Good management of the elections by a credible election management body is a critical element of election integrity. To be credible, the election management body has to be impartial, respected and have the institutional capacity to be able to implement free and fair elections.
In the older democracies, the institution that administers elections is usually taken for granted. It has delivered elections for generations, and if there is a problem, it is usually not related to the credibility or legitimacy of the institution itself. In many of these countries, the electoral management body is part of the Government, either in the Ministry of Interior or in the local government structure, and election managers are civil servants.
In the newer democracies, the election management bodies may still be developing and can be the subject of intense criticism and scrutiny. In addition to the problems inherent in organizing an election, the body may have institutional problems with inadequate staffing, funding or experience.
To ensure integrity of the electoral institution, as well as in the electoral process, some of the primary considerations are:
Establish a credible and depoliticized management body
Election administration is a technical task. The administrative system adopted and the institution that develops to manage that administration should be technical. This is true whether the electoral management body is part of the government apparatus and the electoral workers are civil servants or if it is a separate, independent agency with its own personnel and policies.
Politics and policy-making are supposed to belong with the policy-making body. However, in reality, it can be very difficult to separate politics from technical administration. In many systems, the election policy body creates the electoral management body and hires its staff. And in some systems, a decision has been made to have politically balanced electoral policy and management bodies. In these cases, both bodies are staffed on the basis of political affiliation and ability to protect the interests of their party. For instance, this was done in the 1999 elections in Indonesia where the policy body of 53 members were from every political party plus the government, and the implementation body had the same structure of 53 members. 104
Having a politically balanced policy and management body can politicize election management, even if the intention is to have a neutral administration. This politicization can turn technical administration and problems into political issues. As political issues require political compromises and negotiations, decision-making can be slow, making it impossible to keep to the electoral calendar. It encourages centralized control over the process and discourages delegating authority to the operational or regional levels. It can also mean that issues, such as sustainability and cost-effectiveness, may not play an important role in decision-making. In extreme cases, politicization of the decision making process can paralyze the entire process.
An example of this is from the peacekeeping elections in Mozambique (1994). The draft electoral legislation was held up for almost a year in Parliament while the parties argued over Article 16. This was the article that contained the formula for the division of seats for the electoral commission (CNE). The two parties to the Peace Accords, Renamo and Frelimo, finally agreed on a formula which they carried through to the staffing of the electoral management body (STAE) at every level. The end result was a politicized management body and commission that centralized and politicized decision-making, turning routine technical issues into political footballs, making a rational, timely implementation of the process extremely difficult.
Another example is the second Cambodian election (1998) despite efforts to balance the National Elections Commission (NEC) between the major political parties and neutral citizens. 'On a few important issues, the CPP (Cambodian People's Party) bore down on the NEC and had its way, compromising the NEC's neutrality and damaging the process as a whole.' 105
Election integrity is facilitated by a neutral and nonpartisan election administration. Even when election managers are selected for their political affiliation, they are still expected to fulfill their duties in a nonpartisan and politically neutral manner. Almost every electoral law calls for this neutral administration of elections. For example, the South African electoral law requires all officers to 'be impartial and exercise their powers and perform their duties independently and without fear, favour or prejudice.' 106
Even in the cases discussed above of Mozambique and Cambodia, on-the-job experience led to increased professionalism and efforts to do the jobs right. According to the Vice Chairman of the NEC in Cambodia, 'given their CPP origins, what astonished me was that at all levels of the electoral process, most NEC employees rose above their party affiliation to do their jobs honourably.'107
Independence of the electoral administration is another important factor, even if the elections commission is based on a politically balanced model. Financial and institutional independence allows electoral policy and management bodies to be able to work without political interference or ending up beholden to special interest contributors. This can be especially true of the lower levels of election management, where entrenched local government officials tend to consider local electoral workers as part of their staff.
This occurred after the electoral reform in Mexico, where 'it is impressive to note how quickly the idea of nonpartisan election officials established its superior legitimacy over competing conceptions; how quickly actors transited from discussing alternatives to discussing improvements, how quickly electoral reforms were set on a track of self-reinforcing path-dependency.' 108
Create a good management and financial system
There is consensus that good management is one of the best protections of election integrity. Good management creates good systems, ensures good planning, hires qualified personnel and provides adequate supervision and oversight. It also ensures the accurate collection of data and information so that the electoral management body knows what is going on and is able to address problems before they become an issue.
Insecurity, fraud and corruption can flourish in an atmosphere of chaos. Good management can remove many of the opportunities for subversion or graft. Good management also means good financial and asset management. The development of good internal financial management systems, with oversight and routine audits, can help maintain financial integrity and deter the problems resulting from bad financial management. This can include labour strikes by staff, shortage of operating expenses and graft (for more on this, see Budget). Asset management and good Procurement are also important parts of maintaining integrity in operations where valuable assets and resources are purchased and used.
Bad or sloppy management can leave the door open to misuse of the resources and the process for political or personal purposes. Public resources provided for election administration can be diverted for political uses or to ensure the win of a certain candidate or party.
Create a good operations system, and include integrity mechanisms at each step
The same problems caused by bad management can be found in bad operational systems. Good systems facilitate work and make it easier to avoid problems. A good logistical system, for example, can avoid the problem of having ballots arrive in country but then sit at the port or airport because of a lack of transportation or storage. Bad systems can make it difficult to track sensitive materials, such as voter registration cards or ballots. The lack of tracking can make it difficult to know if ballots have been diverted or tampered.
Operational systems usually include systems to disseminate information to participants in a timely and systematic manner. Parties and candidates have to know when and how to register to compete in the elections, and how to apply for public resources that might be available for their campaign. They also need to know what quantities of materials have been ordered, when they are delivered and where they will go so their monitors can track them. Feedback systems, whereby problems identified, and complaints made by candidates and others, can be systematically received and addressed, can facilitate the development of good procedures.
Electoral operations are massive logistical exercises, and a good operating system based on strategic planning can help ensure that the timetable is respected with the least amount of problems. India, for example, has a large electoral operation, which if not organized effectively and efficiently could create many problems:
Conduct of General Elections in India for electing a new Lower House of Parliament involves management of the largest event in the world. The electorate exceeds 600 million voting in 800,000 polling stations spread across widely varying geographic and climatic zones. Polling stations are located in the snow-clad mountains in the Himalayas, the deserts of the Rajastan and in sparsely populated islands in the Indian Ocean.
More than 2,525,595 ballot boxes were used during General Elections in 1996. The paper used only for the printing of ballot papers exceeded 8,000 metric tons. There are more than 4 million electoral employees, including the civil police forces. This huge election machinery is deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission and is subject to its control, superintendence and discipline during the election period, extending over a period of one and half to two months. 109
For an operation of this size to succeed, it must be organized. The problems of bad management and the lack of organizational systems were evident, for example, in the 1995 legislative elections in Haiti. Implementation began without standardized systems and procedures in place. Tracking voter registration cards was difficult because they were distributed without first noting which office got what serial numbers. Candidates were added to the ballots after the deadline for printing, forcing a delay in the calendar. There was no system to receive ballot boxes at the counting centres and many poll workers ended up dumping their ballot boxes on the sidewalks in front of the counting centres and counting their ballots in the street.
This disorganization adversely affected the integrity of the process and the credibility of the results. Although the consensus of most international observers was that the end result reflected the will of the majority of voters, the losing candidates and parties used the organizational problems as grounds to reject the results, and boycotted the reruns and subsequent presidential elections.
Effective use of information management systems
New technology can provide management tools and control mechanisms that can help electoral managers develop and implement good working systems and protect election integrity. The use of a computerized voter registration list can identify duplicate registrations (assuming the same voter information is used) and identify under-aged voters. The use of a printed voters list can eliminate the problems created by illegible handwriting and can be easily printed out to be posted at sites or given to political parties and observers.
In a number of countries, computerized lists of registration and polling sites, with the numbers of registered voters per site, are used in the logistical planning for distribution of electoral materials. This helps ensure all aspects of electoral operations have the same accurate information on numbers and sites. These lists can also be used by monitors and observers in their monitoring. Computerized lists of personnel and temporary employees (registrars and poll workers), are also used in mnay systems for for training as well as payroll purposes.
The easy availability of basic information increases the transparency of the process, which in turn increases political party and voter confidence in the system.
For computers and other technology to be an effective management tool, the proper equipment and training must be available. More on technology and the electoral process can be found at Elections and Technology.
Use of adequate integrity controls and supervision
Election managers are entrusted with public resources, and are responsible for using those resources efficiently, economically and effectively to achieve free and fair elections. These resources are expected to be used in compliance with the laws and regulations on the use of public assets as well as the provisions of the electoral law.
The electoral management body has to ensure that adequate control systems are put into place to safeguard their resources (both financial and material), that laws and regulations are followed, and that reliable reports are kept and disclosed as required. Public disclosure of the election budget and expenditures can help increase transparency of the process, and in turn, helps the integrity of the administrative process by making it easier to ensure accountability for the use of these funds.
This can be as simple as ensuring that there are proper inventory controls on assets, that financial records are accurate and up to date, and that an office or person is delegated the responsibility to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations. Holding managers responsible for the actions of their staff and requiring supervisors to verify and certify their office's compliance with all rules and regulations can also be effective.
One of the safeguards against partisan and illegal actions recommended by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Australia includes installing a checking mechanism on electronic databases. 'Computer systems should include a programme that allows management to check which staff are reading and/or removing confidential information from the organization's data base without permission or a valid reason.'
110 This control mechanism has also been used in other systems, such as Elections Canada.
Supervisory mechanisms also require a system to receive and address complaints, both internally and externally to the Official Oversight agency. The electoral management body is usually given the responsibility to ensure that the electoral laws and other related laws are enforced and that those accused of breaking the law are reported to the proper authorities for investigation and prosecution if warranted.
Be Transparent and Accountable
Transparency of the election institutions, as well as their activities, is essential to build its institutional credibility and legitimacy for the elections it administers. The electoral management body can achieve transparency in several ways. These can include:
- regular reporting to the public through the media. Holding press conferences, releasing factual information, identifying problems encountered and the decisions taken to resolve those problems;
- regular reporting to the official oversight body, congressional or parliamentary oversight committees, on progress made, difficulties encountered and areas requiring additional support. Making these reports available to the public is also a useful mechanism;
- regular meetings with political parties and candidates. This can be to disseminate information, answer procedural and other questions, and ask for input on draft protocols or regulations; and
- allow observers into the election decision-making process. These could be political party representatives, civil society observers or the press. In Mexico, electoral reforms resulted in nonvoting party representatives and nonpartisan voting members, appointed in consensus with the major parties, being included in the election management body.111
Transparency aids with accountability as it makes clear who is responsible for what. Public officials, and others entrusted with public resources, must be accountable to the public and to other levels and branches of government for their actions and for the public resources they use to carry out the elections. (For more, see Accountability)
