watch the voting process and the vote
counting in as many polling places as
possible. Some missions implement
a “quick count,” or a projection of results based on a statistical sample of
voting places, which is used as a way
of parallel counting to verify official
results. These functions are described
in detail in OAS documents and electoral observation mission reports. 1
But election observation missions
also have an important political function. Although OAS officials insist that
election monitors are limited to passive observation of the voting process,
they often play a more active role in
facilitating negotiations and consen-sus-building among stakeholders or in
helping authorities clarify confusing
and potentially conflictive situations.
Monitors also can help solve organizational or logistical problems such
as: untested technology; inaccessible
voting places; insufficient training for
electoral authorities; inconsistencies
in the electoral rules for election day;
inadequate information about the
electoral process; inaccessible voter
registries; bias in the distribution of
voter identification; manipulation of
tally sheets; and inconsistencies in calculating voting results.
These active roles are intended to
help promote transparency, impartiality, integrity, and tolerance, and
contribute to a greater sense of confidence in the electoral process.
But an observation mission is not
intended to resolve election disputes.
While it can investigate allegations of
irregularities and present its findings,
the mission cannot enforce changes
or solutions. That falls strictly under
the domain of domestic stakeholders.
This creates an inevitable tension,
as electoral observation missions
struggle to strike a balance between
being relevant to the electoral process and avoiding any charge of intervention. In a difficult test of a
mission’s diplomatic skills, it must
stay on the sidelines even as it tries
to influence electoral authorities to
live up to the standards established
by their own electoral code. And to
complicate its role, an election observation mission must be careful
about raising too many questions
that would undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
Ultimately, an election observation
mission’s primary effectiveness lies in
its ability to spotlight irregularities
that compromise an election’s integrity. By reporting its conclusions to
the secretary general—and publicly
to the Permanent Council or the General Assembly—an electoral observation mission can force the collective
bodies to assess the situation and to
take appropriate actions, as in Peru
in 2000 (see p. 21).
THE “HALCYON”
DAYS OF ELECTION
OBSERVATION
Given these tough guidelines, election
observation missions have made significant contributions to democracy
in the Americas. They have helped create standards and methodologies for
observing elections, including developing standards for observation and
a code of conduct for observers. Their
presence has generated public confidence in the validity of the elections,
and their technical assistance to improve the organization and the administration of elections has contributed
to long-term institution building.
The 1990 mission to Nicaragua was
a watershed moment for election ob-
servation. The observers entered a
to democratic governance. Before 1989,
OAS observers were dispatched occa-
sionally to monitor elections, but most
of the missions were small—and they
usually arrived on election day.
Today’s observation missions are
sophisticated exercises, employing
standardized methodology and technology capable of monitoring the
entire electoral process, from the announcement of an election to the actual vote. This change began with the
mission to oversee the 1990 elections
in Nicaragua, which involved 430 observers who remained in the country
for six months. Most missions, however, range from 20 to 100 observers
and last an average of 20 days. They
come from different member states
and have expertise in statistics, communications, logistics, political science, la w, electoral organization, and
other disciplines, and are increasingly led by former ambassadors, foreign ministers or presidents.
And they do much more than simply watch over polling places. Observers perform a variety of technical
functions long before the voting takes
place to fulfill their mandate of verifying whether the parties to an election comply with established national
laws and regulations. They monitor
how voting is organized and how ballots are delivered and protected. They
assess the transparency and effectiveness of the state agency charged with
administering the vote. On election
day itself, observers are deployed to
ELECTION OBSERVATION
MISSIONS PLAY AN ACTIVE
ROLE IN FACILITATING
NEGOTIATIONS.
20
Americas Quarterly SPRING 2012
AMERICASQUARTERLY.ORG
