The electoral timetable can be a mechanism to keep the process on track as well as being a source
of integrity problems. Electoral timetables can be set in a constitution, election laws or fixed by
the electoral management body. Dates that are set in the legal and constitutional framework limit
the flexibility and discretion of electoral managers as they are dates that must be met. Dates that
are set by the electoral policy or management bodies are not mandated by legislation and therefore
are easier to change if needed.
How much time is enough to prepare for the physical event of voting and for candidates to
register and get their messages out? Much depends on the particular circumstances of the
country. For democracies with a well-established electoral system, the physical preparations for
elections are established and routine. For the newer democracies, especially in countries with a
lack of physical infrastructure, preparing for an election can be a major undertaking and take
much longer. (For more information, see Establish and Follow Administrative Calendar).
For integrity purposes, problems can arise from timetables that are either too short or too long. A happy medium needs to be found for each system.
In countries with severe weather, electoral timetables are usually designed around the climatic
calendar. There are other non-election factors that can affect an electoral calendar, as explained
by the Elections Commission from India:
'In a country as huge and diverse as India, finding a period when elections can be held throughout
the country is not simple. The Election Commission, which decides the schedule for elections, has
to take account of the weather - during winter constituencies may be snow-bound, and during the
monsoon access to remote areas restricted; the agricultural cycle - so that the planting or
harvesting of crops is not disrupted; exam schedules - as schools are used as polling stations and
teachers employed as election officials; and religious festivals and public holidays. On top of this
there are the logistical difficulties that go with holding an election - sending out ballot boxes,
setting up polling booths, recruiting officials to oversee the elections.'
129
This is also true in other countries, including Cambodia, where an Election Commissioner stated:
'I know that many of my fellow citizens would not vote during the rainy season. They would be
in the rice fields, preparing for their next harvest. Most Cambodians are farmers and food is still
their number-one priority.'
130
Integrity issues would arise in these cases, if the dates were set to exclude those sections of the
population that were affected by the weather, agricultural cycles or other timing factors.
Integrity problems arising from a tight calendar
Some of the integrity issues arising from a short timetable to take into consideration:
- Having enough time to set up and administer the elections.
Good planning can help ensure that
adequate time is budgeted for each task to be completed. If corners are cut to save time, such as
shortening the period for the review of candidate applications, integrity can be jeopardized because there may not be enough time to fully review every application, or for candidates to respond to
questions arising from their application.
- Having enough time for candidates and political parties to prepare for the elections.
Political
parties need time to select their candidates. Candidates need time to complete their candidate
applications and prepare their electoral campaign. Newer candidates and parties need enough
time to get their campaign message out to the voters.
- Having enough time for the voters to receive the voter education messages.
An informed
electorate is an essential election integrity principle. Voters need to know when the elections are,
where they go to vote and how the ballots are to be marked. They also need to have access to the
information from the candidates on their platforms and positions so that they can make an
informed choice.
Integrity problems arising from a long calendar
Some of the integrity-related issues that can arise from having an electoral timetable that is too
long:
- Voter fatigue
Voters can get tired of a prolonged campaign, which could affect their turn-out on polling day. For example, in the U.S., serious campaigning for the presidential elections can start two to
three years before the actual elections. State-level primaries to pick each party's candidates start
more than a year before the presidential election.
- Increased costs
The longer the process, the longer the electoral management body
will have to be staffed and operational. This can increase the operating and staffing costs
of the electoral management body and, for cash-strapped election management bodies, can create
serious problems. (For more, see Budget) This also affects the monitors
and observer groups, which will also have to field observers for a longer period of time.
Sustaining an electoral campaign over a long period of time also takes a lot of money. A shorter campaign period could cost less and might be afforded by more
candidates. In the U.S., for example, money is a major factor in determining which candidates can make it
through to the actual presidential elections. Serious candidates, such as Elizabeth Dole, have had
to drop out of the race more than a year out, because of a lack of funds.
Finding enough funds to compete effectively can raise serious integrity issues that are discussed in
Campaign Financing.
A longer calendar also affects the costs of monitoring and observation, as those organizations will have to field observers and monitors for a longer period of time.
Timetable as an integrity mechanism
Electoral calendars can be used effectively to protect election integrity. Some of these ways are:
- Enables planning
Timetables set the dates for specific events in the electoral process and enables planning for those events based on those dates. Timetables are used by
electoral managers for organizing the logistical operations for the elections. They are used by
political parties to plan their campaigns. They are used by monitors and observers to plan for key
events that need to observed and for recruitment and training of observers. Timetables also provide
the voters with the dates they will have to register and vote.
- Limits power
A fixed calendar restricts the action of electoral managers and political parties.
It acts as a check on electoral operations and campaigns by fixing dates to specific actions. In
electoral systems characterized by high levels of distrust, a tight timetable can be used as a
mechanism to limit the discretion of election managers. In Mexico, for instance, the law provides a detailed
schedule of administrative actions. It tells managers when to initiate and complete every step in
the election administration process. 131
- Legitimates power
A calendar gives dates by which participants are able to do certain things.
For example, the calendar gives political parties the right to register at a specific time, the ability
to campaign freely during a specific period and when they are allowed to have monitors observing
the process. A calendar gives the voters the right to register and vote on specific days. But it
also limits this power by authorizing the actions only during the period specified on the calendar.
As explained by Dr. Andreas Schedler in his case study on Mexican electoral reform and how it
brought integrity back into the electoral process (Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy):
...time rules limit power. Decision-makers do not just have an abstract obligation to do
something. They have to fulfill it with determinate time limits, and may be held accountable for it.
On the side of rights, time rules legitimate power. If those who hold certain rights, be it political
parties or individual citizens, do not make use of them within the time frame set by law, the
responsibility for forfeiting their rights falls back on them themselves. ....the responsibility for any
eventual failure to act in a timely fashion lays with the one who ignores the legally established
limit. 132
Some countries have mechanisms that enable them to change the electoral timetable in times of
crisis. For example, in India, the timetable for elections has been adjusted when civil unrest made the holding
of elections problematic. 'Disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir, the Punjab and Assam have led
to the postponement of elections. Holding of regulation elections can only be stopped by means
of a constitutional amendment and in consultation with the Election Commission, and it is
recognized that interruptions of regular elections are acceptable only in extraordinary
circumstances.'
133 South Africa also allows for a
postponement of the elections in individual sites, or of the entire election, if it is necessary to
ensure a free and fair election.
