Controlling fraud, corruption, and unfair practices is a fundamental objective of any system of regulating political parties and candidates. When an election has been held, it is essential to ensure that citizens at large, whether they have supported winning or losing parties and candidates, should have faith in the integrity of the process. Serious electoral fraud, corruption, and unfair practices bring the reliability of the electoral process into question. They thus undermine democracy itself.
In countries where free elections have not been held regularly in the past, or where elections have been rigged, a 'loser culture' is unlikely to exist. Even if an election is fairly conducted, the defeated candidates and parties are
likely to call 'foul'. This happens in parts of Africa. In such countries, it is all the more important to ensure that the fairness of elections is beyond reasonable doubt.
Electoral Fraud
Conducting elections that are fair, and are seen to be fair, poses a variety of technical challenges. The official procedures must be reliable. Voters must be assured that only eligible voters have voted, that they have been given the chance to cast their ballots under circumstances that guarantee freedom from pressure, and that their votes have then been properly recorded.
An initial problem is drawing up an accurate register of eligible voters - a register that manages to include those entitled to vote, while excluding voters who have died, or who are otherwise unqualified. There must be checks against impersonation - those presenting themselves at polling stations must be the voters they claim to be. In many parts of Africa and elsewhere, a finger of each voter is marked with indelible ink to ensure against voting twice. Voters must be permitted to cast their ballots without feeling under threat of violence or under an obligation to support a particular candidate or party. There must be measures to ensure against the stuffing of ballot boxes with ballot papers other than those legitimately cast. Ballot boxes need to be sealed before being used, and when the voting period is over. If ballot boxes are transported from the polling place to a central location where the votes are to be counted, there must be a guarantee that the same boxes that have left the polling station are the ones that arrive at the vote counting location. Integrity of vote counting and recording must be assured.
Where there is significant inefficiency or deliberate cheating by the authorities responsible for administering an election, the whole purpose of holding an election is negated. It is because electoral fraud is such a risk in countries emerging from non-democratic rule that the practice of mounting international election observer missions has burgeoned.
In developing countries, party agents have a potentially important role in observing the process of voting and in attending the counting of votes. However, experience in Tanzania, Ghana, and elsewhere suggests that when foreign governments or international organizations provide grants for party agents, those agents may, in many parts of the country, be more interested in collecting a fee than in carrying out their duties conscientiously. See also Political Parties as Election Monitors.
Electoral Corruption
Corrupt electoral practices include bribery of voters, raising campaign funds by making promises of illegal benefits (such as favourable government contracts) as payoffs to donors, bribing opposing candidates to withdraw, and (where there are legal limits on permitted campaign spending) fiddling election expenses in order to exceed the limit.
Such practices were common in Britain until the late nineteenth century. Vote buying is reputed to remain common in some countries, such as Taiwan. The secret ballot is the main device to restrict vote buying. If voters cast their ballots in secret, there is no way for candidates and party organizers to be certain that they will vote in the way that they have promised to those offering the bribes. However, in some communities, the secret ballot has proved insufficient to stamp out vote buying altogether.
Unfair Practices: Negative Campaigns and 'Dirty Tricks'
Whereas electoral fraud and electoral corruption are clearly undesirable and illegal, 'unfair practices' are harder to define and more controversial. What is 'unfair' to some is merely 'robust electioneering' or 'negative campaigning' to others.
Obviously, candidates have an incentive to present their opponents in the worst possible light. How is it possible to prevent candidates from telling deliberate lies and maligning their rivals without restricting the freedom of speech, and without allowing the government to dictate the terms of public debate?
Though it may be impossible to regulate unfair electoral practices by law, there may be some moral value in codes of conduct. Such codes may be developed for electoral officials, political parties, and election observers. See also Codes of Conduct for Political Parties.
A famous example of unfair campaign practices emerged amid investigations into the Watergate Affair. In 1974 the inquiries led finally to the resignation of Richard Nixon as President of the United States. The Watergate Affair centred on allegations, later proved, that Nixon's 1972 presidential election campaign organization had arranged for a team to break into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee to plant eavesdropping equipment. This was not only unfair, but also illegal. Earlier in the presidential election campaign Nixon's supporters had set up a 'dirty tricks' team which carried out activities in the classic mould of unfair electioneering.
On behalf of Nixon, the incumbent Republican President, the 'dirty tricks' team set out to discredit the nomination of Edmund Muskie, the Democratic candidate, who was seen to pose the greatest threat to Nixon. Muskie later claimed - and was shown to be justified - that he had faced a 'systematic campaign of sabotage.' As reported by Herbert Alexander, this effort included 'theft of documents, middle-of-the-night phone calls to voters made by impostors claiming to be Muskie canvassers, false items in newspapers, and - the best known incident - a phoney letter, published by New Hampshire's largest newspaper less than two weeks before the New Hampshire primary, claiming that Muskie had humorously condoned an aide's use of the derogatory term 'Canuck' (a description of Americans of French-
Canadian descent). This report2,was calculated to shock this group of New Hampshire voters.
Unfair Practices: Distribution of Television Time
Whereas 'dirty tricks' may be difficult to regulate, there are other forms of unfairness that should be easier to control. For instance, it is important to ensure that opposition candidates and parties are given a proper opportunity to present their case on national television. In the frequent cases where national broadcasting is a public monopoly, the government should not use its control over the airwaves to stifle free and fair debate during an election campaign. The question of what constitutes a reasonable allocation of broadcasting time is discussed later, see Broadcasting Time,Public Broadcasting Allocations and Formulas for Allocating Time.
Draft Only
