Why should I accept the result of an election when my preferred party does not win? When an election result is accepted, the parliament and government formed from it have legitimacy.  Only if everyone accepts the outcome does a country have stable democracy. As well as voters accepting the result, it is vital that the competing parties accept the result, especially if the election creates a change of those in power. One defining moment for a new democracy is the first time that power changes hands from one party to another as the result of an election. It is also important that the media, the security forces, and the international community all accept the result.

Assessing 'free and fair'

‘Free and fair’ is the phrase commonly used when assessing elections in newly democratised countries.  While developed democracies do not have international observers pronouncing how free and fair an election is, the idea is still vitally important in ensuring that the result is accepted, and legitimacy attached to the elected government.  Broadly speaking, ‘free’ means that there is no restriction on access to the process, and ‘fair’, that it is run impartially and in accordance with international standards.

A large part of making an election free and fair has to do with how it is run.  Core components are:

• the laws and rules which govern the election – these must be clearly specified
• the electoral system – details of the electoral system should align with common views of how a winner is to be chosen
• management of the election event – the body running the election must be impartial and must manage the event both efficiently and effectively.

Tools for assessment

A Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and an accompanying code of conduct for observers was endorsed at the United Nations in 2005 by 21 international bodies including the Commonwealth Secretariat, Pacific Island Forum, and the Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand Electoral Administrators' network (PIANZEA).

"International election observation evaluates pre-election, election-day and post-election periods through comprehensive, long-term observation, employing a variety of techniques," the declaration says.  "As part of these efforts, specialized observation missions may examine limited pre-election or post-election issues and specific processes (such as, delimitation of election districts, voter registration, use of electronic technologies and functioning of electoral complaint mechanisms). Stand-alone, specialized observation missions may also be employed, as long as such missions make clear public statements that their activities and conclusions are limited in scope and that they draw no conclusions about the overall election process based on such limited activities. All observer missions must make concerted efforts to place the election day into its context and not to over-emphasize the importance of election day observations. International election observation examines conditions relating to the right to vote and to be elected, including, among other things, discrimination or other obstacles that hinder participation in electoral processes based on political or other opinion, gender, race, colour, ethnicity, language, religion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, such as physical disabilities. The findings of international election observation missions provide a factual common point of reference for all persons interested in the elections, including the political competitors. This can be particularly valuable in the context of disputed elections, where impartial and accurate findings can help to mitigate the potential for conflicts."

A commonly used checklist, created by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, has 27 questions in three sections: voting and election rights; candidate, party and campaign rights and responsibilities; and the rights and responsibilities of the states. There are other tools used to assess an election, or the working of democracy more broadly. Some of these seek to assign a numerical score to each country by using numbers such as turnout combined with a ranking or score on a five point scale. The other approach is to create a report which considers a number of criteria.

Another commonly used method for broader assessment is the Democratic Audit which asks a series of questions about ‘how much’ or ‘to what extent’ something occurs in a democracy, for instance ‘how far are the election results accepted by all political forces in the country and outside?’. The Democratic Audit approach assumes that democracy is a continuum rather than something that is there or is not. It also assumes that a country may be more democratic in some aspects than others and recognises that, in designing and operating a democracy, choices are made as to how to balance competing ideals.

Many countries have internal observers, instead of, or as well as, international observers. Such observers may come from a range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as churches, women’s organisations and professional organisations of lawyers or human rights specialists. Another common form of internal observation is scrutineers appointed by candidates and parties contesting the election. Part of their role is to check the details of the process to ensure that nothing occurs that may hamper their candidate. In New Zealand, candidate or party-appointed scrutineers can sit in the polling place at the table where names are checked off the electoral roll, and also witness the vote count.

Questions of balance

In considering how free and fair an election is, there are often questions of balance and each country will have to make its own decision, based on its own circumstances and values. For instance, rules about campaigning must balance the rights of candidates, parties, and others not contesting the election to be able to put their arguments to the people with the rights of free speech without restriction. In order to achieve equal access, parties with less money may be helped and those with more money restricted, which will curb their freedom of speech. In making decisions about how an election is run, a balance needs to be struck between ensuring easy access to a polling booth for all voters and managing the election within the assigned budget. For instance, opening a polling place in a remote area or providing an interpreter in each booth will assist some voters in casting a vote but such provisions are expensive.

Each election will also be assessed by voters, parties and candidates, civil society, and the news media. Here there are no published checklists and prioritising of the factors which make for a successful election will vary according to local history and values. For instance, in New Zealand great emphasis is put upon knowing the result quickly on election night, ‘before everyone goes to bed’. Other common expectations are that voters will not have to queue for long at the polling place and that there will be few informal votes (ballot papers that cannot be counted because they do not meet the rules). In other countries, some priorities are a lack of violence on polling day, high turnout and a decrease in the number of challenges or complaints. An election is a big event in every country and there are usually rituals and habits that develop in each country around election day, and particularly on election night or through the count as people wait for the results and react to them. These practices vary greatly and can be glimpsed in television coverage of election nights in other countries.