Election policy-making bodies (election commissions, etc.) can legitimately be composed in a non-partisan way, in a multi-partisan way, or through a mixture of both. The same holds true for boundary delimitation committees. The advantage of including party representatives on the commission, especially if decisions are taken by consensus, is that the competitors within the electoral process perceive the umpires to be fairer, and more balanced. Oftentimes the watchdog nature of multi-party electoral bodies is considered enough of a 'checks and balances' guarantee.
A multiparty body ensures that there are strong and direct links to the parties that can assist negotiations when problems or disputes occur, often pre-empting later challenges to the elections results.
However, there are disadvantages inherent within partisan commissions. Bodies that make decisions by consensus can be cumbersome and time consuming. The quality of the nominations may not be on par with those of an independent 'expert' approach. Party nominees may often be obliged to put party interests first before common good interest. Such obligations can cause polarisation and conflict of interests when decisions are made. Nominees have been known to boycott meetings on party instructions. Partisan commissions may be unable to agree on how to change rules, thus leaving practices in place that are widely discredited and that undermine public confidence in the political system. From the perception of smaller parties there can be worries that larger parties will collude to have their agreed initiatives passed at the policy making level thus leaving the smaller parties with no effective voice. Furthermore, in situations where there are a very large number of registered political parties, the size of the commission can become unwieldy and cumbersome.
The 1994 Mozambican elections were an example of a largely partisan commission, governing by consensus, which, while contentious to a certain extent, nonetheless ultimately helped ensure successful and legitimate elections. Similarly, in Liberia (1997), El Salvador (1993, 1997) and Nicaragua (1990, 1996), all emerging from civil war, electoral commissions were party-based in order to pre-empt mistrust in the electoral process.
Party Liaison
Whether or not parties play a role in any aspect of election implementation, there is a strong argument to be made for weekly or regular meetings at all levels with party representatives to ensure a clear understanding and acceptance of the way the elections are conducted. This becomes particularly important when last minute changes, however justified, are made (for example, the late addition of polling stations, voters list alterations, or revised boundary delimitation). Meetings of this type also provide the parties with the opportunity to make comments and suggestions, air complaints and concerns, and 'let off steam'. This can serve to resolve situations before they become major issues as well as to develop mutual sensitivity and understanding between parties and electoral officials.
An 'advisory' or 'consultative' committee can be provided for in the Electoral law, as is the case in Lesotho. The law provides for the establishment of the grouping of one or more representatives from each party, specifies their regular meetings with the commission, and gives them certain rights (such as the inspection of documents).
