The following excerpt is from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) white paper “Countering Hate Speech in Elections: Strategies for Electoral Management Bodies.” The full paper is available here.

IFES’ white paper, “Countering Hate Speech in Elections: Strategies for Electoral Management Bodies,” aims to help election management bodies (EMBs) better understand the range of issues surrounding hate speech during the electoral cycle and the regulatory and non-regulatory options that may be brought to bear. The opening of the briefing paper summarizes applicable international standards, foremost the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); discrimination based on race, gender, and disability are also highlighted.

This summary is supplemented by a discussion of national legislation that may directly or indirectly deal with the issues of hate speech, incitement to hatred, and hate crimes. EMBs are primarily concerned with constitutional provisions, election law, political party law, and legislation governing media and elections. At the same time, EMBs should be aware of all the legal and regulatory instruments that may come into play. By doing so, EMBs can identify other responsible regulatory, oversight, and enforcement bodies with whom to share information and coordinate a response.

EMBs need to be aware that regulatory responses to hate speech are controversial in that they involve restrictions on access to information, free speech, and even political and electoral rights. Fundamental guarantees such as free speech and anti-discrimination can come into conflict with each other and can be difficult to balance. As such, EMBs will need to tread carefully.

Moreover, regulatory responses are fraught with a range of other potential problems, including definitional issues, implementation and enforcement challenges, and politicization and abuse of the law. EMBs will face additional considerations including the centrality of free speech and competing ideas to election campaigns, the need to maintain neutrality and treat candidates equally, the application of appropriate and proportionate penalties, and the need to provide for a safe electoral environment.

This paper also makes the point that incitement of hate directed against women in the electoral process is indeed hate speech, as some national and international definitions tend to leave gender/sex out of the definition. The authors refer to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems’ (IFES) comprehensive violence against women in elections (VAWIE) framework to address physical and psychological violence and intimidation against women.

The remainder of the briefing paper looks at non-regulatory options available to EMBs and emphasizes the importance of external stakeholder outreach and collaboration as follows:

Engage other stakeholders: Making inroads against hate speech will be contingent upon forming strategic partnerships and alliances, and working collaboratively. To achieve greater scope, scale, and sustainable success, EMB strategies to counter hate speech will need to leverage the existing mandates, capabilities, and resources of government institutions, independent agencies, and civil society.

Model good behavior: The baseline of any EMB strategy to combat hate speech should be to ensure that it does not engage in or tolerate discrimination or hateful speech toward any individual or group by the members of the institution or any of its election staff (permanent and temporary). This modeling behavior will extend to human resources practices, internal and external communications, the substance of regulations, the provision of services, the content and delivery of public information and voter education messages, the handling of complaints and appeals, and advocacy directed at electoral reforms.

Speak out against discrimination and hatred:  As public officials, EMB chairpersons and commissioners have a platform from which to speak out against hate speech. By speaking out, EMB leaders can help to raise awareness of hate speech and its consequences, which, in turn, can help to mobilize a public response. EMB leaders, especially when they have public confidence, are well-positioned to explain the dangers of hate speech and incitement to hatred to the electoral process and democracy.

Open space for pluralistic public dialogue: EMBs are in a position to create opportunities and promote activities that expand public dialogue and debate during election campaigns. This may involve providing airtime to a diverse set of stakeholders. EMBs should support public forums, such as televised candidate debates, town hall meetings, and roundtable discussions, that are designed to promote issue-based discussions.

Contribute to learning: EMBs face a challenge in designing and delivering better strategies, programs, and messages during elections when information is lacking about the extent to which various electoral stakeholders understand hate speech and how this affects their mindsets and behaviors. Investments in public opinion surveys and focus groups can help EMBs better understand how, in what manner and to what extent speech impacts behavior. Research is also essential to understanding what counter strategies are effective in a given context.

Monitor, collect and report data: The collection, monitoring, and reporting of data on the occurrence of hate speech, as with instances of electoral violence, will also be essential to developing and putting into place effective risk-mitigation strategies and security plans, as well as informing investigation and adjudication processes. Government agencies and civil society actors may be involved in this process.

Mitigate risk through security planning: EMBs should apply available data on hate speech to mitigate electoral violence and safeguard the security of all electoral stakeholders. EMBs will need to engage various security actors in joint security planning and implementation. When police act as perpetrators or supporters of hate speech in elections, EMBs will need to collaborate with human rights commissions or police oversight commissions to hold them accountable. EMBs should also engage organizations and service providers addressing gender-based violence to effectively respond to the differential forms of violence against women and men in the electoral process.

Adjudicate effectively and responsibly: If EMBs are responsible for adjudicating cases involving hate speech and incitement to hate during election campaigns, EMBs will need to avoid the pitfalls encountered by other judicial and administrative bodies. These include slow adjudication, broad interpretation, inconsistent jurisprudence, political bias, legal overreach and abuse, disproportionate penalties, and non-compliance with international obligations.

Train electoral stakeholders: Typically, EMBs are involved in training a range of electoral stakeholders from their own personnel to political party representatives, candidates and their surrogates, NGOs, and the media. Training programs should integrate themes relating to human rights, voting rights, non-discrimination, gender equality, protected and prohibited speech, what constitutes hate speech and incitement of hatred, and obligations under national law and international instruments.

Raise awareness and educate voters: Public information campaigns and voter education programs provide accurate information that dispel myths and misconceptions. Such efforts can help voters identify and address intolerance in their own lives and recognize and resist hate speech purveyed by officials, candidates and their supporters, and the media. Longer-term civic education is also important to raising civic literacy levels and reducing the public’s vulnerability to hate speech and calls to violence.

The use of hate speech during elections is a dynamic and rapidly evolving issue. Its scope and complexity will require a strategic approach that connects with and mutually reinforces the efforts of a range of stakeholders. Regulatory solutions can be controversial, difficult to reconcile when fundamental rights come into conflict, and their effectiveness is limited. As such, EMBs would be well advised to explore non-regulatory solutions in collaboration with both state and non-state actors. To date, rigorous quantitative research about how distinct populations understand and react to (or act upon) hate speech and about the effectiveness of counter measures in specific country contexts is limited. Comparative practice of EMBs is not readily accessible to the broader community of election practitioners, nor is information about how EMBs have successfully leveraged the experience of other government bodies or civil society.

To better capture and disseminate learning about effective strategies and successful multi-stakeholder efforts, IFES invites EMBs and practitioners to share their experiences with [email protected].