Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Afghanistan, Bahrain and Syria the five worst elections during 2014

Pippa Norris
Harvard University and the University of Sydney

How do we know when elections succeed – or fail?

Many recent contests have ended with bitter disputes about electoral integrity. The issue is exemplified by partisan debates in the United States over Republican allegations of voter fraud (impersonation) and Democratic claims of voter suppression. But the Florida disease has become contagious in other Anglo-American democracies, generating controversies about the Fair Elections Act in Canada, lost ballot boxes in Australia, and insecure postal ballots in Britain.  The consequences are even more serious elsewhere in the world where contentious elections have sparked massive street protests in Cambodia, a military coup d’état in Thailand, bloody violence in 2007 in Kenya, and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The recent six week postponement of Nigeria’s presidential election and delays in distributing voter ID cards has raised widespread concern.

But how do we know when complaints about electoral malpractices reflect genuine flaws and failures, and when they are false claims stoked by sore losers?

The expert survey

The Electoral Integrity Project based at Harvard and Sydney Universities has just released a new report and dataset for The Year in Elections 2014.

Expert assessments evaluate the state of the world’s elections each year. The third release of the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) data-set covers 127 national parliamentary and presidential contests held from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2014 in 107 countries worldwide. At present, the cumulative data covers almost two-thirds of all 173 independent nation-states holding direct popular nation-wide elections for the executive or lower house of the national parliament (excluding a dozen micro-states like Andorra and Monaco, and eight states like Saudi Arabia and UAE without direct elections). More elections will be evaluated as they are held in future years.
Evidence is gathered from a global survey of 1,429 domestic and international election experts (with a response rate of 29%). Immediately after each contest, the quality of each election is evaluated based on 49 indicators. Responses are clustered into eleven stages occurring throughout the electoral cycle and then summed to construct an overall 100-point expert Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index and ranking.

The world map of electoral integrity identifies the best and worst elections around the globe during 2014.

The global map of electoral integrity, 2012-2014

Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2015.  The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 3 (PEI-3). A dynamic version of the map and details about the categories are available online.

Failed elections
·  During 2014, the five worst elections worldwide were in Egypt, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Syria (respectively), all of which failed to meet international standards.
·     In the second round of the Afghanistan presidential election on 5th April 2014, for example, a bitter dispute about alleged fraud “on an industrial scale”, resolved only by an eventual UN/US brokered power-sharing arrangement,   undermined confidence in the process and outcome.
·        In Syria, the presidential election on 3rd June 2014 was attempted in the midst of a bloody civil war and deep humanitarian crisis where polling did not take place in rebel areas and an estimated 9 million Syrians have fled their homes.

Contests meeting international standards

·        By contrast, during 2014, the five best elections around the globe were in Lithuania (ranked 1st), Costa Rica, Sweden, Slovenia and Uruguay (respectively).
·        For example, the Lithuanian presidential election on 11th and 25th May 2014 celebrated how far democratic practices and respect for human right have become entrenched in this country since escaping the Soviet era in 1990. The parliamentary republic has a mixed executive, with government led by Algirdas Butkevičius, the prime minister from the Social Democratic Party. For the presidential election, citizens could choose on the ballot paper from seven candidates representing a wide range of parties. The incumbent and the country’s first female President, Dalia Grybauskaitė, led in the opinion polls and in the second round run-off she was comfortably reelected with 58% of the vote on an independent ticket, defeating Zigmantas Balčytis of the Social Democratic Party. Before the contest, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) needs-assessment mission reported that the legal framework and electoral administration were both sound, the media environment was pluralistic, with free air time for candidates, and there was no need to send observers. In the complete list of countries included in the PEI_3 survey since 2012, the Lithuanian election was ranked similar to Norway and Sweden across the Baltic Sea, in stark contrast to its neighbor Belarus.

US Congressional elections
·        Compared with 127 contests covered in PEI-3 since 2012, it is striking that in the United States, the 2012 presidential election (ranked 42nd) and the 2014 Congressional elections (ranked 48th) scored lowest among all Western democracies.  
·        Experts expressed concern about US electoral laws and voter registration procedures, both areas of heated partisan debate, as well as partisan gerrymandering of district boundaries and the deregulation of campaign finance. As a result, the US mid-term contests last year were ranked as similarly in quality to elections in Colombia and Bulgaria.
·        In January 2014, the US Presidential Commission on Electoral Administration recommended a wide range of practical reforms for state and local officials, such as how to overcome long lines at the ballot box. But it failed to address the major obstacles arising from the role of partisan officials regulating registration and balloting, excessively decentralized administration, and a campaign awash with money.

What drives electoral integrity?
·        Electoral integrity is generally strengthened by three factors; democracy, development, and power‐sharing constitutions. Longer experience over successive contests usually consolidates democratic practices, deepens civic cultures, and builds the capacity of professional electoral management bodies. Economic development provides the resources and technical capacity for professional electoral administration. Power‐sharing institutions, such as the free press and independent parliaments, serve as watch-dogs curbing malpractices. Systematic cross-national research has established these general patterns but still several important exceptions can be observed. Several developing societies and emerging economies which are genuinely committed to human rights and democracy can overcome these obstacles to strengthen their record of electoral integrity. By contrast, irregularities can and do arise even in long-established democracies.

·        States in Africa and the Middle East usually face the greatest risks of failed elections, as shown by Mauritania, Iraq, Egypt and Bahrain. But there are clear exceptions within these regions, notably the successful Tunisian presidential and legislative elections, and fairly well‐rated contests in South Africa.

The stock of democracy and electoral integrity

Note: The ‘stock of democracy’ is calculated from the cumulative record of political rights and civil liberties, as estimated by Freedom House Freedom around the World 1972-201.
Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2015.  The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 3 (PEI-3).

Problems during the electoral cycle

Note: Each stage in the electoral cycle was evaluated using 100-point scales.
Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2015.  The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 3 (PEI-3).

·        The most serious risks using arise during the electoral cycle from disparities in political finance and media coverage during the campaign. These stages are assessed by experts as far more widespread problems than malpractices occurring on election‐day or its aftermath, such as ballot stuffing or fraud.

More details can be found from new books by Pippa Norris on Why Electoral Integrity Matters and Why Elections Fail, both from Cambridge University Press, New York.

Further information, the complete PEI_3 dataset, a YouTube video presentation, and a copy of the Year in Elections 2014 report by Pippa Norris, Ferran Martinez i Coma and Max Groemping can be downloaded from 

Pippa Norris is the Mcguire Lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Laureate Research Fellow and Professor of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, and Director of the Electoral Integrity Project. Contact:

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Strengthening Kenyan electoral integrity

The 2007 general elections in Kenya ended in bloodshed and instability, before a power-sharing agreement brokered by the UN eventually restored peace.  The international community has been deeply engaged in attempts to prevent any repeated violence. In the subsequent Kenyan elections of March 4th 2013, Uhuru Kenyatta won with a bare majority (50.1% of the vote). Problems occurred, however, for example the vote count was delayed for five days and the opposition claimed fraud. Nevertheless the contest avoided a repeat of the widespread intercommunal conflict and Raila Odinga, the opposition candidate, appealed through legal channels and asked Kenyans to respect the rule of law. While avoiding violence, PEI experts still rated the contest poorly, especially on issues of voter registration and the role of electoral authorities. [i]

As part of the international efforts to strengthen the quality of Kenyan elections, a workshop was held on “Electoral Integrity: Building electoral integrity through improved electoral processes, representation and the resolution of electoral disputes" on 19th and 20th of January 2015 in Strathmore University, Nairobi. It was organized by the The Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (a joint initiative of the United Nations University, Griffith, QUT, ANU, Center for Asian Integrity in Manila and OP Jindal Global University, Delhi) leaded by Professor Charles Sampford. The Electoral Integrity Project, represented by Dr. Ferran Martinez i Coma, engaged in the workshop as part of its outreach and dissemination strategy in the international community.

The workshop examined the relevant Kenyan constitutional and legal provisions; the institutional structures; the training of personnel and the establishment of systems seeking to promote electoral integrity at all points of the electoral cycle – comparing them to such systems in other jurisdictions. In that regard, the topics covered included electoral integrity and international standards; patterns of malpractice in other jurisdictions; technological opportunities and pitfalls; procurement; political parties; the gender rule; campaign finance; voter registration; the handling of votes and their calculation; transparency,  accountability, verification, dispute settlement and the strengthening and professionalization of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

The audience engaged some of the main important actors involved in the Kenyan electoral process, such as Commissioners of the IEBC, as well as members of international organizations such as the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA). It was an honest, open and lively discussion.

The Dean Luis Franceschi, introduced the workshop, then I presented on the theory and practice of electoral integrity, following the general framework of the Electoral Integrity Project (Norris, 2014). Different topics were covered: from an overview of the project to the stages of the electoral process. After a brief overview and comparison, Charles Kanjama talked about the political parties in Kenya: how the nomination process works, questions on internal party democracy, and issues of the selectorates. One of the problems in Kenya was the lack party institutionalization (as a proxy for stability). For example,  only the National Alliance party –one in the three composing in the ruling coalition -  was formed in 2000; the rest after 2012.

The workshops also discussed gender issues. Elisha Ongoya talked about the gender representation principle in Kenya’s constitution. Jill Cottrell Ghai, one of the leading experts on Kenyan constitutional and democratization issues, presented data on the number of women in the parliament and engaged the audience in an interesting debate on whether women leadership should be the same as for men or whether women should provide a different kind of leadership.

The second day covered political finance, ethics for the IEBC, and new technologies. Regarding the former, I gave a presentation considering global issues. I based my presentation in the forthcoming work of Pippa Norris and Andrea Abel van Es. Professor Sampford made very relevant remarks on the global perspective and the general principles also presenting some specifics about Queensland. Kwame Owino, from the Institute of Economic Affairs made the argument against public funding for the Kenyan case which was not shared by a part of the audience. On ethics, the country Director of the EISA, Felix Odhiambo, presented some of the ethical standards for the IEBC; his talk was complemented with Francis Kariuki’s on institution building and development of IEBC staff.

Finally, the focus of attention was on technology.  This presentation was a very interesting blend from different perspectives: IEBC, how technology may help to reduce fraud and survey companies. Commissioner Ambassador Yusuf Nzibo, acknowledged the problems that Kenya had in the previous elections with the technology. The Commissioner mentioned the importance of testing the technology well in advance of the election date, which had not been the case in 2013. Emmanuel Kweyu from @iLab presented some initiatives that were being developed with very low costs. Kenya’s technological development is not only referential in Africa but also around the world as some platforms, such as Ushahidi. He also stressed the necessity of testing technology before election-day. The presentation on surveys, by Dr. Wolf, stressed how fraud was perceived differently in the Kenyan regions.

[i] Electoral Integrity Project. The Year in Elections, 2014. Sydney: EIP.