In consolidated democratic systems it is considered that electoral processes offer sufficient internal guarantees and that it is not necessary to establish observation and additional control systems. Thus, the combined action of the electoral organisation, the civilian voting station officials, the representatives of the political parties, being entitled to appeal before an independent authority on the decisions taken and finally, the existence of a free press is all sufficient guarantee of the honesty of the elections. Observation by international or politically neutral national organisations is not necessary, except perhaps on a very low key basis and with purposes other than ensuring the honesty of the process, in the form, for example, of international guests or small expert groups that can assess the overall functioning of the system and thus contribute to its eventual improvement.
On the contrary, observation appears to be exceptionally useful in transition
democracies. From this point of view, it is possible to establish a qualitative division or barrier of consolidation between the electoral procedures, according to whether or not they demand national or international observation. In this regard, observation must be seen as something that has to be overcome by all systems that apply it, although perhaps not so much attending the elections.
During the eighties and the nineties, complex electoral observation operations were carried out by various international organisations in African countries (Uganda, Mozambique, Angola, South Africa, etc.) as well as in South American countries (Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.) as a form of collaboration in political transition processes (see Election Observation.)
However, since 1986, non-government organisations (NGOs) that often assume the same role, with international aid, have begun to emerge as an alternative to the massive operations of international electoral observation, the cost for which was becoming more and more prohibitive.
As a pioneer in this field, mention has to be made of the National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) that (with the help of the Catholic Church) in the 1986 elections mobilised more than half a million Filipinos to control the presidential elections called by Marcos. Following this model and sometimes also under the auspices of the Catholic Church, SAKA was set up in Paraguay in 1991 and 1994, the Civic Alliance in Mexico in 1994, Transparency in Peru in 1995, and Transparency and Democracy in Guatemala in 1996.
The phenomenon of national observation warrants an in-depth analysis. On the one hand, it is evident that this is a very advantageous alternative at a much lower cost than the international observation operations, and it undoubtedly contributes to creating national democratic consciousness.
It is also an adequate procedure in countries such as Peru, where international electoral observation missions are legally forbidden, a
prohibition that is not possible to get round adequately by resorting to the
phenomenon of 'international guests'.
However, it cannot be forgotten what all electoral procedures must aim to do without observation, which explains why this type of movement is in turn 'observed' with deep distrust by the electoral organisations and the political parties themselves, which at times see international funds intended for them now being channelled through these new NGOs. This distrust has even led to their efforts being hampered by legal or practical problems, as occurred initially in Nicaragua in 1996 and also in Peru in 1995, and their status and functions being regulated by law, such as in Estonia in 1996.
In short, this is an ambiguous phenomenon, to say the least. It is very positive, if analysed as an alternative to the mobilisation of thousands of
international observers, the vast majority of whom not only do not know the country, but in reality also do not know how elections are run. But it becomes a matter of debate when employed as an alternative for institutional strengthening of the electoral administration and the political parties themselves.
Perhaps the key lies in its temporary nature meaning where electoral observation is still necessary, it is advisable to entrust it to a national organisation. But on the other hand, observation operations that now become useless, must not be supported given the development the ordinary mechanisms of guarantee internationally.
