Introduction

The PRESS training module is designed to provide election administrators, donors, human rights campaigners, and other interested parties with an overview of how to organize elections that enfranchise refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in a cost-effective and transparent fashion. The main goal is to provide a detailed account of specific issues regarding refugee/IDP voting at different points in the election cycle, and suggest best practices and standards regarding how to resolve these issues.

The intent is to ensure that refugee/IDP voting programs correspond with criteria for genuine elections.The topics are divided thematically by area of interest to election administrators, political actors, and negotiators. Each topic is discussed in terms of the relevance of international human rights law and existing election standards, issues and options confronting electoral actors, and concludes with proposals distilled from both human rights law and recent experience.

Election Standards and Refugee/IDP Voting

Refugee/IDP voting is a recent phenomenon and has not generated much attention from students of democratization and electoral systems. As a result, the best practices and standards proposed here do not always have a direct reference in international human rights law or a direct correlation with election standards initiatives. It is precisely where there are such gaps and deficiencies that we propose recommendations based on recent experience – primarily in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Kosovo, and East Timor, although other cases are referenced as well. Detailed descriptions of ten electoral events used to delineate the proposals are available in a separate PEP study entitled: “Case Studies on the Participation of Conflict-Forced Migrants in Elections.”

Elections conducted in post-conflict situations are complicated affairs. International commitment and interest can range from the provision of election commodities alone, to international supervision and certification of the process. Where international interest is high, better funding may be available, but diplomatic and political imperatives can complicate election timelines and procedures. Where interest is low, the election process may be more susceptible to electoral engineering. Post-conflict elections also occur in the framework of a negotiated political agreement. Since the country’s political and electoral system – and perhaps even timelines and procedures – may form part of a peace agreement, electoral actors may have only limited ability to influence the design of the process.

Domestically, post-conflict elections are characterized by suspicion between formerly warring parties, damaged communications and transport infrastructure, poor security environments, and chaotic legal and regulatory systems. As a consequence, elections often proceed – and are often certified – with technical and procedural flaws that would be unacceptable in a consolidated democracy. These flaws should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis and against the backdrop of the above conditions; even less-than-perfect elections can contribute to peace and reconstruction by serving as catalysts for foreign assistance and transforming conflictive relationships into co-habitational policy rivalry. But non-genuine elections can also trigger the renewal of hostilities or generate resentment and dissatisfaction with the peace process. Transparency, inclusion, and the active participation of all political groups and actors are critical to ensuring that the election serves as a confidence-building exercise.

This module aims to help EMB and political actors to conduct electoral processes that promote consistent international standards and practices for refugee and IDP participation in post-conflict elections.

About the Module

This module is an output of the research component of the Participatory Elections Project (now known as PRESS), an IOM initiative funded by the United States Agency for International Development. Most of the module’s contents are derived from the PEP discussion paper entitled Enfranchising Conflict-Forced Migrants: Issues, Standards, and Best Practices,

Overall research and drafting was conducted by Jeremy Grace of the State University of New York at Geneseo with significant input, advice, and drafting from Jeff Fischer of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). In addition, invaluable commentary and discussion of earlier drafts of the document and proposed standards were provided by the PEP Advisory Committee, particularly Michael Maley, Director of International Services at the Australian Elections Commission, Ron Gould, Former Assistant Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, Kay Hailbronner, Professor of Law at the University of Konstanz, and Alenka Mesojedec Pervinšek, Migration Law Expert representing the Government of Slovakia in the Council of Europe.

[1] Electoral actors include the constellation of election management bodies, political parties and prominent individuals, and civil society groups. We also use the term “Election Management Bodies” (EMBs) when referring specifically to national election commissions and administrators (including, where appropriate, international agencies implementing elections such as the UN and OSCE).