The execution of the electoral operations on voting day requires sufficient protection on the premises to avoid any disorders aimed at disrupting the voting and to guarantee that the right is asserted under the appropriate democratic conditions.
For this reason, according to the electoral procedures, it is quite common for 'public authority: status to be granted to the presidents or supervisors of the voting stations. As a result, one of their functions is to make the necessary decisions for public order, giving the appropriate instructions to whomever is to act as electoral police on the premises (see Security).
In countries where democracy is most consolidated, these functions are entrusted to security forces and the military. They often perform special tasks in this regard, although there is no shortage of examples where this is not considered necessary.
In countries in political transition, however, this choice is viewed with deep distrust because of the military's identification with the previous regime. This distrust can lead to the very costly and unreasonable appointment of a sort of specific civil police force under the command of the electoral organisation to deploy on election day.
Experience has taught, however, that it is beneficial to give joint responsibility to the army in the fulfilment of such operations. Not only because of its efficiency and low cost, but above all because of the importance it has for the stability of a country to assign such missions of co-operation and strengthening of democracy to a military sector historically opposed to it, under the command of the civil electoral authority, and for the implicit educational element of this collaboration. It is also very important for public opinion to see collaboration among institutions in the fortification of democracy at times of transition.
Thus, this is preferable to the creation of a fleeting, contrived and rather unprofessional electoral police force.
