understanding of the process and of problems or road blocks encountered. The manner in which the election policy and management bodies communicate with the public will affect the voter perception of the process, and, in turn, its level of trust. As explained by IDEA:
For an election to be successful, participants in the process have to feel able to accept the decisions of the election administration. Those participants will most likely feel able to accept those decisions if they can easily satisfy themselves that the decisions were made appropriately. To do that, they must have access to the information on which decisions are based. 69
Transparency can help build confidence and support for the process. For example, in the Haiti 2000 voter registration process, some of the materials were destroyed by partisan hooligans intent on gaining control over the electoral machinery in the west of the country. There was no response to the Provisional Election Commission (CEP)'s request for police action and protection of registration materials.
The President of the CEP then addressed the nation through radio and TV disclosing the problems, reiterating the CEP's commitment to holding free and fair elections on time and in a secure environment, and asked for public support. As a result, a subsequent poll showed only 6% of the population felt that a slip in the date of the election would be the fault of the CEP, while over 50% said the government and political parties would be responsible.70
Covers entire process and all participants
A process is usually free and fair if the mechanisms to protect freedom and fairness cover all of the participants and the entire process. These mechanisms can start with building the integrity protection mechanisms into the legal and institutional frameworks and continue through the process of electoral administration; preparation for the elections; registration of voters and candidates; electoral campaign; voting; counting; dispute resolution, and the winner being able to take office. It can cover all of the participants from the electoral managers and those who provide oversight and enforcement, to those competing in the elections. It also usually covers those who work to influence the election results as well as the observers of the process. Ultimately, it include the voters themselves and their conduct throughout the process.
