|
|
 |
 |
|
 | | The Business of Elections |
|
|
| By Charles Lasham, Project Director, International Foundation for Elections Systems (IFES) |
|
The business of elections is fascinating. It engages many actors, each playing important roles in the electoral
process. They all have varying goals. The candidates want to win, the election commissioners want the process
to go smoothly, and the voters - those who bother to vote - want their candidate to win. Elections are about
winners and losers. What we all want, or should want, is for the campaigning and the election day to be free
of violence and administrative problems, elections to be free and fair, results to be accepted by all, and
the transition of power to be smooth, swift, and peaceful.
Unfortunately not all elections achieve all these desired things. I have worked on elections in 30 or so
countries, from undertaking pre-election assessments, election observation, assisting election commissions
to training officials.
Coming from Britain I have been brought up in a society that meets all the "wants" mentioned above. Voters
can vote in secret and free from intimidation, the administration is generally efficient and candidates can
campaign freely and without fear. As a result elections are considered free and fair, the results are
accepted and the transition from one government to the next is always quick and without any problems.
In fact it is sometimes referred to as "removal van politics". The day after the general election
when the power has exchanged hands, a removal van will quietly arrive outside 10 Downing Street and
take away the personal belongings of the outgoing Prime Minister. After it departs, another will
arrive with the personal effects of the new Prime Minister. It is all done very quietly, without fuss. This
must be one of the best examples of a candidate,his party workers, voters and country accepting, without
question, the results of an election in the highest traditions of democracy.
Interestingly, one of Britain's greatest politicians, Winston Churchill, who led us through World War Two, was defeated by
the opposition party in a general election almost immediately after winning the war. In politics, you
are only as good as your last election as they say.
Why is it so smooth? Although we are said to have "the mother of all parliaments" and a secret ballot
voting system dating back to the middle of the 19th century, there are more straightforward and visible
reasons. For example, the organization of elections is delegated to municipalities where the electoral
officials - called returning officers - update the voter information all year round while training
their professional staff to the highest standards of conducting a fair election. All the actors can
accept what happens on election-day as being conducted efficiently and fairly, with results being
delivered within hours of the close of voting, and the winners and losers knowing their fate in the
early hours of the day after the election. There are legal challenges of course but these are few and
far between.
I have observed elections in many countries under different circumstances. Elections
in post conflict situations can be the most challenging. I have observed in El Salvador when just a
few months earlier the people were in a civil war situation. They transitioned from bullets to
ballots. In Sierra Leone the voting was disrupted by shelling, gunfire and other serious intimidation. Nevertheless
the will of the people prevailed and the elections were held. In these countries I was reminded of what Reinhold
Neibuhr* once wrote "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination with injustice
makes democracy necessary."
Elections after the fall of the Soviet Union have also been interesting but
from a different perspective. The Soviets tried, and succeeded, in creating Communist dictatorships
throughout their empire. After gaining independence from a repressive regime and then moving on to
become a true democracy is not easy. Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons in 1947
said, "no-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise." How true. Although there is no
perfect election system, democracy should be given a chance. But people are reluctant to change. In his recent book
The Crisis of Islam - Holy War and Unholy Terror Bernard Lewis compares Communist dictatorships to democracies. He
writes "Democracies are more difficult to create. They are also more difficult to destroy."
Each election offers many opportunities to see different practices both good and bad. The elections in Azerbaijan
have, in the past, received severe criticism from the international community. Prior to the October 15 presidential
elections, steps were taken to put into place a better framework for the conduct of free and fair elections. A new
election code was passed by the Milli Majlis that contained safeguards against fraud, in theory making things
difficult for those reluctant or unwilling to give true democracy a chance.
So, what was the result?
Unfortunately the preliminary conclusions of the joint OSCE Parliamentary Assembly/Council of Europe/ ODIHR assessment said
that the overall election process fell short of international standards. Their statement referred to serious violence on
election night and the day following, a pattern of intimidation against the opposition supporters, unequal campaign
conditions for candidates, prohibitive restrictions on the opposition for the holding of rallies and other serious
flaws. Peter Eicher, the head of the ODIHR election observation mission referred to the election as being "a missed
opportunity for a genuinely democratic election process" a sad comment indeed. People ask whether this is a step
backward? One thing is certain, it is definitely not a step forward. The views expressed here are those of Charles
Lasham and do not necessarily represent the views of IFES. Visit www. ifesaze. org for more information about the
work of IFES in Azerbaijan
|
|
|
|
|
