The principle of 'checks and balances' is, in one respect, similar to that of openness. 'Checks and balances' are not an end in themselves, but an instrument to assure other objectives, such as fairness, controlling corruption, and so forth.
In Lord Acton's famous words: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Control over the administration of the electoral process bestows such a measure of power that it is dangerous to leave it unchecked. The abuse of power may sometimes be deliberate. Incumbent governments and legislators may consciously aim to bend electoral rules to their own advantage. Electoral administrators answerable to them may find it difficult to maintain their neutrality. In addition, even if those in power do not intentionally manipulate the rules, they will be tempted to do so unconsciously. As discussed in Level Playing Field, Fairness, there are so many alternative interpretations of what constitutes 'fairness' that office-holders will be tempted to use the interpretations closest to their partisan interest.
One way to keep the temptations of governments and legislative majorities under control is to vest authority over electoral administration in the hands of civil servants with a strong tradition of political neutrality. An additional method is to ensure that the established power structure is subject to review and to criticism.
The two main 'balances' are:
- political parties and candidates, and
- a free media and press.
Political parties, and candidates for public office have the strongest possible incentive to make sure that their opponents play the political game according to the rules. For instance, if one candidate or one local party organization tries to cheat when it comes to including names on the electoral roll (perhaps by persuading supporters to include the names of former voters who have moved or died), then the opposing candidate or party should investigate the electoral register, and object to names which should not be included. Traditionally, the British system of electoral registration has relied to a considerable extent on political parties to act as detectives of unfair practices.
Similarly, on polling day in Britain, each party organization tries to organize a roster of members to stand outside each polling station. One function of these poll-watchers (who are usually local residents) is to check whether there is any indication of impersonation, or some other manifestation of electoral fraud. The training and deployment of poll-watchers by the competing parties is especially important when elections are being held in a new democracy. If fraud or undue pressure is likely to be observed and reported, then the chances are that there will be fewer attempts to cheat.
The existence of competing political parties is not always a guarantee that they will check each other. Sometimes, opponents will collude in breaking the law. In Britain, there is evidence that spending by candidates of all the main parties in partial elections was, at least until the 1980s, so blatantly above the legally permitted ceiling, that there was a conspiracy of silence. Accusations by one candidate risked triggering counter-accusations. In such situations, the task of blowing the whistle on illegal practices - of providing checks and balances - is left either to candidates of fringe parties or, failing this, to the press.
A free press is often the most important check against electoral malpractice. For instance, regulations about the disclosure of political donations depend for their effectiveness mainly on reports and comments in the newspapers on the information revealed in official documents and files.
Draft Only
