International observers serve as an integrity mechanism in the elections they observe. This is done by watching the process and noting integrity problems. At the same time, international observers are assessing the elections and making a judgement on its competitiveness, freeness and fairness. To act as an effective integrity mechanism, the international observation itself must be done with integrity, otherwise it can aggravate the problems of the elections under observation.
Some of the integrity issues involved in international observation include:
Preconditions
Some missions precondition observation. Some of the preconditions and the integrity issues involved are:
- Invitation. Most international observers are invited to observe an election. An integrity issue for the process is if invitations are not sent to the donors and agencies usually involved in international observation. The integrity issue for the observer groups is whether they should observe an election if they are not invited. A related issue is if an NGO, or other organization, receives an invitation to observe but it is from an unknown or questionable group. In these cases, a determination should be made of exactly who is inviting, and their motives, before accepting the invitation.
- Accreditation. International observers need accreditation from the electoral policy or management bodies in order to have access to electoral sites and to be able to do a credible observation. A serious question for the process is if accreditation is not given to international observers, or if it is only given to selected groups. Sometimes an international organization will have a reputation within a country for negative or partisan reporting. Whether the reputation is justified or not, what happens when these groups are refused an invitation or accreditation? Does it affect the integrity of the process if a few select groups are denied access to polling or counting sites, while other organizations are able to observe freely?
- Freedom to move and monitor freely. An essential precondition for both the integrity of the elections, and for the observation mission, is that the observers are able to move freely within the country and to monitor without hindrance.
- Security. Ensuring the safety and security of international observers is the responsibility of the government. In countries with serious security problems, certain areas of the country can be off limits because the government or security forces are unable to guarantee observer safety. The degree to which this affects the integrity of the elections, as well as the quality of the observation, will depend in large part to how much of the country is unobservable.
- Commitment to free and fair elections. An issue under debate is whether an electoral process must meet a minimum standard of 'free and fairness' for it to be observed. Some organizations believe that a country must meet minimum standards before it will send an international observation mission. This is based on a concern that international observation will provide legitimacy to what might otherwise be an illegitimate election.
This position is summarized by IDEA in its Lessons Learnt: International Election Observation (IDEA) 'ideally there must be unequivocal signs of impartiality by the electoral authority administering the election before accepting an invitation to observe an election.... The consequences of accepting an invitation with insufficient lead time can result in an ill-conceived mission that endorses an illegitimate purpose.' 312
For instance, this was the case when the European Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OHDIR) announced it would 'not establish a regular election observation mission for the parliamentary elections in the Republic of Uzbekistan scheduled for 5 December 1999. Instead the OHDIR has deployed a limited assessment mission of election experts. The OHDIR has decided to adopt this approach because of serious concerns that the broad electoral framework in Uzbekistan will not permit a truly pluralist, competitive election.' 313
The other side of the issue is that questionable or bad elections also need to be observed so that illegal or unethical practices are uncovered, evaluated and widely publicized through international reporting. Lessons learned can come from 'what not to do' as well as from 'what to do.'
- Acceptance by political parties. This was a precondition raised by several observation groups at the IDEA Lessons Learnt conference, where it was suggested that acceptance by the main political parties was an 'ethical imperative' before observing an election.
Acceptance by the main political parties of an organization's intention to observe an election. To choose to become involved simply on the basis of a government invitation in cases where the opposition is boycotting the election or raising fundamental questions about the legitimacy of an electoral process raises serious questions.'
314 ..before accepting an invitation to observe an election, whether from a government or other source, the sponsoring organizations should seek the consent of the main political parties.
315
The other side of this argument, is that it provides political parties with a veto power over who can observe the elections. Giving select groups a veto power over the fielding of international observers can raise other integrity issues.
Observation purpose
Each observation mission has a reason to observe an election. It can be to determine whether donor conditions of a 'free and fair' election were met. It can be to observe how effective domestic monitoring has been or to assess the political climate. Some international missions observe because of a domestic political agenda or a focus on a larger international issue. It is impossible to ensure that all international observation is nonpartisan, but integrity requires that each mission fully disclose the purpose of its mission in its reporting, as well as what they intend to do with their findings.
Objectivity
Every observer brings their own subjectivity to an observation based on past experiences, expectations and the purpose of their mission. For observers with a partisan or political interest in the process, it can be difficult to remain impartial. For observers from the older democracies, it can be difficult to recognize that a messy process in a newer democracy could be the result of a lack of infrastructure and resources rather than deliberate attempts to manipulate the process.
To be effective, international observation is objective and provides balanced reporting. This protects the integrity of the mission as well as helps maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The mission must differentiate between observed facts, reported incidents and unsubstantiated rumours. Some attempt to determine the source or motive of problems witnessed. Was it fraud or was it a problem created by ignorance or lack of training? Distinctions are made between implementation problems and deliberate tampering.
Selection of elections to observe
International observation can be costly and missions tends to focus on 'important' elections: transition elections, peacekeeping elections or a presidential or national election. However, countries that can benefit from international observation, both in terms of integrity as well as in building democratic processes, still need international observers for local and second elections.
For example, in Cambodia, the elections scheduled for 2000 will include the offices of governors and mayors. This is the first time these appointed offices will be open for election. Having elected officials responsible to the voters at the local level is an important democratic step, and it will be a difficult one. With entrenched local officials and an insecure security environment, international observation of these local elections could play a critical integrity role.
Quality of observation
There are many factors affecting the quality and credibility of an international observation effort. These factors can affect the integrity of the effort and the reliability of its assessment and judgement. These factors include:
- Adequate time. Was there enough lead time to organize and field an observation effort that adequately covered the elections, and provided enough information for a credible assessment? Was the observation mission in country long enough to observe the lead up to the elections, including candidate and voter registration? Did the observers stay long enough to witness the count and the consolidation of the results?
- Enough resources. Did the mission have enough resources to carry out its mission? Could it hire enough qualified observers and deploy them where needed for a long enough period of time? Did the observers have the equipment (communications, transportation, interpreters) needed to be able to do their job correctly?
- Qualified observers. Were the observers qualified and trained? One of the often heard criticisms is that international observers are either inexperienced or career politicians out on a junket. As pointed out by IDEA, 'many organizations sponsoring observer missions continue to place a disproportionate amount of responsibility on the judgment of inexperienced and poorly trained observers, which damages the credibility of work conducted in this field.' 316
- Adequate coverage. Were the observers able to observe enough of the process so that they could make a credible judgement? Was it a long term observer mission that started with the drafting of the legal framework or was it a short term mission that arrived to cover polling and part of the count? Was it national in scope or was it regionally based? Did it only focus on hot spots, or did it provide even coverage?
- Manner of observation. Was the observation conducted in a thorough and professional manner? Was it active or passive? Did it consult with the political parties to obtain information? Did it raise issues with the electoral administration and expect corrective action? Did it cover broader issues such as human rights problems related to elections? Did it consult with domestic monitors and actively search out information? Did it verify the vote count by conducting a parallel count or spot checking local results against the official results? According to IDEA:
In the case of large-scale UN verification missions, sufficient information is collected and analysed to arrive at a reasonable judgement. However, most observer missions are far smaller and cover a relatively small percentage of the total polling sites. Do all observer groups, regardless of size and scope have the mandated authority to issue statements assessing the relative merits of an election? Do they have sufficient data to form a credible opinion? 317
Observers becoming participants
International observers are part of the process. Even when playing a passive role, the fact that observers are present, observing, analysing and intending to issue a public assessment of the process, will affect that process. This is why observation can be an effective integrity mechanism. An integrity issue for observers is if they go beyond this role and become active participants.
When observers act to help ensure the integrity of the process, it is usually seen in a positive light. Such as when observers help logistically-poor electoral authorities by helping to deliver ballots when they visit a polling station, or allow pollworkers to use their communications systems to transmit results. Observation missions have also played important arbitrator roles in peacekeeping elections, although most had a mandate to do so. For example, in Nicaragua, UN observation took a pro-active role that turned into mediation because 'the very fact that the future of Nicaragua literally depended on the fairness and freedom of the elections would have made a purely passive role for the ONUVEN (the UN group) morally unacceptable' 318
When observers become part of the process, they may lose the objectivity needed to impartially assess the elections. This includes observers who actively assist the electoral managers in election administration or become strategists for political parties or candidates.
Coordination of international observation
An election with international attention can be deluged with international observation missions. This can create problems for the election management body in being able to accommodate the large number of delegations with accreditation, briefings, materials, security and whatever other support they may need. It can also create problems with certain areas being saturated with observers. It can also result in delegations vying for media attention for their press releases, or confusion if conflicting reports are issued.
To avoid these problems, and to ensure an even coverage of process and polling sites, international observation missions should coordinate. However, for some groups coordination implies an unacceptable loss of institutional independence. An excerpt from the IDEA Lessons Learnt Conference:
The discussion of this topic began with a rejection of the word 'coordination' in favour of words like 'harmonization' and 'cooperation.' It was unanimously agreed that there is a need for greater sharing of information and knowledge on all aspects of election observation. There was also general acknowledgment that the process of promoting greater harmonization among observer groups was complex due to a wide variety of purposes, objectives, motives, resources, mandates and approaches. It was rather recognized that institutional independence, both in approach and reporting would always be present to some extent.319
In several countries, such as Yemen and Cambodia, the United Nations was requested by the government to coordinate international election observation. One of the reasons for this was to facilitate logistical arrangements for observer delegations and ease the accreditation and coordination responsibilities of the election management body. In Cambodia, the Joint International Observation Group (JIOG), composed of bilateral and multilateral delegations, coordinated deployment and ensured coordinated reporting. However, even here, not all members agreed to be bound by a consolidated report and statement.
Observation reports
The frequency and the content of observer reports can affect the electoral process. Some of the integrity issues involved in reporting include:
- Timing of reports. The release of an observation report can affect the process. When is the best time to release information? Are problems reported on a timely enough basis so that corrective actions can be taken? Is a credible process reported on in time so citizens and candidates can be reassured before registering or voting? Is it appropriate to issue a negative report the night before polling?
- Conflicting reports. Observation reports can be inconsistent because of the different capacities and purposes of each group. In addition, the use of different standards among delegations can result in conflicting judgements. As asked by IDEA, 'how credible are observation reports when there are substantive differences in assessment among observer groups covering the same election?' 320 There can also be differences in the reporting done between national and international observers.
- Accurate reports. Inaccurate reports, or exaggerations, can create unintentional problems. According to Dr. Henry Carey, in the 1995 elections in Haiti, '... by exaggerating the Provisional Election Commission's very real problems and political parties' weaknesses, foreign observers undermined Haiti's nascent democratic institutions and reinforced the self-fulfilling tendency of many Haitians to assume that it is futile to try to construct a functioning democracy in the country.'321
Standards
The standards used by international observation missions affects their judgement of the integrity of the process. This is discussed in Standards to Judge Elections.
Politics
International observation can include political overtones. Donors who provide assistance for election administration usually condition their funding on 'free and fair' elections (see Special Considerations in Countries in Transition). In some cases, they can set benchmarks that must be met for the international assistance to continue. International observation is used to verify whether these benchmarks are met, and whether the election met the free and fair criteria.
For example, in 1997, the Cambodian seat in the United Nations General Assembly had been suspended following factional fighting. Regaining the seat depended on holding of free and fair elections in 1998. The determination on whether the elections were free and fair depended on the judgement of the international observation missions.
Domestic politics can also affect the tone of an international observation effort. For instance, in the 1995 Haitian elections, the fundamentally different election observations done by the U.S. Republican and Democratic affiliated observation groups provided political ammunition for the 1996 U.S. presidential race.
Sending, or not sending, an international election mission can also be seen as political leverage for change. However, for this to work, the government holding the elections must value the participation of international observers.
