One of the basic functions of the Administration in an electoral process falls strictly within the so-called administrative duties of the police force--guaranteeing citizen safety and the freedom of meeting, expression and the other rights that are indispensable to an electoral contest. This is a task performed throughout the entire process and does not only mean guarding the electoral headquarters but also the actual free expression of the vote on election day (see Security).
In countries emerging from a non-democratic regime, or evolving from an
authoritative one, this task poses a variety of difficulties. On the one hand, the police force probably does not enjoy the confidence of the population, that previously suffered under it as an instrument in the service of the non-democratic regime. On the other, it is doubtful that it will be qualified to perform tasks that should essentially be peaceful and respectful towards rights that had not been observed much up to then.
There is, however, no simple realistic solution. Just like other active elements of the administration, the police must be educated to the basic features of a police force in a democratic state ruled by law. This is an essential transition process in the construction or reconstruction of the administration as a whole. It is no doubt a process that can be initiated from new legislation, observing the rights of the citizens and democratic freedom, supported by international aid and the presence of international observers. But only the existing police force, and the army, when applicable, can be entrusted with the practical execution of these tasks, regardless of whether they are run by the outgoing government or are under the functional control of the electoral administration.
History reveals greatly varying degrees and time spans of evolution, which can undoubtedly be explained by the circumstances of each country.
It is not easy to compare cases like the Spanish transition, when a generation had already passed since the Civil War and Franco's regime had evolved from totalitarianism to a an ever-guarded progressive opening-up with pronounced authoritarian components, with abundant examples in Latin America, where the police and the army have been active anti-democratic agents.
Nor is it possible to pinpoint common consequences among essentially democratic and developed regimes, even though they may have gone through phases of authoritarianism, such as Turkey and others that evolve from single party totalitarian regimes, like many of those that stem from decolonisation or former states of the East Block. Even within these, the qualitative difference is obvious between those which, at one time, had a constitutional system (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland) and those which have only suffered various forms of tyranny.
The employment of the army poses similar problems. In states moving towards democracy from severe internal conflicts or even civil wars, the army, which until shortly before, was one of the adversaries, can offer few guarantees of impartiality in an electoral process. Nonetheless, events such as the 1996 general elections in Nicaragua makes one wonder whether it would not indeed be possible to use the army in the material organisation of the elections, contributing some logistical capacities in the country that would otherwise not be available, whilst at the same time benefiting from this participation to strengthen its institutional prestige in the service of the new democratic regime.
