Free and fair elections face a new kind of
threat. In addition to scheming leaders and compromised electoral commissions,
there is now the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
In
response, a new report published by the British Academy sets out how elections
can be held safely and democratically amid COVID-19. Edited by renowned
political scientist Sarah Birch, it covers a range of topics, including how to
establish health protocols and manage the risk of election violence. The report
sets out the options for international election observers.
 |
| *Election Day in Benin Republic |
Yet
the kind of observation carried out by the Carter Centre, European Union ,
Organisation of American States, and other international organisations
requires flying large numbers of people between countries. It is therefore one
of the election activities threatened by the pandemic.
The
report looks at how the observation industry can best adapt. It concludes that,
instead of simply introducing short-term COVID-19 guidelines and protocols to
get through the crisis, observers should look for new ways to harness
technology and build stronger partnerships between domestic and international
groups.
By
doing this they will be able to both respond to the COVID-19 challenge and more
effectively counter new forms of electoral manipulation.
Importance of election
observation
International
observation has come in for criticism in recent years – sometimes unfairly –
for failing to call out electoral manipulation that was later condemned by the
courts. But it nonetheless remains a vital weapon in the fight against election
rigging. The verdicts of foreign observers carry more weight than those of
their domestic counterparts, and are more likely to prompt international
intervention.
Simply
not observing elections would be the easiest way to manage health risks. But it
would significantly increase a variety of important political risks. In
Burundi, for example, a late requirement that international monitors would be
quarantined made observation impossible. In its absence, there was no
significant attempt by ruling party leaders to stop the intimidation of the
opposition .
Even
when observers do not condemn every electoral abuse, they can highlight and
hence dissuade such explicit human rights violations.
So
what options do observers have to respond to COVID-19? The report finds that
they have a menu of three options to choose from: they can carry on regardless,
observe through expats or work virtually and through partnerships.
Carry on as normal -
carefully
The
most obvious strategy is simply to observe “traditionally” while adopting
strict social distancing protocols. This would involve dispatching teams of
foreign nationals – usually between 15 and 140 people – earlier than usual in
case they must quarantine. It would also mean holding fewer socially distanced
meetings with key groups and individuals in the capital, and taking greater
care when dispersing to polling stations.
Although
this option represents the path of least resistance, it is problematic on
health grounds and could mean no international observation in countries where
the disease is spiking. It also represents a missed opportunity.
The
health risk of flying in international observers is obvious. The missed
opportunity is that the sector needs to adapt to the changing nature of
electoral manipulation. More subtle strategies of rigging and the increasing
digitisation of electoral processes mean that the traditional model of
international observation looks outdated.
By
responding effectively to the pandemic, when constraints on public campaigning
mean that there will be an even greater focus on digital politics, observers
can also build a more effective model for the post-pandemic world.
Read more: As
concerns mount over integrity of US elections, so does support for
international poll monitors
Observe through expats
If
observers are to evolve new ways of working to deal with changing electoral
realities it is essential that they do not simply look for stop-gap responses
to COVID-19 such as working through foreign nationals already resident in the
country.
This
may at first appear to be a tempting option as it would enable observation
groups to tap into a pool of people who would not need to travel, and would
have greater knowledge of the context.
But
it would also generate new problems. Most obviously, people who have spent a
long time in a country may have developed political attachments that mean they
are not seen as being independent. This undermines the fundamental point of
international observation, which is to build teams around people who have no
personal interest in the elections, and so are seen to be neutral.
It
would also encourage observers to continue with business as usual just when
they should be innovating.
Observe virtually and
through partnership
A
more radical alternative is for international observers to reduce the
significance that they place on deploying their own staff on the ground, and to
instead observe “virtually” and through partnerships with domestic
organisations. While international donors already funding domestic civil
society groups, and international observers do engage with their domestic
counterparts, this rarely takes the form of a true partnership. International
and local election observers monitor the tallying of votes in Liberia recently.
EFE-EPA/Ahmed Jallanzo
Adopting
three new ways of working could make observation more effective, both now and
in the future:
- Partnership. Working with domestic
monitors and civil society groups, helping to fund their activities and
then sharing the data collected, would reduce the need to deploy large
numbers of international observers. Given that domestic groups deploy many
more individuals to many more polling stations, working in this way would
enhance both the geographical coverage of international missions and the
resource base of domestic groups.
- Virtual monitoring. With an increasing
proportion of electoral activity taking place digitally and online, it
makes sense for international observers to place greater emphasis on
monitoring digital processes and online spaces such as Twitter and
Facebook.
- Crowd sourcing. Crowd sourcing (and then
verifying) data from individuals on the ground can be a cost effective way
of mapping the extent of electoral manipulation. A good example is how the Ushahidi platform
famously tracked the violence in Kenya's 2007/8 general elections.
By
allowing domestic and international groups to focus on areas in which they have
particular strengths, this option would be more efficient and effective.
Looking to the future
Of
course, observing virtually and through partnership would generate new
logistical challenges and require international observers to recruit new kinds
of skills and experience. Observers would also need to be careful not to
distort the priorities of domestic groups by adopting a rigid funding regime.
But while global intergovernmental organisations don't tend to do this at
present, NGOs such as the Carter Centre and the National Democratic Institute
have been using elements of this strategy for many years. There is no reason
these programmes can't be deepened and extended.
This
approach would also yield other benefits, such as boosting suitability. One of
the aims of the international observation should surely be to make itself
redundant by helping to build the capacity and authority of domestic observers.
This may be a very long-term goal, but it is an important one. In addition to
giving ownership of the process to the citizens concerned, it would also help
to show that criticisms of poor quality electoral processes are not the result
of foreign “meddling”.
Nic Cheeseman does
not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or
organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no
relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
*Nic
Cheeseman, Professor of Democracy, University of Birmingham
No comments:
Post a Comment