Election observers and political party monitors are important elements of election integrity. They monitor the process in order to detect and deter integrity problems. They also increase electoral transparency by publicly reporting on their findings and making an informed
judgement on the freeness, fairness and credibility of the process. (More on observing as an integrity
mechanism can be found at Independent Observers and Political Party Monitors.)
For observers and monitors to be able to function effectively, they are usually officially accredited by the electoral
management or policy bodies. Many international observation groups also require invitations
from the government or election management body before they will field an observation mission. Inviting observation groups can help promote integrity as discussed in International Election Observation.
Observers and monitors need access to electoral sites in order to fulfill their observation and monitoring responsibilities. Accreditation identifies those persons who can have access to
electoral sites by providing them with a badge, or other form of identification. This badge lets registration and poll workers know that the observer
has permission from the electoral management body to access the registration and polling sites. Having accreditation is an integrity mechanism as persons without official approval should not have access to electoral sites or
sensitive electoral materials.
Integrity problems can arise if accreditation procedures or requirements are used to limit the
number of observers or to deny access to certain groups of observers or monitors. If accreditation takes such
a long time that observers are not able to be accredited before the elections, or if selected accreditation is provided, it can hurt the credibility of the process, and raise suspicions that the election
management body has something to hide.
Most electoral systems establish eligibility requirements for observers and monitors in their
election laws or procedures. Reasonable and appropriate procedures, that require the minimum
amount of burden on both the observation group and the election management body, can help avoid integrity questions. Straightforward and objective requirements can help minimize problems such as discrimination or favouritism that might inadvertently result from subjective accreditation. Some election
management bodies add behavioural or other conditions to the eligibility requirements. These are usually used to exclude nondemocratic actors, such as in the case of South Africa, where accreditation will only be provided to observers
who:
will promote conditions conducive to a free and fair election, including observing that
election impartially and independently of any registered party or candidate contesting that
election, be competent and professional in observing that election and subscribe to the Code
governing observers. 164
However, behavioural or other conditions that are not neutral or partisan in nature can provide opportunities for arbitrary or discriminatory action in accreditation.
Accreditation usually requires that observers comply with the rules of accreditation while observing. Accreditation rules usually include such things as obeying instructions from a polling officer or member of the security forces working
on election security. If the accredited observer fails to comply to a material extent with the
conditions of accreditation, the election management body may cancel the accreditation. To protect the integrity of the accreditation process, the conditions, and the procedures for the cancellation of accreditation, are usually included in the
election regulations or laws. For more on integrity in observation, see Integrity in Domestic Observation and Integrity in International Observation.
