Assessing elections in established democracies - Why ODIHR sends observers and experts to countries across the entire OSCE region
The Copenhagen Document of 1990 prescribed for the first time a comprehensive catalogue of standards that countries must respect when organizing an election. All participating States pledged to hold periodic, democratic elections that express the will of the people. And all agreed to invite international observers to monitor their elections.
The observation of elections is among the OSCE’s most high-profile activities. The presence of international observers helps to bolster the electorate’s confidence in the election process, deter fraud and identify possible shortcomings that need fixing.
This has been particularly important in states making the transition to democracy following the end of the Cold War. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has therefore traditionally focused its observation activities on these countries. But recently, and still largely unnoticed by the general public, ODIHR has been increasing the number of election missions it sends to longer-standing democracies with well-established election processes. “In fact, the deployment of assessment missions to countries such as the United States, France or Switzerland has become routine for us,” says Nicolas Kaczorowski, the head of ODIHR’s election department.
A routine for ODIHR perhaps, but in some of the countries that now find themselves subjected to international scrutiny of their democratic credentials, the presence of ODIHR election observers is occasionally met with raised eyebrows, or even outright criticism.
Do the critics have a point? Is it not a waste of tax-payers’ money to send international observers to countries that have proven that they can organize democratic elections? And does the presence of international observers not infringe on national sovereignty?
Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the director of ODIHR, sees two main reasons why long-standing democracies should not be excluded from election observation: “Firstly, all OSCE participating States are under the same obligation to implement election-related commitments and to invite international observers to verify this. And secondly, our experience has shown that established democracies are not immune from election-related problems and that they can benefit from international expertise in addressing such problems.”
No participating State is exempt from the commitments made in Copenhagen in 1990: they apply equally to all. Nor can any country fend off scrutiny of its democratic practice by referring to the principles of sovereignty or non-interference into internal affairs. Meeting in Moscow in 1991, a year after the Copenhagen Conference, participating States adopted the groundbreaking provision according to which human rights and democracy commitments, including those related to elections, are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned.
Clear benefits
Strong democracies – countries with a multi-party system, respect for fundamental freedoms, a functioning administration and judiciary, independent media and a pluralistic civil society – would generally be able to detect and remedy election-related problems themselves. So are they inviting ODIHR missions just because they are obliged to?
Far from it. An election assessment is a service from which countries with a long-standing democratic history can clearly benefit. While outright electoral fraud such as ballot box stuffing or the falsification of results is extremely rare in well-developed electoral systems, ODIHR missions have often identified issues such as party and campaign financing, access to the media, complaints mechanisms and electronic voting provisions as meriting reform in established democracies.
Our added value is the external independent expertise we bring to the process. This serves to draw attention to existing weaknesses that have not been addressed adequately. And it can result in initiating or renewing the momentum of electoral reform processes, also taking into account the experiences made in other countries.
One example where ODIHR’s report linked closely with an ongoing reform process is in Norway. Following every election, Norwegian authorities and parliament review the process with a view to making improvements. After last year’s parliamentary elections, where ODIHR deployed an Election Assessment Mission, authorities worked closely with ODIHR to follow up on the recommendations made. The ODIHR experts’ recommendations included giving consideration to restricting candidates from working in polling stations and reviewing a provision obliging citizens to stand as candidates if nominated, even against their will. Following meetings in both Oslo and Warsaw, the follow-up process culminated in inclusion of such amendments into a larger set of proposed reforms. Norway also presented its follow-up activities to other participating States, sharing its experience and model for including ODIHR recommendations in electoral reform processes.
Refining observation tools
Standard election observation missions with hundreds of short-term observers deployed to monitor election-day proceedings are neither useful nor necessary for countries with high levels of public confidence in the electoral process and little concern about irregularities during the voting and vote-count.
With this in mind, ODIHR has refined its methodology and developed a variety of election mission formats tailored to different needs. The options available now range from large-scale observation missions looking at the entire election process to small expert teams focusing only on aspects identified as being potentially problematic.
The geographic location of a country or the length of its democratic tradition play no role in ODIHR’s decision on the format of an election mission, stresses Lenarčič. East or West, long-standing democracy or new democracy – these categories are not important to us. We only look at the facts, and we look at each country individually.
What determines our decision is the legal and institutional framework in place and the level of confidence the electorate and the candidates have in the process.
International scrutiny of national elections is well on the way to becoming a well-established practice across the entire OSCE region. In fact, only a handful of OSCE participating States have not had one of their elections assessed by ODIHR. The openness shown by countries with long democratic traditions is of benefit not only to them but also to others, says Lenarčič. As mature and self-confident democracies, they can serve as positive examples for countries that still meet election observation with suspicion and fear of international interference.