Introduction
Elections must not only be free, they must also be fair and 'genuine.'
This is set out, albeit in brief and broad terms, in a number of international instruments, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 21), the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 25), the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (Article 23), and the 1981 African Charter on Human and People's Rights (Article 13).
The primary requirement of these documents is that governments should be chosen by free elections in which the right to vote is universal and equal. The term 'free' refers to the formalities of the electoral process. Candidates should not be subjected to violence or coercion by the governmental authorities; voters should not be physically restrained from casting their votes.
However, many of the most important international instruments require that elections must also be 'genuine' or fair. The term 'genuine' is included because it is possible for an election formally to be free (as far as polling and other procedures are concerned) but, nevertheless, to be grossly unfair. For example, a governing party may use restrictions on newsprint as the excuse to limit the circulation of opposition newspapers or literature. The governing party may use corrupt means to raise an abnormally large campaign fund. Or, the governing party may unfairly use its control over television to prevent or restrict opposition parties from presenting their messages to voters.
The simple conclusion is that the formal 'freedom' of electoral procedures is necessary but not sufficient. The principles that underpin fairness and genuineness will be the concern of this section and its sub-sections.
While words such as 'fair' and 'genuine' appear at first sight to be simple and obvious, their meaning is actually complex. Disputes about their meaning are not merely a matter for theoretical discussions by ivory tower academics; they vitally affect practical decisions relating to the regulation of parties and candidates.
The practical importance of debates about the meaning of 'fairness' is seen in the range of interpretations of what constitutes a 'fair' distribution of broadcasting time to different parties in the campaign preceding a national election. Does 'fairness' mean an equal allocation of time to all parties regardless of their size? In other words, is it 'fair' to provide as much time to the smallest as to the biggest parties? Is it 'fair' to give newly-formed parties an especially large allocation of time on the grounds that they require longer to make their policies known to the public than established parties? Is it fair to give the largest amounts of time to the parties with the largest shares of the vote in the previous election? And so forth.
Some Guiding Principles
Some of the conventional guiding principles of genuine elections follow.
Level Playing Field
The idea of fairness is basic to democratic practice. Yet the term may have a number of different, contradictory meanings. They include:
- equality of outcome (e.g. all parties should have the same allocation of free television time);
- fairness as a bias towards opposition or small parties (e.g. the small parties should have especially large portions of free television time since they need it most); and
- fairness based on the extent of each party's political support (e.g. free
television time should be proportional to each party's share of the vote at the last election), see Level Playing Field, Fairness.
Freedom of Speech
Democratic debate cannot take place unless citizens and politicians are allowed to express what is on their minds. But there are arguably legitimate limits on free speech. For instance, should citizens be allowed to make libellous accusations? Should they be permitted to preach violence and race hatred? Should political debate intrude on the personal lives of politicians and their families? See Freedom of Speech.
Prevention of Fraud and Corruption
Cheating and bribery undermine the democratic process, see Controlling Fraud, Corruption and Unfair Practices.
Participation
According to one common view, the quality of democracy depends upon the extent to which voters use their rights to vote and to take part in public life. It is healthy if memberships of political parties are large and active, and if attendance at political rallies is high, and so on. According to an alternative view, it does not matter whether citizens actually participate in politics, but it is vital that they should have the right to do so, irrespective of whether they choose to use it, see Political Participation.
Internal Party Democracy
According to one view, it is important that political parties run their own affairs in a democratic manner, giving due powers to members over their leaders, see Encouraging Internal Party Democracy.
Transparency
Arguably, secrecy breeds corruption. The finances of political parties and candidates, as well as other aspects of party affairs, should therefore be open. A contrasting view is that citizens are as much entitled to privacy in their financial payments to the party or candidate of their choice as they are in their voting choices. After all, voting itself is now secret, see Ensuring Openness, Transparency.
Accountability
It is of little value to have standards of behaviour concerning the organization of parties and elections if there are no means of checking whether the politicians and the parties have adhered to them, see Accountability.
Checks and Balances
There should be some built-in pluralism within the political system so that there are incentives for one party to bring to light abuses by an opposing party, or for the press to act as a check on the politicians, see Checks and Balances.
Conflicts between Principles
Policymakers in the real world are constantly faced with problems resulting from contradictions between different aims and principles. It is immediately obvious that some of the principles that have been listed are likely to clash with each other, see Broadcasting Time, Allocation of Time/Resources Issues, and Fairness vs.Freedom of Expression. This is illustrated by several examples.
Political Participation versus Avoiding Corruption
Corruption, fraud, intimidation, and other forms of misconduct will damage the election process. The control of corruption frequently requires strict control measures. However, the by-product of these measures will be to control, and thus to limit political participation. If corruption and fraud appear to be minor problems, then it will be sensible to have a relaxed regulatory regime that presents as few barriers as possible to political participation. By contrast, if corruption and fraud are widespread, or risk becoming prevalent, then tight controls will be justified, even if they make participation more difficult.
This problem is sometimes referred to as the conflict between 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' regulatory regimes.
In an 'inclusive' regime, the rules governing the nomination of candidates will be relatively relaxed. Where there is confidence that the lists of names supporting a nomination form are genuine, there will be little need for electoral administrators to make exhaustive checks on them. The timetable for making nominations can then be drawn up to permit nominations until shortly before the date of the poll.
In an 'exclusive' regime, the rules governing the nomination of candidates will be tighter. The election timetable will provide greater opportunities for electoral officials to make much more thorough checks of the lists of names of voters supporting each nomination to ensure that signatures have not been forged.
Political Participation versus Transparency
According to a common argument, donations to political parties and to candidates should be publicly declared, also see, Desirability of Disclosure of Political Donations. The need for financial disclosure and transparency applies with special force, according to this view, to 'large' donations. The policy of requiring financial transparency is justified by the argument that it will prevent or discourage corruption and 'special influence.' Also, it will provide information to voters about the financial forces behind each candidate and each party. This information may influence voting choices.
However, imposing rules requiring financial disclosure will come at a cost. If potential candidates are required to make public their income tax returns and their private business affairs, if they are required in addition to open the affairs of their spouses and of other family members to public gaze, this may act as a powerful disincentive. Excessively harsh disclosure rules may deter many people from becoming candidates.
Similarly, potential donors to political parties may wish, for good reasons, to avoid having their political gifts placed on a public list. Transparency rules may therefore limit this form of political participation.
Freedom of Speech versus Level Playing Field
(See also Freedom of Speech and Fairness vs.Freedom of Expression)
Freedom of speech involves not only the right to converse with family, friends, and neighbours, but also the freedom to organize and address public meetings, and to produce and circulate political literature and propaganda.
It does not cost money to talk with family members or neighbours. However, many forms of free speech do incur expenses. If a political activist arranges to visit another area of the city or country and to spend time speaking to voters, there will be costs of travel, board, and lodging. Public meetings may require expenditure for hiring a suitable hall, and publicity. And it will not be possible to print political literature without paying for it (or without
accepting what is effectively a political 'contribution-in-kind' from the printer).
Since the exercise of free speech often requires money, the parties and candidates with the largest financial resources will be able to reach the voters more effectively than the poorest parties and candidates. Arguably, the richest candidates gain an unfair advantage. In order to eliminate or to reduce this unfairness, and create a 'level playing field,' regulations have commonly been introduced to restrict the role of money in elections. Sometimes (as in elections for federal offices in the United States), there is a legal ceiling on the amount an individual may contribute; sometimes (as in France or Canada), there is a cap on the amount a party or a candidate is permitted to spend.
Limits on financial contributions, and on spending by parties and candidates, are designed to promote a level playing field. But they have the undoubted effect of limiting freedom of speech. Policymakers must balance two valid, but mutually contradictory, principles.
Summary
The complexities of the guiding principles are summarized in Level Playing Field, Fairness, Freedom of Speech, Controlling Fraud, Corruption and Unfair Practices, Political Participation, Encouraging Internal Party Democracy, Ensuring Openness, Transparency, Accountability and Checks and Balances. Apart from differences in judgement about how conflicts between principles should be resolved, the principles themselves are open to interpretation and debate.
It will be argued that:
(a) of the eight guiding principles under consideration, three are basic. They are: 'Level playing field, fairness', 'Freedom of speech', and 'Controlling fraud, corruption and unfair practices'. Though uncontroversial in themselves, some of them are not wholly without ambiguity or without limitations. In particular, 'fairness' may have a number of different meanings and is therefore cited as a battle cry by advocates of conflicting practical measures. Freedom of speech is clearly subject to a number of limitations, although there is legitimate disagreement about their nature and scope.
(b) Two of the guiding principles are controversial. It is open to argument that they should not be included in the list. They are: 'political participation' and 'encouraging internal party democracy'.
(c) The three remaining guiding principles are instrumental. They are not necessarily desirable in themselves but arguably are needed to achieve other objectives. Refer to Ensuring Openness, Transparency, Accountability and Checks and Balances.
Draft Only
