National Election Observers : : Election Observation : : Observation : : Nepal Election Portal

Election Observation

National Election Observers

Monitoring of the process by organized national groups acting as independent observers is an essential tool for promoting election integrity. These groups span a wide spectrum of non governmental organizations and other civil society groups, including national and local citizen groups, citizen networks, human rights groups, student associations, professional bodies and religious groups. [1]

They collect information from their observer teams, analyze the democratic conduct of the electoral process, assess the quality of the election and publish their findings. The groups can be effective guardians of election integrity, especially in countries undergoing a transition. Their activities foster transparency and accountability on the part of the electoral administration. They thus help to instill public confidence in the integrity of the process. Codes of conduct for observers set ethical and professional standards for observing elections.

An outstanding example of domestic monitoring can be found in the 1997 elections in Kenya, for which civil society organizations trained more than 28,000 national observers. These were posted at nearly 12,600 polling stations and each vote counting station. Their pervasive presence encouraged voter turnout. [2]

In Indonesia, more than 600,000 national observers covered the 1999 elections and helped ensure the integrity of the election results through their close monitoring of the count. However, in the 2004 presidential elections, Indonesia's General Electoral Commission refused to accredit the Independent Monitoring Committee of the Election (KIPP) because that body had published an observation report on the previous legislative elections without approval from the election authorities. [3]

Some countries impose severe restrictions on the recognition of organized national observation. In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, the law limited national observation to candidates' representatives. Ukraine's Committee of Voters nonetheless deployed thousands of observers accredited as journalists. In that capacity, however, the observers were not entitled to receive copies of electoral documents or to demand that these documents be made public. [4]

In Ethiopia's 2005 parliamentary elections, the country's electoral management body limited the access of national observers, an action that was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled against the electoral management body but the decision was not handed down until the day before the election, when it was too late for national observers to effectively carry out their monitoring activities on a large scale. [5]

Benefits of National Observation
In a few cases the presence of international observers is indispensable—for instance, elections in countries requiring a peacekeeping force or undergoing a difficult transition, or where non-partisan civil society groups are virtually non-existent or non-functional. In the long term, however, the forming of domestic groups that are able to monitor their own elections without external assistance is an essential part of democratic development.

National election observers have important advantages over international observers. They can more easily turn out in large numbers, even in the thousands. They know the political culture, language and territory. Consequently, they are capable of seeing many things that may pass unnoticed by foreign observers. [6]

National monitoring groups are often better equipped than international observers to carry out particular types of specialized monitoring efficiently. Examples include verifying the voter registry, monitoring the complaints process, documenting instances of intimidation and human rights violations, and media monitoring. And unlike international observers, national civic organizations have an important role to play in implementing civic education programs and promoting electoral law reform. [7]

Accrediting Observers
Observers and monitors can function more effectively if they are officially accredited by the electoral management or policy-making body. Accreditation gives them access to election sites. Integrity problems may arise if accreditation procedures or requirements are used to limit the number of observers, or to deny access to certain groups of observers or monitors. If the procedure is too time-consuming and cannot be completed before election day, or if accreditation is selective, the process will lose credibility and the election management body will be accused of having something to hide.

Most electoral systems establish eligibility requirements for observers and monitors in the election laws or procedures. Straightforward and objective requirements can help minimize problems such as discrimination or favouritism that might inadvertently result from subjective accreditation. Some election management bodies add behaviour conditions to the eligibility requirements. These are generally used to exclude persons considered to be anti-democratic. In South Africa, for example, accreditation is provided only to observers who will uphold conditions conducive to a free and fair election, including impartiality and independence from any political party or candidate contesting the election, competent and professional observation, and adherence to the code of conduct for observers.

Security Problems and National Observation
In countries undergoing a difficult transition or in post-conflict societies, national observers may be targets for intimidation or threats. This situation may affect the observers' ability to travel, observe freely and report on the information collected without self-censorship or fear of retribution. For example, one report on the 1998 national elections in Cambodia states, "Threats, intimidation and violence were daunting challenges to the Cambodian observers during this year's election process. None of the groups suggested that their ability to release public statements was compromised by the political environment. They noted, though, that intimidation affected their ability to gather information on the process and that threats coloured the reports ... received from observers." [8]

« Back to contents

Notes:
[1] Bjornlund, Eric C., Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

[2] Barkan, Joel and Ng'ethe, Njuguma, "Kenya Tries Again," Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 1998.

[3] Carter Center, The Carter Center 2004 Indonesia Election Report, June 2005.

[4] Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ukraine, Presidential Election: 31 October, 21 November and 26 December 2004. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, Warsaw, May 2005.

[5] Carter Center, Final Statement on the Carter Center Observation of the Ethiopia 2005 National Elections, September 2005.

[6] Carothers, Thomas, "The Observers Observed," Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 1997, p. 25.

[7] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, The Future of International Electoral Observation: Lessons Learned and Recommendations, 1999.

[8] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Asian Monitoring Network Conference, October 1998.

Source:
ACE Project Website - http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/ei/eid/eid05