Two (or five, or ten) heads are better than one: the need for an integrated effort to international election monitoring.

• Author: Ricker, Rachel

ABSTRACT

Election monitoring efforts have a crucial role to play in attaining the goals of self-determination and democratic sovereignty. Yet current election monitoring practice suffers from variance in the goals, standards, and strategies employed by the many organizations that engage in election monitoring and observation programs. This Note examines the current state of election monitoring within the framework for analyzing the legitimacy of rules proposed by Thomas Franck in his 1992 article The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, and concludes that the shortcomings of the current system fail to address many necessary aspects of legitimate self-governance of monitored nations. The Author advocates an integrated and coordinated approach between monitoring organizations and effective and appropriate use of developing technological tools in order to improve the ability of election monitoring to aid in attaining the goal of self-determination.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. ORIGINS AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELECTION MONITORING SYSTEM III. MAJOR ACTORS IN ELECTION MONITORING A. The United Nations B. Regional Inter-Governmental Organizations 1. The Organization of American States 2. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 3. The Organization of African Unity 4. The Asia Foundation 5. The European Union C. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance D. NGOs E. Domestic Organizations within Target States F. National Organizations from States Other Than Those Targeted IV. ELECTION MONITORING STANDARDS AGAINST THEIR THEORETICAL BACKDROP A. The International Legal Right to Self-Governance and Self-Determination B. Election Monitoring Standards within Franck's Framework for Legitimacy of Self-Determination Rules 1. Pedigree 2. Determinacy 3. Coherence a. Blind Eye to the Dependency on other Basic Rights b. Recognizing When Higher Pressure is Necessary 4. Adherence a. Lack of Flexibility b. Danger of False Legitimacy c. Monitors as a Recognized, Independent Entity V. PROPOSED SOLUTION: A MONITORING SYSTEM THAT ATTAINS LEGITIMACY AND GUIDES NATIONS TOWARD SELF-DETERMINATION A. Integration of Organizations B. An Integrated System Within Franck's Framework of Analysis 1. Pedigree 2. Determinacy 3. Coherence 4. Adherence C. Pragmatic Advantages of an Integrated Effort VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

The recent elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, the highly publicized election cycle in Ukraine, and the spectacle of the 2000 U.S. presidential election have brought questions of electoral fairness and democratic legitimacy to the highest level of visibility in popular culture since the wave of democratization in developing nations in the late 1980s. Media focus on these elections predictably centers on whether the outcomes of the elections were fair and whether they reflected the "will of the people." Given our history of strong electoral democracy, it is not surprising that the U.S. bias on elections is to demand such standards. Not all nations, however, can be expected to understand this bias, much less produce election results in accordance with it.

A number of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have developed and published guidelines for the evaluation of election fairness. Too much is expected from these guidelines, however. Most monitoring organizations formulate a method of evaluation based on general standards geared to determine whether or not a particular election was "free and fair," (1) or whether the result truly reflected the "will of the people." (2) These monitoring organizations come in many shapes and sizes and differ in their biases, goals, strategies, and methodologies. This Note will analyze the current state of election monitoring under this panoply of monitoring organizations, including both its benefits and its downfalls, and will offer a proposal by which election monitoring can improve both its efficiency and effectiveness at meeting goals.

Part II of this Note examines the historical development of election monitoring and the evolution of monitoring as a vital tool in attaining democratic sovereignty. Part III analyzes the major actors involved in monitoring activities in terms of their legal bases, goals, and techniques. Part IV introduces Thomas Franck's theory on the right of self-determination and his framework of four indicators required for strong rules. It also details the shortcomings of the current state of election monitoring viewed in light of Franck's framework and explains how these shortfalls interfere with the goals of achieving democratic sovereign legitimacy. Finally, Part V offers a proposal for the future of election monitoring which addresses the downfalls of the current system and better focuses monitoring activities on attaining the underlying goal of democratic legitimacy.

2. ORIGINS AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELECTION MONITORING SYSTEM

   Election monitoring organizations and missions have gradually developed since the first election observations occurred in the early twentieth century. As election monitoring has become more common, the techniques and uses have become more thorough and polished.

   Various actors have monitored elections throughout the world for many years. The earliest election monitors were trusteeship nations, who observed and maintained some control over their colonies prior to the colonies' obtaining independence. (3) These early observations gave rise to the first rules and guidelines for judging electoral processes and outcomes. (4) The missions were usually performed by trustee nations, often with the aid of United Nations (U.N.) teams. (5)

   At the end of the colonial era, the most difficult transitions to independence gave the U.N. its first opportunity to engage in more comprehensive election monitoring. (6) The U.N. continued to be involved in transition elections for many years, and in 1989 and 1990 it began monitoring the elections of independent member states. (7)

   In 1989, election observation began to develop into its current form with the U.N.'s monitoring of the Namibian elections for independence in November; this was the first comprehensive monitoring mission in the world's history. (8) The following year, the U.N. monitored elections in its own member states for the first time: in Nicaragua in February and Haiti in December. (9) By the mid-to-late 1990s, monitoring had become so common that hardly an election occurred without involvement by some type of monitoring organization. (10)

   One of the most important developments in election monitoring was the realization that effective missions require involvement throughout the entire election process: from pre-election preparation, to election day, and throughout the post-election period. (11) Many early missions focused heavily on election day itself, ignoring the importance of pre-election activities, such as voter registration and education, campaign publicity, and media coverage. (12) Post-election fallout, such as further media coverage and responses of elected officials, was also ignored. (13) Maintaining a presence throughout all three stages of the process is crucial to a mission's success and must be incorporated into the formation of serious monitoring goals. (14)

   Technological developments have also aided the evolution of election monitoring, (15) with the most important advance probably being the parallel counting mechanism or "quick count." The quick count was first used in the Carter Center's Panama mission in 1989 and has revolutionized the effectiveness of monitoring missions in subsequent elections. (16) It provides a way for independent organizations to check the accuracy of official vote results and to determine and have access to those independent results almost immediately following the close of the polls. (17) As technology continues to advance, quick count techniques will become even more accurate and quickly available. (18)

   Since the initial introduction of the quick count, technology has advanced in leaps and bounds. Perhaps surprisingly, less-developed nations' use of election monitoring technology has been far ahead of their European and North American counterparts. (19) For example, electronic voter registration systems and computerized voting machines are already widespread in many Latin American and former Soviet Bloc nations. (20) A considerable number of those nations also use high-tech satellite transmission systems to obtain nearly instantaneous and accurate reporting of election day activities and results. (21)

3. MAJOR ACTORS IN ELECTION MONITORING

   At present, the organizations that participate in election observation activities can be divided into five general categories: the U.N., regional IGOs, NGOs, domestic organizations within target countries, and national organizations from states other than those targeted. The level, nature, and expertise of involvement vary among the categories, as does the definition of free and fair used to evaluate the outcome.

   1. The United Nations

      The primary U.N. subdivision involved in election monitoring is the Electoral Assistance Division (EAD), which was specially created for the purpose of observing and evaluating elections. (22) The EAD was first created as the Electoral Assistance Unit by the General Assembly in 1991, and roots its authority in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (23)

      The U.N. limits its involvement to only those elections that meet a specific set of conditions. (24) These prerequisites reflect the U.N.'s concern with the sovereignty of its member nations. (25) While this policy consciously defers to individual nations' sovereignty and ensures that U.N. resources are best spent in those countries determined to be most qualified, it also prevents the U.N. from being involved in a number of elections that are arguably in...