Election observation: “No red lines, but a large gray area”

It’s not just election day that matters: In an interview with tagesschau.de explains election observation expert Meier when a vote is considered free and independent. And what scams there are.

tagesschau.de: The Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF) sends personnel to election observation missions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or the European Union (EU). How exactly does this work?

Rebecca Meier: As election observers, we only look at countries that invite us. If that is the case, we first look at what laws and agreements exist or have been signed in the country on the subject of elections. This also includes, for example, international agreements such as United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It contains articles that clearly secure freedom of expression and the right to choose one’s own government.

tagesschau.de: Does this mean that there are no generally applicable criteria, but rather that each state is considered individually?

Meier: Yes and no. On the one hand, the choice is compared with the international standards to which the respective country has committed itself. On the other hand, we monitor whether the electoral laws meet these standards and whether our own laws are implemented correctly. Election day is just one aspect of observation. The election cycle contains much more. Election observation is therefore also about media freedom, access for minorities and other aspects. Is there an atmosphere of fear? Do I really go to the polling station voluntarily?

And that’s why you have to look at each country or each election individually because it is very difficult to say: Here is the limit and if this point is met, then it is no longer a free and fair election. You can’t really say that, you just look at the overall package. There is no red line, just a large gray area.

“The right to object is important”

tagesschau.de: They are in Germany Principles of elections laid down in the Basic Law. They should be general, immediate, free, secret and equal. To what extent does this correspond to international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Meier: There are basic principles that are the same in most agreements – whether with the EU or the African Union, for example. This includes core aspects such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the right to vote and be elected and even the right to found a party.

The right to object is also important. So if I notice that there has been a mistake at this point, then there must be an institution to which I can complain. In Germany, for example, this would be the Federal Returning Officer.

If none of this is the case, for example if there is no free press or no free election campaign, then one can no longer speak of free and fair elections.

tagesschau.de: If you have been invited to a country, how exactly do you accompany the election?

Meier: There are different levels involved. On the one hand, there is the core team in the capital that is responsible for on-site coordination. Then there are the so-called long-term election observers, who contact electoral authorities, parties and civil society, among others, weeks before the election. This information is then collected from the core team.

Immediately before the election, the short-term election observers are added, who are primarily involved in the process on election day. They drive to various polling stations and observe the opening, voting and counting. At the end, all collected assessments and observations are published in a final report.

tagesschau.de: Is it known in advance which polling stations the election observers will look at?

Meier: No. The day before the vote, each team decides which polling stations it will visit. So no one knows where we appear and where we don’t. However, of course we can only observe a fraction of the polling stations. But it is also not the goal of international observers to be at every polling station. What we want is to take a sample, so to speak.

“New cars were auctioned in Russia”

tagesschau.de: In some countries, for example, vouchers are advertised to increase voter turnout. At what point should such actions be viewed critically?

Meier: In some countries, elections are a celebration of democracy. There is a tradition of live concerts and meeting outside after voting. First of all, this is something beautiful.

It becomes critical when there is a strategic attempt to keep voter turnout high in order to simply send a signal, a signal of support for the current government. This was the case in Russia, for example.

For example, when I was in Russia as an election observer in 2018, a large number of new cars were auctioned. There was a raffle and to take part you had to take a photo of yourself in front of the polling station under a slogan.

tagesschau.de: So again it depends on the individual case?

Meier: Exactly, it’s a gray area. For example, in the USA there are also large organizations that try to motivate young people, Latinos or, for example, African Americans to vote. Of course they do this with a different background. I think you always have to look closely at who does it, how they do it and what it’s about. For example, is there a choice recommendation?

tagesschau.de: In some countries, independent election observation organizations are not invited to elections, but politicians from certain countries and parties are invited – in Russia, for example, members of the AfD. How should something like this be assessed?

Meier: The big problem is that not all journalists get comprehensive information. That is, many are adopting the headline: International election observers were present. And of course that’s true to a certain extent. There were international people who were there, observed and made a statement. But these people were invited with a very clear political agenda and background.

That is a very big difference to the ZiF election observers. Our election observers work with an international mandate – that is, they are representatives of the international community. They observe using a sophisticated methodology that has been developed over many years, receive extensive training and are financed exclusively by the ZIF. And therefore not through the inviting state.

“Immense pressure to deliver desired results”

tagesschau.de: Have you ever witnessed direct election fraud?

Meier: The OSCE report in Uzbekistan It was very clear and I can confirm this. There were cases of so-called ballot box stuffing – i.e. the urn being filled with fake ballot papers or pre-filled – that I was able to observe during the counting.

tagesschau.de: How can something like this be done in front of election observers?

Meier: On the one hand, this is certainly ignorance. And on the other hand, in some countries there is immense pressure to deliver the desired results. There are probably requirements for a region that a certain proportion of those eligible to vote must show up. And then the local election worker will probably ask himself what is more important to him at that moment: the international observers who are writing something or my neighbor, perhaps my landlord or my employer, who is now sitting across the table from me.

tagesschau.de: What other types of electoral fraud are there?

Meier: A classic example would be the voter lists. There could still be numerous people there who have already died but are still allowed to vote. Or you can see the same signatures on every page. Or that, as in Russia, promising candidates are excluded from the election for flimsy reasons. And the rules as to who is allowed to run in an election can be so severely restricted that only a few people who meet these criteria are eligible.

“The basis of everything is trust”

tagesschau.de: There is always a lot of discussion about the risk of manipulation with electronic voting machines. Does that make your job more difficult?

Meier: Electronic voting does not have to be a bad thing per se. In some countries, such as Estonia, for example, internet voting is widespread. Such systems are of course initially difficult for normal election observers to check. Therefore, there are experts who can take a closer look at the servers and give a professional assessment.

But because it is very complex for many people, it is also an easy target for populists. They can then simply claim that these systems cannot be controlled and that they have been manipulated. We have already seen this with Donald Trump in the USA and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, among others, including in established democracies.

In some Balkan countries, for example, it is the other way around. There are many citizens there who say that we don’t trust people and that we want more electronic voting options because we see that it works.

That said, I wouldn’t always say technology is bad, but rather the question is how is technology used, what technology is used and how well are voters informed about it?

tagesschau.de: You have already mentioned populists like Trump or Bolsonaro. Accusations of alleged election manipulation in the event of undesirable results can quickly be heard from these camps. Does this affect your work?

Meier: What you have to remember about elections: The basis of everything is trust. In Sweden they print out many times as many ballot papers as there are eligible voters. They are then available in post offices or supermarkets, among other places, and anyone can take them with them. The idea behind it is that you can find out information early. Actually, you should throw your hands up over your head because this is sensitive material. But in Sweden there is this crazy trust in the system, which fortunately we still have to a certain extent in Germany.

But once that’s gone, it’s very difficult to rebuild. And that’s why we can only warn against initiatives or parties that repeatedly question elections and question the system. I’m not saying the system is flawless, but basically it works. This needs to be emphasized. Because once trust is gone, populists have an easy time of it.

The interview was conducted by Pascal Siggelkow, tagesschau.de