cross the globe, more elections will take place in 2024 than in any other year—marking what experts call a super election year. And the Americas are no exception, with general elections slated to take place in Panama, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Uruguay, the United States, and Venezuela, as well as having already taken place in El Salvador. While elections are often viewed as evidence of democracy working, the state of democracy in many countries is endangered—with Freedom House marking 2023 as the 17th year that freedom has declined globally. One important tool for defending democracy is the use of electoral observation missions (EOMs). The Organization of American States (OAS) was the first organization to have an EOM—in the 1962 Costa Rican election—and continues to send missions to elections across the hemisphere. Given the shifting democratic threats and complex electoral dynamics, are these missions still relevant and should they occur in countries with questionable democratic tendencies?
Faith in democracy in the 2024 election cycle
The 2024 super election cycle in the Americas comes at an interesting time. Although most countries in the hemisphere have robust electoral systems, politicians—from the United States to Brazil—have injected distrust into these systems and questioned electoral results. This elicits distrust in the political systems and as a result, the region has seen popular support for democracy decline. Faith in democracy has been so shaken that some regional leaders have even suggested replacing democracy altogether—as El Salvador’s vice–president suggested in an interview shortly before his nation’s elections. The rise in disinformation has weakened support for democracy and creates challenges for ensuring free and fair elections amid an informed electorate. These factors, among others, have led to an increase in polarization—which in turn worsens the impacts of disinformation, views of democracy, and faith in the democratic process. While there are countries that are not democratic—such as Venezuela—the loss of faith in democracy poses deep challenges for electoral processes for both democratic and undemocratic countries.
This electoral cycle is interesting for another reason. In both Panama and the United States, major political candidates currently face legal challenges. In the United States, former President Donald Trump faces numerous charges related to his businesses and role in the 6 January insurrection, while former Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli has been convicted of money laundering and is currently living in asylum in the Nicaraguan embassy. While Trump is allowed to run despite his legal challenges, Martinelli is banned from running in Panama. The criminal charges facing these candidates cast long shadows over the electoral processes in these countries. Similarly, bans on reelection have created new areas of democratic contestation.
Election monitoring as a tool for democrats and pseudo–democrats
Electoral observation missions can provide a useful corrective to concerns about election integrity. EOMs participate in the electoral process by visiting election sites, watching the electoral process throughout the election cycle, and reporting on irregularities. This can provide legitimacy to elections. However, there are limits to what an EOM can do. One of the biggest challenges is that organizations, like OAS, cannot simply send an EOM. Rather, they require the invitation and support of host governments. This can create challenges as those countries where democracy is under assault may opt not to invite observers. While the OAS is invited to participate in many elections across the region, it is not invited to observe all of them. Indeed, the OAS only started observing U.S. elections in 2016 and was notably not invited to observe the 2015 Venezuelan elections.
Additionally, EOMs face limitations in addressing the underlying challenges to democracy that go beyond election processes. While reports from EOMs note the state of freedom of the press and democracy broadly, their primary focus is on the election itself and how the voting process is conducted. This can overlook very real challenges to the democratic process in a country beyond the election.
Electoral missions also run the risk of legitimizing elections that are not free and fair. Given that EOMs signal the fairness and quality of an election process, those with questionable democratic records may invite observers to gain legitimacy at home and abroad even if they may seek to manipulate the electoral process. This situation is what political scientist Susan Hyde refers to as the “the pseudo–democrat’s dilemma.” However, these pseudo–democrats may overestimate their own abilities to manipulate electoral results or the ability of EOMs to denounce their actions. For instance, the OAS observed and voiced concerns about the recent presidential elections in El Salvador. Civil Society groups used this report, and those from other EOMs, to pressure the Biden administration to take greater action on holding El Salvadorian democracy up to a higher standard.
OAS electoral missions have, however, come under fire in recent years—most notably during the 2019 Bolivian election. Despite the OAS not addressing underlying challenges to democracy in the country—what some referred to as a “slow–motion coup” that included efforts to eliminate term limits and challenges to freedom of the press—it sent a mission to observe the elections. When the EOM initially reported irregularities, protests erupted that resulted in the military pushing then President Evo Morales to resign. Since then, critics have questioned the OAS’s methodology and claim it supported a coup. This has created further polarization within the OAS and challenged its mission of supporting democracy in the Americas.
To monitor or not to monitor, that is the question
The evolving threats to election integrity and the limitations of EOMs, lead to important questions about the (f)utility of election monitoring as a tool for defending democracy. While there are limitations to what an EOM can do, they play a crucial role in protecting democracy. Organizations like the OAS are crucial for their ability to criticize electoral processes. When they do not play this role (or are not invited), other organizations have filled the void. This occurred in the 2015 Venezuelan elections, when the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) “accompanied” the election despite having very different standards for monitoring and reporting—to the point that they must respect the principle of non-intervention to the point that they can not publicly condemn electoral irregularities. This allowed the Venezuelan government to claim legitimacy despite deep concerns among democracy advocates.
This is not to say electoral monitoring cannot be improved—in the Americas and beyond. The OAS should encourage all member states to invite the OAS to observe every election so as to further discourage leaders with questionable democratic credentials from opting not to have an EOM. This can serve as a deterrent to electoral interference. Additionally, the OAS should expand its reporting to include annual reports produced by experts on the state of democracy in every member state. This can strengthen the OAS role as a defender of democracy in the region and limit the risk of legitimizing elections in contentious political environments. Finally, to strengthen the perception of EOMs broadly, different organizations conducting these missions should produce a joint report in addition to their own individual reports. This not only strengthens the perception of EOMs, but limits the political calculations and sensitivities that individual EOMs may face when reporting on particular states.
Despite the challenges that EOMs face and the risk of pseudo–democratic legitimation, defenders of democracy should embrace and expand the use of election monitoring. At a time when democracy is under assault, EOMs provide a useful tool for ensuring that elections are free and fair while providing a tool for the international community to validate and verify commitments to democratic norms. This provides policymakers with the tools to more effectively and consistently address democratic threats in the Americas and beyond.
a global affairs media network
Election monitoring in contentious elections
April 16, 2024
It’s a big election year in the Americas, but in many states democracy is endangered. Electoral observation missions must navigate these situations carefully to support democracy, but also to avoid accidentally legitimizing unfair elections, writes Adam Ratzlaff..
A
cross the globe, more elections will take place in 2024 than in any other year—marking what experts call a super election year. And the Americas are no exception, with general elections slated to take place in Panama, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Uruguay, the United States, and Venezuela, as well as having already taken place in El Salvador. While elections are often viewed as evidence of democracy working, the state of democracy in many countries is endangered—with Freedom House marking 2023 as the 17th year that freedom has declined globally. One important tool for defending democracy is the use of electoral observation missions (EOMs). The Organization of American States (OAS) was the first organization to have an EOM—in the 1962 Costa Rican election—and continues to send missions to elections across the hemisphere. Given the shifting democratic threats and complex electoral dynamics, are these missions still relevant and should they occur in countries with questionable democratic tendencies?
Faith in democracy in the 2024 election cycle
The 2024 super election cycle in the Americas comes at an interesting time. Although most countries in the hemisphere have robust electoral systems, politicians—from the United States to Brazil—have injected distrust into these systems and questioned electoral results. This elicits distrust in the political systems and as a result, the region has seen popular support for democracy decline. Faith in democracy has been so shaken that some regional leaders have even suggested replacing democracy altogether—as El Salvador’s vice–president suggested in an interview shortly before his nation’s elections. The rise in disinformation has weakened support for democracy and creates challenges for ensuring free and fair elections amid an informed electorate. These factors, among others, have led to an increase in polarization—which in turn worsens the impacts of disinformation, views of democracy, and faith in the democratic process. While there are countries that are not democratic—such as Venezuela—the loss of faith in democracy poses deep challenges for electoral processes for both democratic and undemocratic countries.
This electoral cycle is interesting for another reason. In both Panama and the United States, major political candidates currently face legal challenges. In the United States, former President Donald Trump faces numerous charges related to his businesses and role in the 6 January insurrection, while former Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli has been convicted of money laundering and is currently living in asylum in the Nicaraguan embassy. While Trump is allowed to run despite his legal challenges, Martinelli is banned from running in Panama. The criminal charges facing these candidates cast long shadows over the electoral processes in these countries. Similarly, bans on reelection have created new areas of democratic contestation.
Election monitoring as a tool for democrats and pseudo–democrats
Electoral observation missions can provide a useful corrective to concerns about election integrity. EOMs participate in the electoral process by visiting election sites, watching the electoral process throughout the election cycle, and reporting on irregularities. This can provide legitimacy to elections. However, there are limits to what an EOM can do. One of the biggest challenges is that organizations, like OAS, cannot simply send an EOM. Rather, they require the invitation and support of host governments. This can create challenges as those countries where democracy is under assault may opt not to invite observers. While the OAS is invited to participate in many elections across the region, it is not invited to observe all of them. Indeed, the OAS only started observing U.S. elections in 2016 and was notably not invited to observe the 2015 Venezuelan elections.
Additionally, EOMs face limitations in addressing the underlying challenges to democracy that go beyond election processes. While reports from EOMs note the state of freedom of the press and democracy broadly, their primary focus is on the election itself and how the voting process is conducted. This can overlook very real challenges to the democratic process in a country beyond the election.
Electoral missions also run the risk of legitimizing elections that are not free and fair. Given that EOMs signal the fairness and quality of an election process, those with questionable democratic records may invite observers to gain legitimacy at home and abroad even if they may seek to manipulate the electoral process. This situation is what political scientist Susan Hyde refers to as the “the pseudo–democrat’s dilemma.” However, these pseudo–democrats may overestimate their own abilities to manipulate electoral results or the ability of EOMs to denounce their actions. For instance, the OAS observed and voiced concerns about the recent presidential elections in El Salvador. Civil Society groups used this report, and those from other EOMs, to pressure the Biden administration to take greater action on holding El Salvadorian democracy up to a higher standard.
OAS electoral missions have, however, come under fire in recent years—most notably during the 2019 Bolivian election. Despite the OAS not addressing underlying challenges to democracy in the country—what some referred to as a “slow–motion coup” that included efforts to eliminate term limits and challenges to freedom of the press—it sent a mission to observe the elections. When the EOM initially reported irregularities, protests erupted that resulted in the military pushing then President Evo Morales to resign. Since then, critics have questioned the OAS’s methodology and claim it supported a coup. This has created further polarization within the OAS and challenged its mission of supporting democracy in the Americas.
To monitor or not to monitor, that is the question
The evolving threats to election integrity and the limitations of EOMs, lead to important questions about the (f)utility of election monitoring as a tool for defending democracy. While there are limitations to what an EOM can do, they play a crucial role in protecting democracy. Organizations like the OAS are crucial for their ability to criticize electoral processes. When they do not play this role (or are not invited), other organizations have filled the void. This occurred in the 2015 Venezuelan elections, when the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) “accompanied” the election despite having very different standards for monitoring and reporting—to the point that they must respect the principle of non-intervention to the point that they can not publicly condemn electoral irregularities. This allowed the Venezuelan government to claim legitimacy despite deep concerns among democracy advocates.
This is not to say electoral monitoring cannot be improved—in the Americas and beyond. The OAS should encourage all member states to invite the OAS to observe every election so as to further discourage leaders with questionable democratic credentials from opting not to have an EOM. This can serve as a deterrent to electoral interference. Additionally, the OAS should expand its reporting to include annual reports produced by experts on the state of democracy in every member state. This can strengthen the OAS role as a defender of democracy in the region and limit the risk of legitimizing elections in contentious political environments. Finally, to strengthen the perception of EOMs broadly, different organizations conducting these missions should produce a joint report in addition to their own individual reports. This not only strengthens the perception of EOMs, but limits the political calculations and sensitivities that individual EOMs may face when reporting on particular states.
Despite the challenges that EOMs face and the risk of pseudo–democratic legitimation, defenders of democracy should embrace and expand the use of election monitoring. At a time when democracy is under assault, EOMs provide a useful tool for ensuring that elections are free and fair while providing a tool for the international community to validate and verify commitments to democratic norms. This provides policymakers with the tools to more effectively and consistently address democratic threats in the Americas and beyond.
