Second Annual Conference in Teslic

Page 6

Dear Colleagues and Conference Participants,

The nationalization of election administration under the aegis of the international community in post-conflict societies should be placed at the crossroads of two most recent political development of the post-cold war period. On the one hand, peacekeeping operations and democracy development have been accompanied by increasing international support at electoral assistance (political, financial and technical). On the other hand, an institutional prototype of election administration is taking the lead worldwide in the form of electoral commissions, which are independent from the executive branch of government, have a permanent nature and are staffed with professional civil servants.

It is the contention of this presentation that challenges and prospects for nationalization of election administration in a given polity should be envisaged in the light of those wider developments, which are taking place worldwide. In fact, they are the lessons learned from a variety of experiences which would allow for a correct assessment of the magnitude of relevant transitional problems in a given election administration (i.e. scope of the authority of electoral bodies, independence and neutrality in conducting elections, recruitment and salary structure of electoral officials, and cost of elections).

A conclusion is reached in the sense that the quality of a new national election administration would very much depend on the institutional shape it takes and its organizational structure. These factors will largely determine the neutrality, managerial capacity and operational costs of the electoral bodies, which, in their turn, will affect the legitimacy of the democratic regime, and the likelihood for periodically held genuine democratic elections.

The Role of International Assistance to Elections

In the post-cold war democratization environment, elections and electoral management have transcended national borders to become an international endeavor in a variety of ways: a) political, financial and technical assistance from donor governments and international organizations (often coupled with election observer missions, long and short term); b) professional networking among electoral authorities from various countries and regions of the world; and c) development of a corpus of normative orientations (rules and guidelines) on the what and how of genuine democratic electoral practice.

The international community has played different roles in democratization processes of different countries. Its intervention has generally been considered effective in facilitating the democratization process and, in particular, the establishment of electoral bodies. In the context of peacekeeping operations, the international community has sometimes taken over the organization of elections (i.e. the 1993 UN mission in Cambodia, and the current OSCE missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Kosovo, and Eastern Slavonia). In other cases, a high profile role was played in the organization of elections in the context of the application of peace accords (i.e. Namibia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mozambique, Liberia and Haiti). More common situations involve international financial and technical assistance to national authorities for the organization of elections in emerging and new democracies.

A different, but related phenomenon is the recent expansion of international professional associations of electoral authorities in several regions of the world. In the Americas, a number of such organizations exist: the Association of Electoral Institutions of Central America and the Caribbean (Asociacion de Organizaciones Electorales de America Central y el Caribe), created under the so-called Protocol of Tikal; the Association of Latin American Electoral Tribunals, created under the so-called Protocol of Quito; and the Inter-American Union of Electoral Institutions (Union Interamericana de Organismos Electorales), which integrates the former two associations and includes also Mexico, the United States and Canada. In democratizing eastern and central Europe as well as Africa, associations were recently created under the auspices of the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES): the Association of Central and Eastern European Elections Officials (ACEEEO), established in 1991, and the Association of African Election Authorities (AAEA), which was endorsed by 14 countries of the region and established in 1997. In Asia, there is the Association of Asia Election Authorities (AAEA). In the Pacific region, there is an Association of Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand Electoral Administrators (PIANZEA). In addition, there is also a Commonwealth Association of Election Officers, and two U.S.-based international bodies: the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT), and the International Institute for Municipal Clerks (IIMC). Last but not least, there is this Association of Election Officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina (AEOBiH). All these associations have been active in organizing regional conferences and workshops for election officials.

Finally, relevant documents with guidelines on the conduct of elections setting international standards of good practice have been developed, issued or endorsed among others by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the British Commonwealth, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Moreover, field reports from international assistance agencies such as United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) almost unanimously point in the same direction.

The Importance of Election Management Bodies

The crucial importance of election management bodies in the establishment and consolidation of democracy could hardly be overstated. In a discussion paper recently published by UNDP and authored by myself, two main arguments are presented. First, electoral management bodies (EMBs) worldwide are increasingly shaped according to a model of electoral commissions that are both permanent and independent from the executive branch. Second, electoral administration that relies on permanent and professional staff is more cost-effective than ad hoc electoral bodies or commissions comprising exclusively temporary staff. Significant empirical evidence in support of these arguments is presented.

Regarding the first argument, the direction of constitutional and electoral reform worldwide provides conclusive evidence that independent and permanent electoral commissions that are fully responsible for the conduct of elections constitute the most favoured model of electoral administration. This is followed, though at a distance, by a model in which the government runs the election, but a supervisory independent commission exists with some regulatory, surveillance and adjudication capacities on the conduct of elections. Under both models of electoral administration, the commissions are frequently composed totally or partly of representatives of political parties. Elections run exclusively by the executive branch constitute a category grounded more on historical reasons than on current needs. This paper presents a taxonomy that classifies 148 countries by region of the world, according to the type of electoral administration.

Historically speaking, elections exclusively managed by the executive branch are a residual category, not only in number, but also as a developmental pattern. Of the 27 most stable democracies in the second half of this century, only seven countries have this type of electoral authority, all of them in north-western Europe, plus Switzerland, and they constitute 25% of all older democracies. A different pattern emerges in the remaining countries, where democracy was established later or where a transition to democracy is in progress. In this latter group, only one out of five countries has elections run exclusively by the executive branch. In contrast to countries with a longer democratic tradition and a centralized government-that is, countries in continental Europe and former colonies either from the French centralized tradition or in the British Commonwealth-government-run elections are very unlikely in new democracies. Furthermore, electoral reform in newly democratic societies and in some older democracies almost invariably moves in the direction of establishing, at least in law, independent electoral commissions, either with full responsibility for the electoral process or with supervisory powers over elections run by the executive branch.

Patterns of Electoral Administration Worldwide

Institutional Models	North America, Western Europe (%)	Latin America, Caribbean (%)	Asia and the Pacific (%)	Middle East and the Magreb (%)	East and Central Europe (%)	Sub-Saharan Africa (%)	TOTAL (%)	Number of Cases per Institutional Model
Government runs the elections	43	12	30	45	-	8	20	29
Government under supervisory authority	43	18	7	33	33	39	27	40
Independent electoral commission	14	70	63	22	67	53	53	79
TOTAL	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Number of cases per region	21	34	30	9	18	36	148	148

Source: UNDP. 2000. Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance. Pg. 25

Cost and Operation of an Electoral Administration

Concerning the second argument, that permanent electoral bodies with a staff of professionals are more efficient than temporary bodies, some conclusive evidence is provided by variations in electoral budgets (average cost per elector) relative to the duration of their experience in organizing elections. Some preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the data of some 50 countries collected for that paper. One main factor in cost variations worth mentioning is the extent of previous experience with multi-party elections. Significant discrepancies exist among the costs of elections in stable democracies, those in transitional systems, and those that take place in the context of special peacekeeping operations. Elections in countries with more experience of multi-party elections are consistently less costly than in those where multi-party elections constitute a new undertaking. Interestingly enough, this tends to be the case regardless of the region of the world, the level of economic development and whether elections were interrupted by periods of military rule. As a statistical trend, the least costly elections are held in countries with lengthy electoral experience: the United States and most western European countries; Chile, Costa Rica and Brazil in Latin America; Botswana and Kenya in Africa; India and Pakistan in Asia; and Australia. At the other extreme, elections held as part of broader peacekeeping operations, as could be expected, are the costliest.

Getting a world average would pay little tribute to reality and be of no great help for interpretation. The average cost per registered voter varies from around $0.50 in Ethiopia, Georgia and Pakistan to around $10 and over for elections in Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Palestine and South Africa. Most of the remaining countries lie somewhere in between and around three main clusters: those with costs per elector close to $1 like the United States, most Western European countries, some of Latin America and Africa; those with costs close to $3, like most of Latin America, some of Africa, and some of Asia and the Pacific; and, finally, countries with costs ranging around $5 to $6, like Switzerland, Mexico, Cambodia in 1998, Kenya and Liberia. Thus, election costs vary not only between countries of different regions but also within any one region of the world.

Different from costs but not independently from them, there are other important questions at the managerial/technical level, such as these: how extensive a bureaucratic organization is required for effective and efficient conduct of the polls? Which would be more suitable - a centralized or decentralized organization? What is the role of new technologies in election management? In a summary way, some tentative answers can be advanced.

On bureaucracy: it is not as important to have a large organization as it is to have an administrative machine that is adequate to the political, geographic, and financial circumstances of the country. Less debatable is the question of permanence and professionalism (endurance, standardized recruitment and training procedures, etc.). The maintenance of a civil service type of organization has historically proved more effective and efficient than ad hoc bodies in practically all fields of collective services involving large populations and the massive use of resources. How could it be different with elections?

On the concentration of authority: whatever the model of administration formally defined in the law, two main factors necessitate a measure of decentralization. The first is the massive nature of elections, the second, the holding of local elections in almost every democracy. A rule of thumb in this domain would be that of centralized authority and decentralized management.

Finally, on the use of new telecommunications and computer technologies: these are here to stay, if only because of their declining costs and ever-growing capacities. By their mere existence, they put pressure on the administration of elections at its different stages: registration, voting, and counting; not to speak of office management. Nevertheless, new technologies by themselves will not improve the integrity and acceptability of electoral systems-lack of transparency and mistrust must also be overcome. It would always be wise to take into consideration the condition of the political process before adopting any new technology, most importantly, by including the political stakeholders in the decision making process, as well as in the application of the new technologies.

Lessons Learned

Among lessons learned from recent experience as recorded by the aforementioned paper are the following:

1. As electoral commissions prove to be vital for the sustainability of democratic government, they would be better protected legally if enshrined in constitutions rather than regulated only by ordinary law.
2. Electoral legislation, including the status and composition of electoral bodies, is more widely accepted and effective when all political parties participate in its drafting.
3. An electoral authority can be party-based and still operate neutrally and independently. Where there is no other tradition or existing body of widely respected and independent civil servants, a multi-party composition may better guarantee a balanced approach. A mixture of judges and political party representatives or nominees is common both in electoral commissions of new democracies and in the supervisory bodies of countries where elections are managed by the Ministry of Interior or Home Affairs.
4. Strong leadership by electoral bodies is important particularly at the early stage of democratization.
5. Commissions with a very large membership are usually less effective and efficient than bodies with a smaller number of commissioners.
6. Experience with multi-party elections clearly facilitates the introduction of cost-effective administration of the polls; this is an unequivocal lesson stemming from the experience of managing elections, in favour of permanent electoral bodies as repositories of managerial capacities.
7. The question of the role of permanent commissions between election periods is frequently raised in consolidating democracies. During these intervals, commissions should maintain and update voter lists, develop regulations, organize by-elections and eventually hold mid-term local elections. Other activities can center on voter and civic education programs and training of party cadres.
8. It is important to avoid using the electoral administration as an employment program. The system should be devised with a view towards sustainability, and therefore should correspond to the limited financial capabilities of the national government.
9. Political mistrust is expensive. The greater the breach of confidence among contenders at the polls, particularly following civil unrest, the more expensive an election tends to become. Such cases often require expensive measures, such as parallel electoral/surveillance bodies, high-quality ballot materials, financial incentives to the parties, and costly international observer missions. Paradoxically, investment in independent permanent commissions to dispel mistrust by parties can directly reduce some of these other types of costs.

How Difficult is Transition from International to National Election Management?

A host of problems arise on the transition road towards a national administration. There are no two countries whose experiences are equal to each other, and on top of that there are not so many places where an international administration was directly and fully in charge of elections (i.e. Cambodia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Eastern Slavonia, and Kosovo). This notwithstanding, there are some problems in common among these cases and also between the later and those where the international community had a heavy presence in the running of elections (i.e. several countries in Central America, Eastern Europe and Southern Africa). These problems are most often related with the design of the institutional model, operational costs and the development of a civil service type of election staff (recruitment, training, salaries and career development patterns). Most of these have already been summarily dealt with earlier in this presentation. I will just list some of them now and have them briefly commented for the sake of further discussion.

1. Transfer of responsibility and authority: An incremental approach is recommended for the discussion, decision and implementation of the institutional design. All relevant political actors should be involved in the exercise.
2. Securing the non-politicization of administration: This should refer not to acting in a partisan manner rather than letting the political parties totally outside of, or uninvolved in the election administration. A variety of institutional and operational patterns can be taken into consideration, and yet the principle remains that the main players in elections should have influence regarding who conducts elections and how elections are conducted.
3. Education of national staff: civil service experiences in this and other countries shall be taken into account for the development of a body of national professional electoral officials. International assistance may be welcome for this development.
4. A salary structure for normal times of a national civil administration: the rule of thumb is that permanent electoral officials shall be paid according to same or similar standards than the bulk of civil servants. Electoral officers hired for the electoral period or just the polling operation are usually subject to either common labor contract or per diem payments.

There is still the all-encompassing question of how would it be possible to maintain the same quality of election administration when the election budget is a fraction of that of the international administration, OSCE or another? Letting aside the burning point of how high quality has been characterizing the international administration of election operations, three main points could be brought about in responding the all-encompassing question:

First, quality electoral administration is not necessarily related (and rather probably unrelated) to high expenditure electoral budgets. Reference can be made to a large number of cases included in the UNDP Discussion Paper (India and Uruguay among others can be considered as proverbially illustrative to the point). On a massive scale, it is the stability of the democratic system and the experience at organizing elections that make election administration high quality and cost effective.

Second, more specifically, integrated, strategic and operational planning are cost reducing management tools easily available today for the electoral authorities of any country.

Third, the single most important cost-cutting measure is probably continuous voter registration, which is made easier after the first or second elections.

Concluding Remark

There are no simple answers to the challenges facing the development of a national election administration. It all depends on the basic conditions of state and democracy building, (both political and organizational) as much as on the will for developing strategic definitions and organization models suitable to needs (objective and perceived) in the electoral arena. Some clues in this domain are: a) sensitivity to the cleavage structure and political pluralism of the polity; b) following an incremental approach to problem solving; c) being open to the mood of the times (independent, permanent and professional commission is the model). How successful could one be? Only time and experience will definitely tell. For the time being, quite encouraging answers seem to emerge from ongoing research on the historical development of electoral bodies as well as on the relationship between the quality of an electoral administration and the legitimization of democratic government and the continuing prospects for genuine democratic elections.

Question and Answer Session

Q: Is it possible to outline any significant correlation between the number of registered voters and the number of administrators engaged in the election administration?

A: The size of an election administration varies a lot according to many relations. For example, the distress characterizing the political environment is one important parameter. We cannot say that you need a certain number of permanent administrators per voters, as this depends so much on the political dimension involved. Election officers in most countries are simply citizens who are chosen - or forced by law - to participate in elections. There are, however, situations where even people at the basic level (e.g. polling station level) will have to be paid and carefully chosen. Why is that? It is usually because of political reasons. Let me mention a recent example. In Mexico, the last 3-4 elections have been increasingly democratic. In the last election the Mexican Election Commission decided to cut through all discussions concerning the selection of impartial election administrators as the selection process was developing into a difficult and politically tense problem. The Election Commission simply said: lets avoid all the complications associated with the selection of administrators - all Mexicans born in April should register with the Election Commission and take up their duty as administrator. It worked and all talk and rumors about favoritism ended.

Q: What can we learn from other countries where the international community has been in charge of elections?

A: It is difficult to draw lessons from cases like Cambodia and Kosovo as they are very different from each other. It would probably make more sense to draw on experiences from the many places where the international community has been heavily involved in supervision - Namibia, Nicaragua, South Africa, Mozambique, etc. In general the experience with heavily international involvement in elections is positive. The important thing to keep in mind is that the presence of the international community can help deter violence and build confidence into the election process. A supervisory role is probably as effective - if not more - than having the international community running the elections completely. I'm not blaming the international community, but only trying to convey the message: the less the international community is involved in running the elections the better for the electoral process it is.

Q: What kind of registration system would be suitable for BiH?

A: This is a difficult, but important, question. In most countries the registration data is generated automatically through monthly/yearly submission - often by municipalities - of data to the election commission. The model to be developed in BiH must rely on existing registers available to the administration. The voter register must be integrated into an existing register. A separate system for registration of voters is not viable. It should be mentioned here that police records are seldom linked to a wider registration system for a good reason.