The 7^th Global Forum on Reinventing Government: Building Trust in Government, held in Vienna, Austria, from 25-29 June 2007, facilitated a workshop on electoral dispute resolution mechanisms. The workshop was attended by distinguished participants such as chairpersons and members of Electoral Commissions from countries and regions around the world as well as well as representatives of international organizations such as OSCE/ODIHR, UN, UNDP, International IDEA, NDI, IFES, EISA, IDASA, ACEEEO, ENEMO and ERIS.

The workshop provided an opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences on various aspects of electoral dispute resolution such as: international standards, best practices, formal and informal mechanisms to solve electoral disputes concerning electoral results. Four sessions were held consisting of a short presentation made by the panelists, a Q&A session and open group discussion.

Workshop Findings

• A comprehensive approach to electoral dispute resolution (EDR) must consider the entire electoral cycle
• EDR systems should be designed in a way to enable relevant bodies to exercise their duties throughout the electoral period
• EDR mechanisms must include both political EDR systems and legal EDR systems

Political EDR systems are those where a political assembly is ultimately responsible for judging electoral related disputes, often through certification of elections results.

Legal EDR systems may consist of various models, such as:

• Constitutional Courts or Constitutional Councils
• Specialized electoral courts: courts with a specific mandate to resolve electoral disputes.
• Judicial EDR systems: where complaints and appeals are handled by ordinary courts of justice
• Administrative EDR systems: disputes are handled by administrative bodies (usually EMBs) with final election decisions powers.  
• Ad hoc provisional bodies: established domestically or by the international community to resolve a specific electoral conflict or deal with transitional elections

Each country chooses the system best suited to its circumstances.  In doing so, there are five criteria to consider while setting up mechanisms to increase confidence and trust in the electoral process, those called to administer it, and those elected from it. These principles include:

• Independence and impartiality in the establishment of EDR bodies
• Accountability and transparency
• Integrity and professionalism
• Clear and enforceable sanctions
• Procedural principles and actions in regards to swift consideration of complaints, possibility of appeal, public hearings, and decisions based on legal frameworks

In addition, political will and engaged political parties are ultimately necessary for any EDR mechanism to function effectively. Political parties participate in elections on the basis of accepting the rules of the game. Therefore they must address complaints through EDR mechanisms and accept the final decision. 

Discussions

Workshop discussions underlined the recent attention given to the use of conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution techniques in the field of EDR. These techniques often fall outside core electoral legal mechanisms and are founded on political rather than legally binding methods, such as codes of conduct for political parties or for domestic observers. Additionally, such mechanisms can include the summoning of political party committees by electoral authorities for consultation purposes or mediation techniques to tackle serious differences among stakeholders on issues related to the electoral process. The use of these strategies and methodologies in the context of electoral processes is new and deserves attention. However, it is also important to emphasize that these strategies should operate in line with the electoral legal framework and in recognition of the role and authority of the institutional mechanisms set up to redress electoral disputes.

The workshop also highlighted the importance of civic and voter education programs which ultimately enhance the credibility of candidates as well. In the future, these programs should contain information regarding EDR mechanisms and provide details about institutions responsible for addressing electoral complaints, appeals and the steps necessary to file them. EDR bodies should enhance transparency of the process by publishing their deliberations and decisions to complement the programs.  And finally, the role for civil society in civic and voter education campaigns should remain central to ensure the increase of overall credibility of the electoral process.

Identified Next Steps:

• A follow-up discussion among partners of the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network project to single out EDR as an in-depth topic area for analysis and reference.
• Further discussion and work are necessary to examine the introduction of conflict prevention techniques and alternative dispute resolution methodologies to electoral managers.
• Discussions should focus on the broader topic of how electoral managers can be oriented and better prepared to help manage conflict and limit violence. 

For further information on the event, including copies of the presentations and background materials and the integral version of the final report on the event, please visit http://sdnhq.undp.org/governance/elecs/edr/index.html.