Distinctions Between Codes of Conduct
The expression, 'codes of conduct', could refer to different phenomena. Therefore, three kinds of codes would first have to be excluded. All of them affect electoral subjects and even the elections themselves, but exist in different contexts from the authentic codes of conduct that do form part of the legal structure of the electoral process:
In the first place, a set of rules that govern the activities of the electoral administration in the broad sense, cannot be described as a code of conduct. Thus there are general codes of conduct, as is true for Australian electoral officers, and codes that refer to specific persons that intervene in a specific sector, such as the vote counters by computer in the elections in Colombia in 1994. Within this chapter can be included the codes applied by different international organisations (e.g., for the electoral observers). This is a set of rules which aims to design a state of neutrality with regard to the contenders in the process for a number of people entrusted with their execution. Rather, due to their nature they can be assimilated into administrative rules of conduct for civil servants or to deontological ethics within particular professions.
Codes of a general nature set for political parties (not exclusively for electoral purposes) also answer to a different reality, starting with the
United States and Canada. Even though they can be applied during the electoral period, which is in fact what happens, they bind the party that apply them to their own members/sympathisers and not to the other political parties (see Codes of Conduct for Political Parties.)
Lastly, we are also excluding the implicit electoral codes of action that exist in all democratic systems--a prior compromise that the election results will be accepted and, on occasions, other agreements, such as not referring to certain questions during the electoral campaigns. They differ from authentic codes of conduct inasmuch as they are not usually explicit, and least of all, publicised as such.
Characteristic Features of Codes of Conduct
What are the points that characterise an authentic electoral code? At least the following two:
- result of an agreement between political parties, in principle, for a specific election, although nothing prevents it from gaining a certain degree of permanence
- aims to complement electoral regulations and as such, they are characteristic of transition elections, with a basic objective to ensure that the electoral process takes place peacefully, preventing the abuse of dominant positions
Character and Binding Nature of Codes
Beyond these common points, however, important differences arise as far as their character and the extent of their binding nature are concerned.
Because of the participating subjects, the codes may be drawn up by the parties. They may also involve some type of international organisation, or even be promoted by the electoral bodies (see 'emc15b').
The latter possibility of codes of conduct promoted and controlled in their application by the electoral bodies leads us to one of the basic problems of them, i.e., whether they are voluntary or binding. In spite of the fact that it can be maintained, the codes must necessarily be voluntary (because they imply a limitation of conduct that is not prohibited by law and could have an effect on the basic rights of the contenders). An empirical study of the reality however (Goodwin-Gill) revealed at least three types of situations:
The first is in countries where the agreed code has been incorporated into the electoral law by the parliament, as occurred in Cambodia in 1992 (see Code of Conduct in Cambodia). In this case the question arises whether it actually continues to be a code of conduct in the true sense of the word, or whether, as it will appear, its incorporation into the electoral law means that it ceases to exist as such a code at all.
Cases where an agreement among the contenders includes certain sanctions for non-compliance in their provisions, without it ceasing to be a code of conduct, pose bigger complications. This is the case in the South African Code of 1992 (see Code of Conduct in South Africa) which envisages economic sanctions and even grants the electoral body in charge the possibility to exclude the candidates
that do not adhere to it. In such cases, the codes of conduct acquire a marked and unmistakably regulatory content.
However, the majority of the codes are of a purely voluntary nature, in the sense that they do not stipulate any sanction for non-compliance. In such cases, they are unlikely to be considered strictly as part of the regulatory structure of the processes. Still, insofar as they are effectively fulfilled, they regulate very important aspects, de facto or by consensus, and they tend to acquire a binding power.
Contents of the Codes of Conduct
As far as the contents of the codes are concerned, they are, in general, rules that are aimed at:
- preventing the use of intimidation and violence
- establishing rules of behaviour during the campaign
- preventing the parties in power from abusing their position or power
In addition, the majority of them envisage co-operation with electoral bodies and usually call for periodic meetings. But, generally, they do not grant these bodies the power to make their interpretation and application compulsory.
