Since the end of the Cold War, there has been an unprecedented growth in the number of electoral democracies, particularly in post-conflict societies. What lessons have been learned from the role of international assistance for elections in societies emerging from violent conflict? This paper from UNU/WIDER argues that the ‘quick fix’ approach to elections that is often promoted by international actors has created more problems than it has solved. International actors should focus on putting in place the short-term conditions for a transition to democratic rule by helping to create coherent and robust political institutions, rather than engaging in broader attempts at social engineering.
The principle that governments should be chosen through the ballot box rather than the bullet has become enshrined as an ‘emerging right’ in international law. In post-conflict societies, elections are viewed not simply as means of choosing representatives, but also as an aspect of conflict resolution. Elections are therefore used as an instrument to promote democracy and a means of consolidating a fragile peace.
The international community engages in a wide range of activities to improve the accuracy, efficiency and legitimacy of elections. This includes constitutional and legal reform, advice on electoral systems, support for voter registration and international monitoring teams. Despite the provision of significant financial and logistical support, there is significant criticism of international assistance for elections, including the following shortcomings:
- International assistance for elections lacks sustainability. Internationally-financed elections introduce high electoral technology that cannot be sustained by the host country in subsequent elections.
- External actors have tended to focus on ‘first-time elections.’ Much of the initial investment and training has not been maintained in subsequent elections.
- The verdict of ‘free and fair’ elections is becoming meaningless due to the overuse of the term by international monitors. In addition, the term is inadequate for evaluating the success of elections and capturing the complexity of democratisation in post-conflict societies.
- Elections to fulfil external demands may inflame and politicise the root causes of conflict. Post-conflict elections may be a source of tension and become a lightning rod for popular discontent and extremist sentiments.
Democratisation is a long-term process of social and political development. Domestic forces determine the long-term outcome of elections, rather than international actors. International intervention is crucial to put in place the short-term conditions for a transition to democratic rule, however, their long-term role is necessarily limited. Therefore, international assistance for elections should focus on:
- Assisting in the design and construction of durable political institutions. Institutions are vital for structuring the routines of behaviour in which political actors engage and are essential for helping to build a moderate and sustainable political culture over the longer term.
- Recognising that routines of cooperation and accommodation between domestic political forces should be allowed to develop organically within a facilitating institutional framework.
- Guaranteeing the provision of adequate security and infrastructure for the holding of ‘first time’ elections and maintaining support in subsequent elections.
- Moving away from expensive one-off international electoral observation missions to the provision of direct support for domestic electoral bodies such as independent electoral commissions and local observer groups to ensure long-term benefits.
- Helping to create sustainable election procedures that function without external assistance. Engagement with the domestic electoral administration and local groups may create sustainability and consolidate democracy.
