The relationship between regional and local election management bodies will depend largely on
the election or constitution law governing the organisation of elections. The law may be
prescriptive, or it may be silent. If the latter, then relationships may be determined in an ad hoc
way, which could reflect dominant personalities at the higher or lower levels.
Party politics may come into play if there are certain areas of the country where the opposition
party dominates the party in overall control of the destiny of the country. Another factor that is
easy to forget is the dominance of regions supportive or otherwise of the government. Tribal
influences in African countries and the geographical divide recently exposed in Albania are
examples that immediately spring to mind.
We will first take the relationship between the national election body and the regional bodies in
a prescriptive environment. The law, associated rules, or regulations will clearly set out the
responsibilities of the regional body, and it will be the duty of the national body to ensure that
the activities of the lower-tiered organisation are carried out in accordance with the law and
particularly in accordance with the election timetable. It may be that there is little involvement
from above. It could also be the case that, in particular regions, the subsidiary commission or
election body is not performing as well as it should be or in accordance with the timetable. This
could take the form of failing to distribute ballots to the local commissions on time or failing to
conduct training as specified by the national body. In these circumstances,
intervention would be appropriate.
In an ad hoc situation, it may be more difficult to keep control from the center, because, with no
prescribed timetable, the regional body may keep saying, 'It is in hand,' or 'It will be done.' In
this case, an intervention may be too little too late, unless the central body is able to allocate
scarce resources at a time when they should be used for other tasks already planned within the
election timetable. Accordingly, even if the ad hoc arrangement prevails, the national body will
be well advised to stipulate a timetable, to which all regional bodies will be required to adhere.
At first, reporting-in sessions can be held a couple of times a week, but as the election
approaches, they should be held on a daily basis.
The relationship between the local commission or election body and the national election body
will be minimal, if not nonexistent. It is recommended that the channel of communication
between these bodies be limited to emergencies and only then if the regional body is unable to
respond. The proper method of upward communication for the local election body should be
through the regional body. Again, the region should set realistic and achievable deadlines for
the local body to complete certain tasks within the election timetable, and if necessary, it should
intervene where there is nonperformance.
Where political parties are represented at the lower level commissions, it is recommended that
each subsidiary body appoint a chair, deputy chair and secretary. These appointments may be
prescribed in the law, but it is worth a reminder here. One of the three, preferably the chair or in
his absence the deputy chair or secretary, should be designated as the individual with whom all
communication should be made. In other types of arrangements, such as the commonwealth
model, there should be a readily identifiable individual with appropriate authority to make
decisions, be responsible for the activities of the lower body, and act as the communication
conduit to the level immediately above. This individual will facilitate upward and downward
communication. It is not unknown for the national body to make changes in voting
arrangements on the day before or even on the day of the election--Sierra Leone (1995) had an
extra day of voting, Albania (1997) changed the voting hours. Appropriate communication
networks are essential in these circumstances.
As appropriate, and certainly at the beginning of the election process, there should be meetings
of the regional chair and members of the regional election body with the chair, secretary and
deputy chair of the local election body. Meetings should be held regularly, one per month if
possible, during the buildup to nomination of candidates, and they should be held as often as
weekly from nomination to voting day. Transportation and distances from the regional
headquarters should be a consideration. At these meetings, local election body representatives
should report on progress and any problems encountered. It is a good opportunity for the region
to communicate relevant decisions of the central body and keep the local representatives
informed of other factors that may affect the conduct of the election in their area.
