Election observers - helpful or useless?
Hume N. Johnson, Contributor

Election observers oversee a ballot being placed into a ballot box.

The notion of election observation, the various tasks it involves, what it ought to be and its usefulness in facilitating change in a particular political sphere, has been the subject of great discussion in international academic circles. Surprisingly, academia in Jamaica seems to have ignored this debate, leaving open the interpretation that consensus exists on the usefulness of observer missions in Jamaica. What are the variables involved in election observation? How useful are these missions in facilitating an unproblematic poll in Jamaica in 2002.

The phenomenon of international election observation is relatively new, having only taken root in practical terms within the last 20 years. Over the last 10 years, however, these missions have developed to the extent that they have now become one of the central instruments of democratisation for many countries.

Since the end of the East-West conflict, many countries, adopting democratic rules and procedures have come to regard the confirmation of the freeness and fairness of their electoral processes and of election results by the international community as both desirable and constructive.

Of note is that the degree of political reconciliation and stability achieved by these observer operations has varied and many have had disputed outcomes. Naturally, this has raised fundamental questions concerning the effectiveness of election monitoring.

For the second time in its election history, Jamaica will invite international election monitors to oversee the country's general election. The 1997 elections saw the first international observer mission operating in Jamaica.

Prior to that, a local organisation called 'Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections' (CAFFE) was promulgated in time for the 1993 General Election. Its intention then was 'to eradicate electoral irregularities and to restore genuinely democratic elections in Jamaica'.

Psychologically, and in terms of people's perception of that election, CAFFE has to be seen as one of the central factors, precipitating the relative non-violence of the 1997 elections and the reduction in the number of cases of election irregularities.

CAFFE's mandate, while ambitious, was also, in practical terms, overstated if one considers how an observer team ought to function. The supposition, (which still obtains today), is that the presence of election observers in any country is almost a prerequisite for the 'freeness' and 'fairness' of their elections. However, in an election, much depends on the judgment of an observer in assessing any number of shortcomings.

Are election observers critical in the Jamaican context? Not critical but useful. Observer missions may have been imperative in the 1970s and in 1980 when Jamaica's general elections would most likely be accompanied by major internal tension, a seemingly endemic political violence and an extraordinary degree of mistrust among the political opponents based on their historical experience as well as basic uncertainty about the outcome of the election.

In 2002 with rising crime, some potentially linked to political activity; fears about political violence and social and economic instability, Jamaica today in election mode, must take stock of the quality of its elections, particularly, the freeness and fairness of the balloting exercise.

The predominant objective of an observer mission is to legitimise the electoral process, enhance respect for basic political, civil and human rights as well as the significance of an election itself.

One of the primary roles of the international election observer is to support a free and fair electoral process by virtue of his/her presence in a particular country. The terms free and fair are rather vague concepts, which are not easily determined.

In fact, the increased use of election observer missions worldwide has intensified the demand for a set of standardised criteria, which must be met if an election is to be considered free and fair.

What is a free and fair election? The concept 'free' entails the opportunity to choose one thing over another. The flip side to this is therefore the presence of coercion, which can be perceived as the absence of choice.

Converted into realistic, practical application, this means that the voter's option to select one party or candidate over another is not allowed or a selection of a particular candidate or party could have disastrous consequences for the individual.

On the other hand, 'fairness is interpreted as impartiality. To be 'partial' would be to accord some people or groups unreasonable advantages. Generally then, fairness and freedom deals primarily with the rules of the game and the voter's opportunity to participate in an election without restrictions or limitation.

It is often claimed that it is more critical to determine how the rules are applied than whether individuals have ideal opportunities. In my judgment, both are important because competitive elections are fragile times for many countries and there should not be any doubts as regards a political party having a greater chance of victory than others.

The democracy Journal International/IDEA', argues that 'the observer team must be able to improve the prospects for long-term 'democracy-building'. Translated into specifics, election observer missions are expected to provide psychological support for those involved in the elections, uncover any rigging in the casting and counting of votes, inform the international community about the 'fairness' of an election and mediate in the case of disputes.

Jamaica is in a privileged seat! With few exceptions, the country is able to boast of democratic structures and institutions, a vibrant civil society, adults possessing the right to vote and run for office. There is freedom of speech, assembly and movement. These are all preconditions of democracy but they ought to be distinguished from the conduct of a free and fair poll.

I say this because when the two dimensions of freedom and fairness are considered, it is evident that some elections can be classified as both free and fair, although they are not perfect. Almost all elections in well-established democracies would fit this bill and there is now the thinking that in many of these cases, there is not even the need to invite international observers.

On the contrary, there are some elections that are not free or fair owing to the violation of a larger number of the assessment standards. In these cases, international observers are not invited and they would be unlikely to come for fear of being viewed as endorsing a rigged election.

Between these two extremes lie many cases in which an election cannot be labelled 'free and fair' because of a number of shortcomings. Yet, it still would be unreasonable to declare them 'not free and fair'. They are then considered 'acceptable'.

In my judgment, this is not the correct action of the observer since his/her job is not to make political judgments. Admittedly, elections like those just described are the most difficult to assess and interestingly are the ones the international observers are most likely to witness. Scholars have insisted that the Governments of the countries in which these cases exist are often eager to obtain the international community's stamp of approval as a means of boosting their internal legitimacy and for gaining external recognition.

Election assessment is a lengthy process and any real attempt at observation must consider the events, which take place before, during and after the actual polling. This is critical to how CAFFE and international election monitors must be evaluated because 'short-term observers' whose task only involve a short-stint on election day must be viewed as fundamentally flawed!

The 'Election Day' itself is only a part of the electoral process. The demands on the observer are critical at different phases of the electoral cycle. This includes the pre-announcement phase, voter-registration, candidate-selection and campaigning. The electoral cycle also involves polling day activities, the counting and tabulation of votes and follow-up.

Although deployment of observers does not take place until after an election is announced and in the case of international observers, until the host country requests an observer mission, the team must be prepared. This means becoming familiar with the political, economic and social issues of the host country by reading reports on the most recent developments.

At the pre-election stage, he or she must be able to assess whether the electoral law and the constitution guarantees freedom to the voters. At the end of and during polling, the critical issue is the fair application of the rules. The counting of the ballots must be carefully controlled to prevent fraud, the results should be reported immediately and complaints about the electoral process must be handled impartially.

In Jamaica, this may be 'easier said than done' because it is clear that undertaking the highly delicate task of election observation demands a certain degree of sensitivity on the part of the observer, not only to the political culture of the society but to the particulars of the task.

The mere presence of election observers in a country serves to encourage voters to participate in the electoral process. It is not only building confidence among potential voters but the knowledge that the world is watching has an effect, not only on the potential victims of intimidation but also on potential intimidators. Election observation is being hailed as a weapon to be used to prevent the most obvious forms of voter manipulation. Directly or indirectly, it also strengthens the people's trust in the democratic order.

Be warned

But be warned, the neutrality of the election observer can be threatened by a number of factors. Primarily, the co-ordinators of these missions are often employed by or represent an organisation with specific interest in the outcome of the election!

In addition, the co-ordinators usually have close and intense contact with international representatives, local politicians, the electoral commission and thus cater to the interest of these parties.

In fulfilling their tasks, observers will be confronted repeatedly by three central issues - complaints, interference and the media as well as the general attitude/behaviour of the people operating in what is clearly a very politically and socially sensitive environment.

Only under exceptional circumstances are election observers mandated to investigate complaints or actively participate in the adjudication of such complaints. Nevertheless, a careful documentation of the claims is critical to the proper evaluation of an election.

The observer must ask whether the complaint pertains only to a single case or whether it can be traced to activities steered by higher activities which can bring the democratic nature of the elections into question.

At the same time, observers ought to know the difference between 'fraud' and 'irregularity'. Irregularities have to do with inefficiencies of an administrative or organisational nature. Fraud, on the other hand is a criminal matter involving intentional manipulation of sensitive electoral material or internal violation of electoral law.

Elections are high profile events, which often attract international media attention. Journalists, both domestic and foreign, will inevitably want to secure the observers' impression of the electoral process before, during and after polling.

Observers are often advised not to make premature comments, which can be taken out of context. For example, comments such as 'everything appears to be fine here' is often misleading and can be interpreted as evidence that the election is free and fair. In addition, observers who are deployed to specific areas or regions clearly do not have a 'national perspective' to offer a credible assessment of the electoral process.

Too often, the criteria for selecting observers, especially those from developed societies, are based on strictly formal or professional skills. Equally important are the observer's social skills. In other words, the international observer must demonstrate the ability to adapt to and respect the customs of the host country, the sensitivity needed to undertake a psychologically-fraught task, a detective's nose for the discovery and examination of electoral irregularities and the tact needed to deal with politicians and officials from the host country and observers from other countries.

Obviously, it is not enough merely to observe and report irregularities. Irregularities must be evaluated in relation to reasonable expectations because what matters is how widespread and serious they are, whether they represent a clear tendency, particularly in favour of the current holders of office and how significant they are in affecting the final results.

Finally, the quintessential duty of an electoral mission is to judge whether the election, under the given circumstances, reflect the will of the people. This is important as it is after all, the main reason for conducting elections.

Election observers are not licensed to pass judgment of a broad political nature. In other words, an election should not be deemed acceptable because it contributes to political stability or law and order in a country. Such judgment may be relevant and expedient but it is not the role of the observer to make them.

All they should do is deliver relevant information about the electoral component of the electoral exercise. It would be then left up to the national governments and international bodies to draw the appropriate political conclusions.

The observation of elections, especially those in countries with political or electoral instability, is a necessary tool in the continuing process of achieving electoral democracy in many countries. If utilised wisely, it can help to strengthen attempts at creating genuinely democratic electoral systems and structures.