LETTER TO THE EDITOR

We at the Organization of American States (OAS) De- partment for Electoral Co- operation and Observation, read the article “The Future of Electoral Observation” in the Spring 2012 Americas Quarterly with great interest.

As a team of professionals engaged directly in electoral observation, we are keenly aware of the difficulties that this enterprise entails, the delicate political considerations involved in the organization of international missions and the significant areas in which it could be improved.

We also recognize that the field of international electoral observation, and in particular the work of the OAS in this realm, has progressed significantly in terms of quality, professionalism and transparency, to the extent that it is now structured around clearly defined functions and principles as well as a rigorous analytical framework. With this in mind, we would like to point out what we believe are some of the weaker aspects of the argument presented in the article.

First of all, we ques-
tion the selection of
cases. Over the past 50 years, the OAS
has observed more than 190 elections
in 28 countries. However, the article
focuses on a small selection of these
missions in order to make particular
points, without explaining the rea-
soning behind the case selection. It
refers to several cases from the 1990s
without recognizing important ini-
tiatives of the organization in more
recent elections, such as Paraguay
(2008) and El Salvador (2009), which
were undergoing intra-democratic
transitions, or Mexico (2009), Domi-
nica (2010), St. Kitts & Nevis (2010), or
the most recent cases of Belize (2012)
and The Bahamas (2012), where the
OAS observed elections for the first
time in history. The growing demand
for OAS electoral observation in the
hemisphere reflects its relevance as
well as the contribution that it makes
to democratic electoral processes.

The growing demand for OAS electoral observation in the hemisphere reflects its relevance as well as the contribution that it makes to democratic electoral processes.

simplistic focus. It overlooks a multitude of aspects that must be considered in the organization of a mission. For example, the article questions the selection of chiefs of mission, yet does not explain that the designation of the chief of mission by the OAS secretary general takes many factors into consideration— including the need to build bridges with actors in the host country.