Despite attempts to quantify observation reporting and to make it more objective, coming up with a statement that characterizes the process, that all observers can agree to, is difficult.
There is a generally agreed upon set of principles that must be met for an election to be deemed free and fair, including: equal voting power for all citizens, freedom to organize for political purposes and to campaign for office, right of access to political information, and holding elections regularly that are decided by the freely cast vote of the majority. (For more see Guiding Principles) But missions and their observers bring with them their own expectations, experiences and perspectives which provide a subjective filter in assessing the process and making a judgement.
Which standards to use?
Applying the concept of free and fair can be difficult in practice, especially in a transitional election where parts of the process may have gone well, but other parts had serious flaws. If one candidate is denied media access, but the rest of the process went well, is that free and fair? If the process went well, but a prominent politician boycotted, are the results acceptable?
The difficulty in coming up with a universal standard to judge elections is evident in this IDEA discussion:
In exploring alternatives to the 'free and fair' criteria, some participants referred to the protocol in the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with elections which states that they must be 'free, secret, universal and direct.' Other organizations assess elections on the basis of whether they served as a credible expression of the 'will of the people' or signified a step forward in terms of the country's progress toward democracy.
In the view of several delegates, observation should not simply focus on the narrow technical and political aspects of an electoral process but would evaluate an election within the broader context of the process of democratization.
A representative of one of the domestic monitoring groups emphasized that the terms and tools for evaluating an election should not be foreign: reporting standards should strictly adhere to requirements specified in the electoral law of a country. While agreeing in principle, participants also believed that the international community had an obligation to promulgate universal electoral standards. When observers identify problems that violate international election standards but are not adequately covered in a national electoral law, then the observer group is obligated to point out the discrepancies and recommend revisions to such legislation.322
Fair application of standards
Even if agreement could be reached on a universal standard and its components, is it fair to apply them to every election?
Jorgen Elklit and Palle Svensson, in What Makes Elections Free and Fair, argue that international observers need to take into consideration the broader democratic transition of the country in their assessment of the elections:
Observers should also evaluate the election in the context of the specific democratic-transition process. Will the election-- despite possible 'technical' shortcomings-- stimulate further democratization by increasing respect for political freedoms, strengthening adherence to the election law, enhancing political contestation through broader access to relevant resources, involving more people in the political process, or improving the quality of the political debate?
Although some would categorize this as a 'political' judgement, it can be argued that it legitimately falls within the domain of election observation. If observers are to view an election not as an isolated event but as part of the democratization process, they cannot avoid considering whether and how it contributed to that process.323
However, some argue that standards should not be lowered for countries in transition, as explained by Michael Cowen and Liisa Laakso:
'The view that elections in the continent (Africa) cannot be judged on the basis of any universal standard, as one Kenyan opposition leader put it, is repugnant to many Africans and served as the basis of the 1997 reform movement in Kenya. This view is buttressed by the paradox that the burgeoning number of international observers and monitors of elections in Africa are more inclined to endorse the results of a flawed, 'second hand' electoral process that their domestic African counterparts.'
324
In some countries, different standards have been applied to subsequent election because of their political context. In Haiti, for example, Dr. Henry Carey states:
By applying a lower standard for democratic elections, foreign observers in 1990-1991 taught Haiti's political society that electoral transparency and enforcement of election rules can be ignored. Then, by over emphasizing the problems that arose during 1995 and 1997, they encouraged Haitian political society to construe most of the country's electoral shortcomings as deliberate fraud.325
For more on the discussion on standards see Lessons Learnt: International Election Observation (IDEA).
