Election Support: Achievements and Challenges

Election Observers Conference, Brussels

28 September 2004

Ladies and gentlemen, it is with my greatest pleasure that I address this conference on election support – an issue which has long been close to my heart since I was National Minister for Overseas Development Assistance 20 years ago and when I was the last colonial oppressor in Hong-Kong, and even more so during my last five years as External Relations Commissioner, and which is close to the hearts of all of you – Members of the European Parliament, civil society, representatives of the EU Presidency and Council, international organisations, and election practitioners from around the world.

If we were to turn the clock back to September 1989, very few people would have predicted the extraordinary developments ahead in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Nor could they have anticipated the impact that democratisation processes would have on our lives.

Many remember the 90s as a period of change and even instability. But we should not forget that this was the time when democracy really came into its own; not just in Central and Eastern Europe, but also in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Think of the first elections in Poland in 1989 and 1990; in Chile, Russia and Paraguay in 1993; Hungary and South Africa in 1994; and Indonesia in 1999.

First-ever elections took place in East Timor in 2001, there were crucial polls in Kenya in 2002 and in Guatemala the following year. Over the last few months, important elections have taken place in Malaysia, Hong Kong, and most recently again, in Indonesia. All have demonstrated the power of the electorate to transform peacefully the political and democratic landscape of a country. Elections not only legitimise political authority and promote sustainable governance, they also contribute to conflict resolution and reconciliation, and they help to achieve peace.

This is why, for the EU, as for all of you, supporting electoral processes is not just a moral imperative – wanting for others what we have ourselves, as a community of 25 democracies. Nor is it just our legal duty to promote and protect the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. The deep reason why we are engaged in election support is because we believe that democracy and respect for human rights are the best guarantors for stability and prosperity - which bring dividends to the international community as a whole, in terms of trade, security, cultural and human exchanges.

Of course, the primary aim of our technical assistance and Election Observation Missions is over time to make them obsolete, as national capacities develop and democracy takes root. But international support is vital in countries in democratic transition, where democracy is threatened or where capacity is weak.

International observation is a case in point. An Election Observation Mission can provide an expert opinion on the electoral process and recommendations for the future. Through its own presence, it can help to deter fraud and violence. We saw this in Guatemala, where fears of violence did not materialise, thanks in part to the presence of the EU and the Organisation of American States.

Also, if observers find that a poll has been carried out well, this judgement can contribute significantly to strengthening confidence in the process and in its results. Few would doubt that the OSCE’s verdict on the Parliamentary elections in Georgia in 2003 had a significant impact on public opinion. But the opposite is also true. A critical report - as was recently issued by our Mission in Malawi, last year in Nigeria, or the year before in Pakistan - stands as a continuing challenge to the government of the day.

Over the term of my mandate, the EU has emerged as a visible and credible actor in election observation. Since the year 2000 – when we formulated our policy - the EU has deployed 28 EU Election Observation Missions, to cover 34 elections in 19 countries. As I speak, a 230-strong team is completing its 8 month Mission to Indonesia. A team of 25 experts is deployed in Afghanistan, alongside the UN, to assess the up-coming Presidential elections. And an Exploratory Mission has only just left for Palestine, to find out what help we could provide to local elections, should they be called in a few months’ time.

All in all, our Missions have included some 1,100 short-term observers; more than 550 long-term observers; approximately 200 core staff necessary to run the logistics of these Missions; and they have costed almost €39 million. And we have had 21 individuals serve as Chief Observers, some of them more than once. Let me pay tribute to the excellent work performed by all these people, and extend my particular thanks to the European Parliament which has given us its unwavering support – not only have MEPs acted as Chief Observers, the Parliament has also shown particular commitment to worldwide electoral processes by fielding its own Teams.

I strongly believe that our Missions have made a real difference. They stand as very practical manifestations of the EU’s worldwide commitment to human rights and democracy. The praise for this is rightly yours.

The success of our work is also due to the development of a rigorous and consistent methodology, to ensure that a Mission’s verdict is authoritative and can stand up to scrutiny. By using a standard approach in all countries, we avoid being accused of double standards. All EU Institutions play a decisive role in this area. Not just the Commission’s own services, but also the Parliament and the Council. Election observation stands out as a prime example of effective institutional cooperation. I hope that this good practice will continue.

But we have done more than just observe elections. The EU has provided substantial technical, financial and material support. This includes direct assistance to those managing the electoral process (€24 million for the UN in Afghanistan – which, together with Member States’ contributions, makes the EU by far the largest donor to the electoral process; €7 million institutional support in Indonesia; and €10 million for the West Bank and Gaza Strip); we have also given support to voter education programmes (for example through the National Initiative for Civic Education in Malawi); and capacity building of domestic observer groups in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America, as we have done by funding the “Network of Europeans for Electoral and Democracy Support – NEEDS”.

At this point, I would like to thank all the civil society organisations working to assess and safeguard the integrity of elections. In countries like Peru, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Georgia or Ukraine, domestic observation has made a significant contribution to democratisation. Even in Florida, I am told that following the problems in 2000, civil society came together to monitor the 2002 elections, and will do so again in November. Although I would like to draw your attention to the article by the former US president, Carter, today in the Guardian where he expresses some of his concerns about the elections in Florida. In many cases, civil society is at the cutting edge of election observation.

Let me also highlight the excellent relationships we enjoy with international organisations – like the UN, the OSCE/ODIHR, the Organisation of American States, the African Union, or the Council of Europe.

The courage and commitment of all these contributors deserves our respect.

Over the next two days, you will have the opportunity to discuss a great number of election-related issues. You will have your own views about the challenges ahead. From a Commission point of view, I would like to mention a few of our preoccupations, which will certainly keep the Commisison busy in the coming years.

I have already mentioned the importance of a consistent methodology for the credibility of election observation. These standards need to be maintained. There is always political pressure to go ahead with observation, regardless of conditions existing in country or constraints imposed on observers. And it is very difficult, politically, to say no to election observation. But we must ensure that observation is rigorous, and that observers can carry out their tasks with credibility. How could a Mission restricted in where it can go, restricted in what it can say, and restricted in how it can work, ever win the confidence of the people? This is why I welcome the discussions which will take place at this conference on standards for democratic elections, under the Chairmanship of the UN and involving all key players like ODIHR, the Council of Europe, SADC or the African Union. On several occasions, I have had to withstand pressure to observe when it was perfectly plain that they would be impossible to perform.

On 9th October, presidential elections will take place in Afghanistan. Parliamentary elections are planned for next spring. Elections in Iraq are apparently scheduled for January, with a referendum and further elections later in the year. Elections are also expected soon in Burundi, Angola, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ivory Coast. All these cases will pose huge challenges for those involved in international observation.

To what extent is election observation possible, in a post-conflict or conflict environment? Of course, our first concern is the duty of care that we owe to our observers. But there are other issues as well: If a mission is unable to travel to significant parts of a country because of security concerns, how credible will its judgement be? And if observers can only travel under cover of troops or armed police, what message will this convey to the electorate?

We in the Commission have already been confronted with this issue. In Afghanistan, we operate through an EU Democracy and Election Support Mission, the first time we have used an alternative to classic Election Observation. If successful, this could serve as a model for other operations in conflict cases, like Iraq. But that will be a matter for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, my successor, to pursue.

My simple test of whether or not is it safe to do an election observation mission is the following: “Would I be allowed to go to this country as a Commissioner.”

Let me end by mentioning the follow-up to Election Observation Missions. There is a temptation, once elections are over, observers have gone and a new government is in place, to forget the recommendations made by observers. But these recommendations are the most valuable return on the investment of sending observers in the first place. We are therefore putting more efforts into making sure that the Final Report of every Mission is conveyed to the authorities concerned and to civil society.

Sometimes, like in Mozambique, Sri Lanka and Malawi, we have sent the Chief Observer back with the report, to make the point in person. We are also trying to ensure that reports are systematically included in our discussions with the new government. When I visited Sri Lanka, one of my main concerns was the follow-up to the report of the chief observer. But this is not a job for the Commission alone. All stakeholders must get involved - the Parliament, Council, and other international organisations. We really need to work together in this politically sensitive area. The workshops this afternoon should help improve our co-operation.

We make a great deal about spreading democracy. In my view one of the real values is to observe elections and to provide an infrastructure where democracy can flourish. I know of no work which is more valuable. And I hope that it will continue under my successor.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for participating in our conference. I wish you stimulating discussions – and look forward to the results of your work.