Abstract
© MUKHAMMADSHARIF MAMATKULOV / Alamy Stock Photo
Election observation has become an important part of ensuring democracy around the world. But how does it work and what do the observers actually do?
Standing in the snow in Shakhrisabz, Uzbekistan, listening to the national anthem is rather an odd way to start a day. But this was the ceremony on the steps of the polling station before it opened for business in December 2019. Shakhrisabz was the centre of our ‘area of observation’, from where our small team would visit voting places and watch ballots being counted and totals recorded as part of an Election Observation Mission during Uzbekistan’s Parliamentary contest.
Over the day that followed, our team of four – two observers, a driver and an interpreter – recorded findings, sending them electronically to the mission headquarters in Tashkent. There the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) core team would gain a growing overview of what was happening on the ground. This was election observation in action.
Observing elections
Uzbekistan was not my only experience as an election observer. I have observed votes in North Macedonia, Serbia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Some things are constant wherever you are. Polling days are always long. Teams will be watching from before the polling station doors open right through to the votes being counted and results recorded. Before the day, campaigns will have been studied, media coverage monitored, and party officials interviewed. On the day, teams will be visiting different polling places looking at how ID is checked, whether there is enough information, how the voting area is laid out, whether people are voting in secret, how disabled people are able to take part properly, whether there is any influence on voters.
Election observers always notice practices that differ from those at home too. The differences can be quite considerable. For example, in many countries there is a complete ban on polling day advertising and campaigning. Contrast this to election day in the UK, when leaflets can start hitting the doormats before dawn and it is difficult to avoid people with rosettes. Many countries ban any party’s attempt to note who has voted. In the UK tellers take details and then campaigners knock on our doors if we haven’t been. All the elections I have observed have involved see-through ballot boxes. In the UK ours are black. And while in the UK we transport ballot boxes to big counting halls, everywhere I have observed sees the ballot papers counted in each polling station, with those very local results recorded and published.
Despite the differences seeming strange, we are there not to notice difference, but to see whether what should happen is happening. This means getting up to speed on relevant election laws and processes, and keeping an eye out for practices such as public voting (demonstrating to an official that you have voted the ‘right way’) or family voting (one family member telling another how to vote).
Power of observation
But what is the point of this activity? Observers don’t intervene. What happens, happens. And by the time any lengthy critical report is written, the election is all done and dusted.
The organisations involved, however, will point to a wide range of democratic benefits. The presence of observers can add confidence to the election process. The system helps states make changes to election laws and processes to improve future polls. This isn’t quite ‘what gets measured gets done’. But it is what gets seen (usually) gets better. The mere fact of an observation can invite self-criticism. And reports usually include recommendations for changes to parts of the system, including media regulation, campaign finance and processes. As the Carter Center in the US explains: ‘On election day, credible and impartial observers can strengthen an electoral process by reassuring voters they can safely and secretly cast their ballots and electoral fraud will be detected’. Carothers (2004) goes further: ‘Election observers not only publicise electoral fraud but sometimes help prevent it. Out of fear of being caught by foreign observers, political authorities may abandon plans to rig elections.’
Marta Regalia studied the effect of election observation on the 2004 Presidential elections in Ukraine. The contest took place in two rounds. A first round eliminated all bar the final two, with the second round as a run-off. In this case, however, reports of electoral fraud on behalf of the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, who at this point managed a narrow win, led to protests and the so-called Orange Revolution. The Supreme Court invalidated the second round and ordered a re-run. Election observers from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) were present for each round. The organisation had already noticed that the then Prime Minister (Yanukovych) and outgoing President (Leonid Kuchma) were using the State apparatus in an attempt to intimidate the main opponent, the pro-European Viktor Yushchenko. A report also made the point that observers reported many kinds of electoral malpractices and thus they were able to both detect and deter fraud. The re-run became an event of considerable international interest.
Regalia was able to compare results from polling stations which had been unobserved with those observed during the voting. She did this for the first and second rounds. There was a random element to the observation, with polling stations covered across the country, that made the data significant. Regalia reported that ‘we have seen that, holding all else constant, OSCE/ ODIHR observers did in fact reduce fraud at the [polling stations] they visited since Yanukovych performed significantly worse (and Yushchenko significantly better) in observed [polling stations].’
Who takes part in an election observation mission?
The ‘core team’ is made up of experts who may specialise in analysing an area such as media or election law, or who may specialise in operations. ‘Long-term observers’ oversee a particular area. They observe prepolling day activity such as campaign rallies. They talk to relevant people such as party staff and election officials. They co-ordinate and brief ‘short-term observers’. Short-term observers generally come for a week and observe polling day, the count and the tabulation process. They produce regular reports and feed into a report about the wider area
Local support staff include drivers or interpreters and assistants who work with all the teams. Core team members apply directly to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Long- and shortterm observers generally apply to a national focal point (in the UK this is the Westminster Foundation for Democracy). The ODIHR works out how many observers are needed and asks States to provide them. There is a limit on how many observers each state can provide.
The language of the missions is English. There is an on-line training course provided by ODIHR. National organisations also organise training for observers and would-be observers.
Source: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
History of election observation
Election observation or monitoring is not new. Eric Brahm tells us that the first election with international monitors was in 1857 when a plebiscite in Moldavia and Wallachia saw representatives from six nations overseeing things. It is after the end of the Cold War though that election observation has become a lot more common. Today, a wide range of organisations are involved, from the African Union to the Commonwealth, the Carter Center in the US to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. And more than 50 organisations have signed up to a Declaration of Principles and Code of Conduct which underlines both the fundamental importance of fair elections and the key role of observation:
International election observation expresses the interest of the international community in the achievement of democratic elections, as part of democratic development, including respect for human rights and the rule of law. International election observation, which focuses on civil and political rights, is part of international human rights monitoring and must be conducted on the basis of the highest standards for impartiality concerning national political competitors and must be free from any bilateral or multilateral considerations that could conflict with impartiality.
The increase in the number of observations has likewise led to a growing library of reports.
Key to the system is consent. A government has to be willing to be observed, has to invite the organisations wanting to carry out the work, has to accredit the team, which can be as big as 800 people. Invitations are not always offered. Despite Belarus hosting observers and taking part by sending their own observers elsewhere in the past, the doors were firmly closed for the Presidential contest in 2020. And sometimes restrictions mean observation is not possible. The ODIHR decided not to observe the Russian Duma elections in 2021 when limits on numbers meant it would have been impossible to do the job properly.
By their very nature, election and referendum timings can be unpredictable. There may be a flurry of events around the world at certain points. The staffing demands of the observation system will vary from month-to-month. This means rather than a huge cast of permanent, employed observers, the system relies on a mix of short-term employment contracts and accredited volunteers to carry out the work. Those involved could be academics, analysts, election experts, politicians, civil servants, diplomats, local government officers. They bring expertise and interest, and are often recruited and funded by their home government.
Why observe elections?
So why would a government fund its citizens to go overseas to watch someone else’s election? While there may be a general commitment to supporting democracy, foreign policy interests often come into play. This can affect whether a nation sends observers and how many observers it sends. Election observation is seen as a natural part of foreign policy. This has most recently been highlighted by the UK Government’s Global Britain Review which commits to supporting ‘strong, transparent and accountable political processes and institutions overseas’ with this work ‘bolstered by a new UK capability to support election observation and activity to strengthen existing multilateral efforts’. National interests may also relate to demographics at home. A large Canadian observer contingent in Ukraine in 2019 was linked to a sizeable Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, for example.
In the UK we get used to reports of foreign elections including a comment on what international observers thought. We may think those states need keeping an eye on as they are new to democracy. They don’t after all have the level of experience we do. In fact, we are watched too. The system arranges observers to follow some UK elections. It is interesting to note that in the recommendations from the UK reports campaign funding and political donations are areas highlighted for improvement.
It is easy to assume that all observation involves importing teams from overseas, but many countries have active civil society groups taking part too. Most recently in Serbia (elections April 2022) the Center for Research Transparency and Accountability organised accreditation for more than two thousand citizen observers. Citizen observers are more likely to have an already-existing understanding of processes and culture although may not have the ‘fresh eyes’ of the international visitors. In the US, some states allow non-partisan observers to watch all or part of the process, something democracy campaigners are keen to expand in the wake of the 2020 controversies. The Carter Center’s Democracy Program has also worked inside the US monitoring some elections in tribal nations, those of the Cherokee Nation, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Election observation can be a short and focused activity. We turn up, do the work and leave. Any lasting effect is not the report on what happened, but the follow-up on what could be improved for the future. This is not always a quick process, but it is important. ODIHR experts were in Mongolia in April 2022, for example, to follow up on recommendations from observation reports from a summer 2021 election.
Writing in 1997, Thomas Carothers said that ‘election observation will continue to be an important part of international politics for at least the next five to ten years. Its capacity to detect and deter fraud, and to reinforce shaky electoral processes, will be put to many hard tests in regions such as the former Soviet Union, Africa and Asia’. His five to ten years is something of an under-estimate.
And in snowy Uzbekistan? Observers were back last year for the Presidential contest. The report message so far – some progress but still some way to go.