Communication from the Commission on EU election assistance and observation
Date: 2000-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, democratisation, election, fact-finding mission

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 11.4.2000
COM(2000) 191 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on EU Election Assistance and Observation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CONCEPTS

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS EU ELECTION ASSISTANCE AND
OBSERVATION

A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EU ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE AND OBSERVATION

Legal Framework

EU Decision-making Process and Institutional Roles

Financing

1.

2.

3.

4.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.3.1

Sources

4.3.2

Speed

4.4

A Strategy for Electoral Assistance and Observation

4.4.1

Criteria for Election Observation

4.4.2

Criteria for Election Assistance

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.

Election Observers and Experts

Practical Guidelines for Success

Assessment of the Election Outcome

Improving EU Visibility

Co-ordination with other Organisations

Conclusions

_______________________

Annex I

Overview of EU Experience

3

4

5

10

10

11

13

14

19

19

21

22

22

24

Annex II

Complementary Sources of Financing EU Election Assistance and Observation

Annex III

Guidelines – EU Policy on electoral Observation

Annex IV

EU Guidelines on common Criteria for selection of electoral Observers

Annex V

Recommendations for action

Annex VI

List of Abbreviations

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade the process of democratisation has manifested itself in many
countries by the holding of multiparty elections for the first time. In some parts of the
world, however, there have been clear reversals for democracy as well as dramatic
and massive violations of human rights. Nevertheless democracy remains a
universally valid system of governance, albeit one which needs to be backed up by
constitutionally guaranteed rights so as to prevent apparently democratic elections
from giving rise to ‘illiberal democracy’. As Fareed Zakaria notes: “Democracy
without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing
with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war”1.

The promotion of genuine democracy and respect for human rights is therefore not
only a moral imperative: it is also the determining factor in building sustainable
human development and lasting peace. Actions in support of democratisation and
respect for human rights, including the right to participate in the establishment of
governments through free and fair elections, can make a major contribution to peace,
security and the prevention of conflicts.

The end of the Cold War saw a shift in the attention of the international community
from the definition of international human rights norms and standards, to a more
active implementation of
those standards and democratic principles. Election
missions reflect this new approach.

EU support for human rights, democracy and the rule of law is established in the
Treaties. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) clearly states that the
principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law are
fundamental European values. Human rights field missions and election missions are
accepted as part of the mandate of the EU whose Treaty considers the protection and
promotion of human rights as well as support for democratisation as corner stones of
EU foreign policy and EU development co-operation. Regulations 975/99 and 976/99
of 29th April 19992 provide the legal basis for Community activities intended to
further and consolidate democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. A
complementary legal basis exists in the Lomé Convention.

In recent years, European Union electoral missions have grown in frequency whether
under the auspices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy or within the
Community context, and in particular its development cooperation, but up to now the
experiences gained have not been compiled systematically. An ad hoc approach no
this
the best use of
longer seems appropriate nor

resources. The aim of

1

2

ZAKARIA Fareed “The Rise of illiberal Democracy” Foreign Affairs Vol. 76 No. 6 p. 42.
Council Regulation (EC) N° 975/1999 of 29 April 1999 laying down the requirements for the
implementation of development co-operation operations which contribute to the general objective of
developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law and to that of respecting human rights and
fundamental freedoms, Official Journal L 120, 8/5/1999, page 1.
Council Regulation (EC) N° 976/1999 of 29 April 1999 laying down the requirements for the
implementation of Community operations, other than those of development co-operation, which, within
the framework of Community co-operation policy, contribute to the general objective of developing and
consolidating democracy and the rule of law and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental
freedoms, Official Journal L 120, 8/5/1999, page 8.

3

Communication is to contribute to the definition of a coherent European policy line
through a proper approach involving a strategy and methodology, taking into account
lessons learned from previous experiences. It responds to a specific request by the
European Parliament
to the Commission to assess EU participation in election
observation missions in recent years.

2.

CONCEPTS

Elections do not equate to democracy but
they are an essential step in the
democratisation process and an important element in the full enjoyment of a wide
range of human rights. Elections are human rights events for two reasons. First
because they give voice to the political will of the people. Secondly because to be
truly free and fair they must be conducted in an atmosphere which is respectful of
human rights3. The right to take part in government directly or through freely chosen
representatives is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article
21.1) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 25).

The development co-operation policy of the European Community is centred on
human beings and is closely linked to the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and
freedoms as well as on the recognition and application of democratic principles, the
consolidation of the rule of law and good governance. In the case of elections, good
governance refers to an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework, as well as
to a transparent and accountable election administration - including independent
supervision and monitoring - that ensures the respect for the rule of law. An informed
people, owning the electoral process, is the key factor in this context.

The basic international criteria for the validation of observed elections are in Article
21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This requires elections to be free,
fair, secret, held periodically and genuine4. The OSCE has developed the UN
provisions through its election-related commitments, agreed in Copenhagen in 19905.

Election assistance may be defined as the technical or material support given to the
electoral process. It may imply professional help to establish a legal framework for
the elections. It may take the form of a general input to the National Election
Commission, for example providing voting material and equipment, or helping in the
registration of political parties and the registration of voters. It may also imply
support to NGOs and civil society in areas such as voter and civic education or
training of local observers as well as support to the media through media monitoring
and training of journalists.

Election observation is the political complement to election assistance. It is defined
as “the purposeful gathering of information regarding an electoral process, and the
making of informed judgements on the conduct of such a process on the basis of the
information collected, by persons who are not inherently authorised to intervene in

3

4

5

UN Human rights and elections. A handbook on the legal, technical and human rights aspects of the
elections. New York and Geneva, 1994.
Ibid, page 6.
The OSCE commitments can be summarized as: universality, equality, fairness, secrecy, freedom,
transparency and accountability. OSCE/ODIHR, The ODIHR election observation handbook. 4th
edition, Warsaw, 1999, p.3.

4

the process”6. In broad terms, election observation is part of election assistance.
Technically speaking, they are different activities but essentially they should be
considered and programmed in a complementary manner.

International election observation is based on the principles7 of full coverage,
impartiality, transparency and professionalism. Its ultimate objective is to become
superfluous by entrenching democracy deep within each nation through development
of national capacities. Its main goals are the legitimisation of an electoral process,
where appropriate, and the enhancement of public confidence in the electoral
process, to deter fraud, to strengthen respect for human rights, and to contribute to
the resolution of conflict8.

However, it is important to recognise that elections are only one of the institutional
prerequisites for democracy and that they are not in themselves sufficient to grant the
title of “democratic” to an entire political system. Democracy can be supported but
is a long-term process that requires the
cannot be imposed by foreigners. It
involvement of the whole society ultimately concerned. Present international efforts
to support elections tend to emphasise the role of domestic monitors, both
independent and party.

3.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS EU ELECTION ASSISTANCE AND
OBSERVATION

The EU needs a coherent strategy

Although the EU has gained significant experience in election observation and
assistance in the last decade9, approaches have been diverse and the wheel has
sometimes been reinvented. Some progress has been made e.g. on criteria to decide
on a EU electoral observation mission and a code of conduct for observers and
criteria for recruiting them10. But there is still a need for a coherent strategy for
handling election observation and assistance.

Holding elections is not synonymous with democracy

Sometimes politicians in power may be tempted to organise manipulated elections in
order to obtain international legitimacy (Togo 1998, Kazakhstan 1999). Care should
be taken if a decision to send an EU observation mission could contribute to
legitimising an illegitimate process.

6

7

8

9

10

International IDEA: Code of conduct for the ethical and professional observation of elections -
Stockholm 1997 / page 10.
International IDEA Lessons learnt: international election observation, Stockholm 1995, page 7.
UN Electoral Assistance Division. Co-ordination and Support of
international observers, draft
operational guidelines. New York, 1996. International IDEA Lessons learnt: International election
observation. Stockholm 1995 / page 8.
See Annex I “Overview on EU Experience”.
In June 1998 the Council adopted “Guidelines – EU Policy on Electoral Observation” (Annex III), and
in June 1999, “EU Guidelines on Common Criteria for
the Selection of electoral Observers”
(Annex IV).

5

Electoral times have changed: a renewed approach is needed

In many countries, first generation elections11 have given way to more complex
scenarios where problems of democratic consolidation and enhancement of the rule
of law are significant factors. The development of national organisations and
individuals participating in the electoral process has expanded, requiring a re-
balancing of the partnership between international observer missions and domestic
actors. While consultation and co-operation with domestic observer groups is both
convenient and desirable, it is not without problems and requires sensitive handling.
However, the more properly constituted domestic observer groups there are, the more
likely it is that there will be a balanced spectrum of views. Certainly, in countries
where no such groups exist, EU assistance programmes should seek to help their
establishment and training.

Regional and local elections may also need assistance and observation

The EU should not focus only on national elections. To consolidate democracy, free
elections are necessary at all levels. At a local level, popular involvement is often
stronger. Support to elections at
in certain
developing countries where traditional power structures conflict with modern
concepts of democracy. Mozambique and China are convincing cases for paying
attention to the local level.

local level is particularly important

Exploratory missions are important

The EU performance and input to elections has invariably been enhanced where
timely and qualified exploratory missions have been undertaken and where a sincere
dialogue has been possible with the country in question. To facilitate later co-
ordination, these missions should inter alia gather information about the intentions of
other donors. If possible, they should be jointly organised with relevant international
organisations. The exploratory mission should also advise what conditions must be
fulfilled by the host government before the EU is prepared to commit funds.
Exploratory missions should give the first indication to EU decision makers of what
kind and what size of electoral intervention would be most effective.

Elections are not one-day events

registration,

instance, voter

It is necessary to observe all stages of the electoral process in order to have a well-
the
founded and comprehensive assessment. For
unfolding of the election campaign or the resolution of disputes after the voting (i.e.
FYROM 1999 and Mozambique 1999) may be crucial to assess the election process
properly. Sometimes the count may take several weeks due to logistic difficulties.
Long-term observers should be on the ground a couple of months before the election,
and remain long enough to comment on the final implementation of the election
results. Technical assistance is needed as early as possible, and should continue
between elections, promoting good governance and democratisation. The longer-
term programmes preceding and following an electoral process must be integrated
into the EU’s normal development agenda.

11

The terminology “first generation elections” is widely used to designate the first multi-party elections
taking place after a period of autocratic regime or after a civil conflict.

6

The assessment of elections is a delicate exercise

The assessment of an election as “free and transparent” has sometimes proved
inadequate where an election is taking place in an unstable environment and in a
period of political transition (e.g. Nigeria 1999 and Cambodia 1998). The assessment
of elections must do justice to the fact that they are part of a slow and gradual
development towards democracy.

The EU should seek to co-operate with other international groups to ensure, where
possible, common positions and the most effective deployment of resources. But it
should avoid formal co-ordination structures where the EU’s integrity and freedom
of word and action could be impaired by having to accept the lowest common
denominator among a disparate group of international donors (e.g. Cambodia 1998).
EU assessments could be more effective if they included recommendations for future
actions.

Care needs to be taken with the timing and content of EU statements

A preliminary statement12 on trends should be issued as soon as possible by the
spokesperson of the mission. Final statements, however, should not be made before
all observers are debriefed and all their findings taken into account (Nigeria 1999).
To ensure consistency and effectiveness any final EU statement should be made only
after the election reports of EU observers have been analysed and after proper
consultation with EU stakeholders on the spot. The final position of the EU should
only be made when the entire election process is completed (Indonesia 1999). The
election campaign, the polling and counting processes have to be seen in their
political and long-term context,
including the general human rights situation
(Cambodia 1998). The final and legal proclamation of the election results also
constitutes an integral element in the whole electoral process and should be part of
any EU election observation operation.

EU actors in the field must co-ordinate and speak with one voice to maximise
impact

Good co-ordination in the field among the Commission Delegation, the Council
Presidency, the EU Missions, MEPs and the EU Electoral Unit is necessary to the
success of an electoral mission. This co-ordination worked very well in the Russian
elections (1993) and in the Indonesian elections (1999). In spite of close consultation
and co-ordination, the appointment of a separate head of the EU Electoral Unit and
an EU Spokesperson in Cambodia in 1998 probably detracted from, rather than
enhanced, the EU’s contribution. The EU Core Team should have one clear leader,
who acts both as co-ordinator and spokesman on all electoral questions.

There is no focal point for elections in EU structures

Unlike the UN or ODIHR, none of the EU institutions, including the Commission,
has a unit responsible for EU election involvement in third countries. As a result
there has been a dispersion of efforts in the Commission among the different

12

There are different kinds of statements according to the moment they are issued: interim statements
(early in the election process); preliminary statements (after polling); final statements (after the
counting) and final report (after the resolution of disputes).

7

geographical Directorates General, without enough human resources being allocated
to this task. This lack of a structure and staff was criticised by the Court of Auditors
in its special report on the EU election observation of the 1996 Palestine elections13.
At present
to receive and deal with requests for EU
participation in election observation and assistance, or to engage with organisations
involved in this area.

there is no focal point

Decision-making needs to be clarified and rationalised

In general, the decision to send an EU electoral observation mission and the political
assessment of the elections has been governed by the inter-governmental rules of
CFSP. But the financing decision has been taken in the Community area (although in
the past there has also been limited CFSP financing). Working Groups of the Council
and the Committees of Member States14 are both involved in the process. The
Parliament may also decide to observe elections, as may Member States on a
bilateral basis.

There is a multiplicity of legal frameworks and budgetary lines

Development co-operation, human rights and CFSP budget lines have all been used
in the past to fund electoral involvement. There has been no consistency in the choice
of budgetary instrument, despite the fact that the choice has important institutional
consequences. While in the first pillar the Commission is in charge, in the second
pillar (CFSP), the Council Presidency and the High Representative for CFSP are
responsible for implementing CFSP actions (although the Commission retains
responsibility for implementing the budget). An opportunity to draw up a coherent
and transparent financing policy now exists following the adoption of Regulations
975/99 and 976/99 and the transfer of the CFSP elections budget line to Chapter B7-
70 (the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights).

Furthermore, despite the importance attached to election assistance in the context of
support for human rights and democratisation, not all Country Strategy Papers make
reference to it, even where there is a clear need for action in this area using
development co-operation funds.

Co-ordination between Council, Commission and Parliament needs strengthening

A higher level of co-ordination is necessary between the Commission, the European
Parliament (EP) and the Council. The role of the different EU institutions needs to be
defined and agreed between them. There is a general perception of excessive
complexity and lack of transparency in inter-institutional election actions.

The EP has an important role to play because of its special commitment to human
rights and democracy and because as elected representatives MEPs have a profound
knowledge of all aspects of electoral issues. But participation of EP observers has
encountered difficulties through a lack of co-ordination. A special role for MEPs in
the EU election set-up needs to be defined.

13

14

Special Report 4/96 p.16.
See 1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28th June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the Commission. OJ L 184, 17/07/1999, p. 23.

8

Co-ordination with other international actors has evolved into a delegation of
responsibilities instead of a real partnership

Co-ordination with other
international actors is necessary: creating synergies
improves the level of effectiveness, efficiency and bargaining capacity with recipient
countries. Co-ordination with other international actors brings benefits at different
levels, for example, a joint exploratory mission to identify needs and agree on the
distribution of tasks, the deployment and training of observers, the assessment of the
elections and the mutual exchange of information at all stages.

However, co-ordination should mean partnership, not delegation of responsibilities.
Due to lack of the management capacity to implement large field operations, the EU
has often delegated responsibility to other international actors such as the OSCE and
the UN15. In the OSCE geographical area, the EU has systematically worked under
the umbrella of the OSCE/ODIHR. This has in all cases diminished the EU’s identity
and rendered the control of Community funds problematic, as the Court of Auditors
has pointed out. A real risk exists that the EU, instead of being a policy actor,
becomes a bank to finance the policies of others, particularly as long as problems of
EU procedures and expertise are not addressed.

There is no standard agreement between the EU and most international organisations
involved in electoral assistance and observation. Major problems therefore arise.
Among these are respect for EU rules on management of funds, differential treatment
of personnel due to differences between EU employment conditions and those of
other organisations, lack of EU visibility and discrepancies in assessments of the
elections.

The EU has often not been visible

the EU’s

commitment

for elections demonstrates

Visible EU support
to
democratisation and sustainable development. Member states and the EP have
criticised the EU’s lack of visibility in elections where EU funds have been
committed. Lack of EU visibility is due to several factors. One is the lack of a clear
EU policy and the necessary instruments to implement it. The adoption of a CFSP
joint action is no guarantee of an increased visibility (Nigeria 1999). Another factor
is the participation of the EU under the umbrella of other international actors. For
example, there was serious lack of EU visibility in the Bosnia and Albania elections
under the framework of the OSCE. In other cases, like Palestine or Nigeria, the lack
of visibility was due to insufficient effort with the media. Unlike the United States,
the EU does not appoint retired high level politicians for this kind of job.

Resources must match political objectives

The expansion of electoral observation and assistance activities has not been
accompanied by an increase in, and training of, human resources either in Brussels or
on the ground. It is essential that the EU’s policy in this area should be implemented
by adequate staff with appropriate experience.

15

Joint EC/UNDP operations in support of democratic election processes represent 23 Mio

€
.

9

EU procedures hamper timely decisions and implementation

financial and technical co-operation projects do not

EU procedures for
lend
themselves to the provision of support for elections. Usually, the invitations to
observe elections are received very late. Some politically important elections are
called at very short notice. EU election observation and assistance often takes place
in uncertain situations e.g. post-war (Bosnia), post-dictatorship (Nigeria) or state
crisis situation (Albania). This requires a flexibility not allowed for by the present
to prepare and implement an
budgetary rules and makes it extremely difficult
electoral observation programme in due time while respecting the applicable existing
procedures. This difficulty was underlined by the Court of Auditors in its report on
the 1996 Palestine elections. In the case of Indonesia (1999) only recourse to special
procedures under the PVD/ALA Regulation permitted the necessary financing, but
the technical assistance team arrived too late to have the expected input. An
accelerated formula for decision-making which still respects the need for financial
control and responsibility is required.

Methods for recruiting observers are heterogeneous and confusing

Substantial differences exist between EU observers depending on which Member
State selected them, including their contractual and financial conditions. Selection,
recruitment and payment may be done by different institutions. In recent operations
the Commission has paid observers selected by Member States and recruited by other
institutions. Another source of confusion is that in each operation, the recruiting
agency may be different, e.g. the European Commission (Togo and Cambodia); the
international organisation in charge of co-ordinating the mission, such as the UNDP
(EU Core Team in Indonesia); or the UNV (observers in Nigeria and Indonesia).

Better training and field guidance is needed for EU electoral observers

Trained observers are essential to the quality and credibility of electoral observation
missions. In tense or conflict-ridden situations, deficiencies may be exploited by the
local actors, either the authorities or the opposition. In addition, observers without
proper training or experience may put their own lives, and those of their colleagues
or of the local population, at risk.

4.

A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EU ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE AND OBSERVATION

The following pages draw on the lessons learned, and the new legal and budgetary
framework for EU election assistance and observation,
some
recommendations for the future.

to set out

4.1.

Legal Framework

Until very recently,
to elections in third
the legal framework for EU support
countries was made up of the legal instruments (1st or 2nd pillar) dealing with the
country where elections were taking place or the region to which it belongs. In
particular, these instruments were either the international convention - e.g. Lomé
Convention with ACP countries or partnership and co-operation agreements with

10

NIS16 - or the Regulation governing the relations with the country in which elections
were taking place - e.g. PHARE, TACIS or PVD/ALA Regulation. In case of EU
election observation under CFSP, the legal basis was the specific CFSP Joint Action
dealing with EU election observation in a particular country.

On 29th April 1999, the Council adopted two new Regulations (975/99 and 976/99)
providing for a specific legal basis for Community operations which “contribute to
the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law
and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms” in third countries.
These regulations have the same Committee involved in their implementation and
they only differ in their geographical scope and legal basis (Art. 308 (ex-235) TEC
for countries benefiting from TACIS, PHARE, MEDA and OBNOVA17, and Art 179
(ex-130w) TEC for developing countries18). Article 3.2 par. (f) and 2.2 par. (f)
respectively, state that the European Community shall provide technical and financial
aid for operations aimed at supporting the processes of democratisation, in particular:

f)

support for electoral processes,
in particular by supporting independent
electoral commissions, granting material, technical and legal assistance in
preparing for elections, including electoral censuses, taking measures to
promote the participation of specific groups, particularly women, in the
electoral process and by training observers”.19

Following the entry into force of these regulations (975/99 and 976/99), future EU
election assistance and observation will be undertaken exclusively under the first
pillar. The principle source of funding, and in particular the provision of support to
governmental actors, will be implemented under the regulations or agreements
governing relations with third countries, including funds available under ALA/MED,
TACIS, PHARE, OBNOVA and the Lomé Convention. But the new Human Rights
regulations and Chapter B7-7 will also be used, in particular in support of non-
governmental activity (see point 4.3.1 below).

Future EU election assistance and observation to be undertaken exclusively
under the first pillar, mainly under regulations or agreements governing relations
with third countries but also using new human rights regulations

4.2.

The EU Decision-making Process and Institutional Roles

Until now, the political decision was often taken in the CFSP framework and the
financing decision in the Community and/or CFSP context. Following the adoption
of the Human Rights Regulations 975/99 and 976/99, the decision both to provide

16

17

18

19

Human rights clauses have become a general pattern in agreements with third countries.
Council Regulation (EC) No 976/1999 of 29 April 1999. Official Journal L 120, 8/5/1999, page 8.
Council Regulation (EC) No 975/1999 of 29 April 1999. Official Journal L 120, 8/5/1999, page 1.
Other relevant paragraphs are:
(c)
“promotion of pluralism both at political level and at the level of civil society by strengthening
the institutions needed to maintain the pluralist nature of that society, including non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), and by promoting independent and responsible media and supporting a free
press and respect for the rights of freedom of association”
(e)
“promoting the participation of the people in the decision-making process at national, regional
and local level, in particular by promoting the equal participation of men and women in civil society, in
economic life and in politics”.

11

electoral assistance and to send EU observers must be taken in the first pillar, on the
basis of Commission proposals.

Given the Commission’s pivotal role in making proposals for Community election
assistance and monitoring, and the request from external actors that there should be a
central focal point,
the Commission is currently studying the opportunity of
establishing a permanent Elections Desk within its services with responsibility for
horizontal policy on electoral assistance and electoral observation. Such a service
would co-ordinate all requests for Community electoral involvement and provide
advice based on accumulated experience and links with other experts, while the
geographical desks would remain in the lead on planning and implementing election
assistance and observation operations in their countries. .

An Elections Desk would ensure the proper coherence of EU actions and facilitate
the implementation process. It would co-ordinate with geographical desks in carrying
out ex-ante evaluations of proposed actions. It would be the EU institutional memory
and hold detailed records of EC electoral operations including Chief Observers
reports, Terms of Reference (TOR), Financing Agreements, pro-forma agreements
with governments, agreements with the UN, OSCE, etc and any other relevant
material. The Elections Desk could develop methodology (e.g. operational guidelines
the organisation of electoral assistance and observation) and establish a
for
framework for training both technical assistants and observers,
including the
preparation of an EU manual to cover both activities (currently underway). It could
also oversee the recruitment and training of observers and maintain a list of electoral
experts and observers.

Through the Elections Desk the Commission would ensure proper planning and co-
ordination with the other EU institutions through the following procedure:

–

–

–

At the beginning of each year, the Commission will have an exchange of views
with the Council’s working groups concerned (COHOM and geographical
working groups), the Member States (Human Rights Committee) and the
European Parliament on the basis of a yearly calendar of upcoming elections to
be drawn up by the Elections Desk in consultation with the CFSP High
Representative’s Policy Unit (a task currently performed by the Presidency).
This will be maintained during the year with input from geographical units and
Delegations.

This forward exchange of views could cover whether or not assistance and/or
observation were likely to be advisable, and the nature of any participation,
taking into account the EU’s overall strategy. This process would also facilitate
resource planning by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council.

The Commission will then decide on a case by case basis whether to propose
assistance and/or an observation mission, following discussion with Member
States in the appropriate forum, and according to the provisions of the relevant
Regulation. Input from Member States may come through an assessment made
by the EU Heads of Mission, discussions in the Council’s working groups and
in the appropriate Committee of
the Member States. The European
Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Development Committees will also contribute
their views and comments.

12

Subsequent discussion in the Council’s working groups and with the European
Parliament could cover the evaluation of the results of any exploratory mission and
the nature of any possible EU participation. It could also cover participation by
MEPs and member States in the observer mission, ensure complementarity of EC
and nationally-financed observers and determine arrangements for co-ordination on
the ground including the role of any in-country Election Unit.

If there is an EU Election Unit, it should endeavour to involve all participants,
whether from the EU or individual member States, in its activities. Co-ordination
with Member States on shared facilities and on all aspects of the global EU
contribution should be initiated as early as possible in the process.

The European Parliament, as the elected parliamentary body of the EU, should have
a key role in electoral observation and should be involved from an early stage in the
joint planning of electoral missions. In actual EU election missions, a special role
should be defined for MEPs to maximise their electoral and parliamentary experience
and their capacity to link with civic groups, political parties etc. A reserved space for
MEPs should be established in each EU election observation team. The EP would be
responsible for proposing a team of MEPs with the relevant experience.
the
In order to define their respective roles and responsibilities,
Commission and the European Parliament,
should agree upon appropriate
arrangements on electoral observation, starting from some of the above proposals.
The establishment of focal points in the three institutions would also facilitate inter-
institutional co-operation on elections.

the Council,

– The Commission will study the opportunity of establishing an Elections
Desk with horizontal co-ordination and planning tasks, including ex-ante
evaluation, to assist geographical desks and delegations and liaise with EU
institutions and other bodies

– Better annual planning

– Special role for the European Parliament and MEPs

– Appropriate arrangements on electoral observation missions should be
agreed upon among by the Council, the Parliament and the Commission.

4.3.

Financing

4.3.1.

Sources

Elections are an expense which should fall to the country concerned as part of
ensuring the rule of law. Therefore the financing of elections should, wherever
feasible, be funded by the national budget. If this is not sufficient to cover the whole
election process, EC support should primarily be made available from the co-
operation budget which is intended to support government programmes. This is in
line with the approach to development which links political events to sustainable
development, and ensures the ownership of the political process by the country
concerned. It also corresponds to the EU treaties (art. 11 TEU and art. 177 TEC) and
the human rights clauses in agreements with third countries and in EC legislation.

In the past, electoral assistance has consistently been funded by the 1st pillar, while
electoral observation has been funded from either the 1st or 2nd pillars, or a

13

combination of the two, with Member States making additional contributions in
some cases. Where CFSP Joint Actions have been used to observe elections, funds
have never been sufficient to cover all the expenses of the EU involvement, and they
have therefore been combined with complementary Community actions (e.g.
Palestine, Bosnia, Nigeria).

Following the entry into force of Regulations 975/99 and 976/99, it has become clear
that all future election assistance and observation will be funded under the first pillar.
This will be done on the basis of complementarity: funding of action in favour of a
specific country should come mainly from co-operation instruments
(Lomé
Convention, PVDALA, OBNOVA, PHARE, TACIS, etc.). Funding of thematic
actions, like training, media, civic and voter education, should come from Chapter
B7-70. Despite the inclusion in this chapter of a specific budget line in support for
democratic transition and the supervision of electoral processes(B7-709), the funds
allocated are not sufficient
to cover all electoral assistance and observation
commitments the Community is expecting to face in each financial year. The
continued use of funds allocated to co-operation instruments is thus an imperative.
Furthermore, grants from chapter B7-70 are primarily intended to support NGOs as
well as international organisations. Additional funding may of course be provided by
Member States20.

4.3.2.

Speed

The Commission is studying several possibilities for accelerating and simplifying
decisions to commit funds and implement actions. A distinction can be made
between forward planning and reactive measures, which is necessary where elections
are called at very short notice, making advance planning difficult.

Forward planning:

Decision-making and implementation can be facilitated by:

–

–

–

–

Better annual planning (see para. 4.2)

Reference to provision of assistance to promote good governance and support
the democratisation process - including elections - in co-operation strategies
concerning each third country.

Earmarking an adequate amount of funds in each geographical budget line to
be mobilised in the case of an election being announced during the course of
the year.

Establishing framework agreements with partners with appropriate specialised
expertise and experience e.g. advice on drafting of electoral laws, election
administration, logistics, media, voter education or in specific geographical
areas. Partners would be identified through a transparent selection process. The
agreements would be complemented with rapid ad hoc financial contracts as
soon as the need for a specific service arose. This would bring flexibility in
terms of management it would save time (the administrative workload would
be reduced) and it would streamline expertise, since election assistance and

20

See Annex II “Complementary Sources of Financing EU Election Assistance and Observation”.

14

observation entails a wide spectrum of skills which are better covered by
specialised bodies.

Reactive Measures:

–

–

The emergency procedures in Council Regulations 975/99 and 976/99 (art. 14
and 15) for use “in cases of urgent and unforeseeable need” allow the
Commission to commit funds quickly after consulting the Member States who
have five days to react. Emergency procedures are also foreseen in the rules of
procedures of the Committees involved in the implementation of the TACIS,
PHARE, OBNOVA and PVDALA programmes.. These procedures do not,
however, address the question of downstream delays.

Consideration should be given to fast track procedures, in particular the setting
up of a rapid deployment capability. This would entail that EU electoral
experts could be identified and recruited at short notice. For instance, in the
OSCE framework, the EC could send one or two experts in each ODIHR
election team, who could support and train Short Term Observers (STOs) from
EU Member States.

- Election assistance and observation to be funded under first pillar (mainly

co-operation instruments but also Chapter B7-70).
– Accelerate and simplify decision-making and implementation.

4.4.

A Strategy for Electoral Assistance and Observation

The present paragraph deals with EU strategy and objectives concerning electoral
assistance and observation while paragraphs 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 deal with criteria to
decide whether the EU should or not intervene. So far there is no overall EU strategy
for EU electoral
the Council recently agreed criteria
concerning whether to send an observation mission, as well as criteria for the
recruitment and conduct of those observers (Annexes III and IV).

involvement. However,

Building on previous experience and existing work, the EU should adopt a strategy
which:

–

–

–

–

is guided by clear objectives and the principle of partnership between the EU
and the country where elections are taking place. The Community should help
the host government to create and sustain an independent national capacity for
the holding of elections based upon democracy, the rule of law and respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms. This should be reflected in Country
Strategy Papers for countries where it is relevant;

avoids dependency by providing assistance only where it is really needed;

allows for a case-by-case decision on provision of Community assistance and
the sending of observers, using established criteria (see below) and allows EC
election involvement to adapt to a changing situation including so that it can
stop if necessary conditions are no longer met;

ensures that where both assistance and observation are required, they should be
complementary. In most circumstances, both are likely to be partner elements
in advancing the EU’s objectives;

15

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

promotes the development of national capacity and gives support where
appropriate to national Election Commissions and to NGO and Civil Society
Organisations involved in civic and voter education;

promotes long-term sustainability after an election. Where appropriate, a
technical assistance mission could continue to assist the government to remedy
any weakness in the electoral administration and the rule of law;

promotes pluralism, both at political level and at the level needed to maintain
the pluralist nature of society. This should include the promotion of local
NGOs and other local actors and strengthening their impact on local capacity
building. Equally important will be the promotion of an independent and
responsible media, and respect for the rights of freedom of association. In some
elections, there may be case for financing local NGOs but not government
activities;

promotes partnership with NGOs and allows for lessons to be learned from
their experience. A consistent and coherent effort should be made by the EU to
identify and integrate European and local NGOs with appropriate mandates and
relevant experience in EU electoral support, using Chapter B7-70. In particular
the EU should promote the participation of women and people from national
minorities in the election and decision-making process at national, regional and
local level, whether as voters or as candidates; a free and pluralist media; and
civic and voter education;

emphasises support
to local observers, who can play a key role in the
development of democratic institutions. Once democratic institutions are
established and functioning well, EU observers should no longer be needed.
However, domestic observer organisations receiving EU support must be
sufficiently broad-based, well-balanced and neutral;

pays special attention to proper electoral registration and the fair delimitation
of electoral boundaries;

including checks on all stages of

promotes the mechanisms of self-regulation needed for a properly functioning
democracy,
the electoral process by
representatives of all contesting political parties, a free media, and monitoring
by
religious
“neutral”
organisations).

(typically NGOs

organisations

domestic

or

EU should adopt a strategy which allows for case-by-case decisions to support
and observe elections.

EU strategy should be to promote national capacity and sustainability.

EU actions should promote pluralism and support
observers.

local NGOs and local

4.4.1. Criteria for Election Observation

To help establish whether the EU’s objectives are attainable certain criteria are
needed. The Commission considers that the Council criteria adopted on the 28 June

16

1998 (Annex III) offer a valid basis for determining whether to mount an EU
electoral observation mission. Besides the relevance of the country for the EU, three
considerations are paramount:

–

Is EU participation advisable?. To avoid the EU being drawn into a situation
where its presence might give credibility to a flawed election process, full
account should be taken of the relevant political and legal factors in situ.
Minimally acceptable conditions should normally include:

–

–

–

–

–

–

a universal franchise;

freedom for
elections;

individuals and political parties to participate in the

freedom of expression to criticise the government;

the right to free movement;

the right of assembly;

reasonable access to the media for all contesting parties and candidates.

Other important factors should also be weighed up carefully and form a part of
the EU’s judgement and decision e.g. Is the election is the first following a
period of conflict or oppression? Do the elections accompany a peace process
or the possible return of refugees?

–

Is EU participation viable? Even where a situation exists for free and fair
elections the EU should still seek to establish certain conditions for its
participation:

–

–

–

–

–

a request to observe the election by the government of the host country.
A formal request from the government should be sought but in some
circumstances, a clear indication of the government’s willingness to have
EU observers, even when not formally expressed, may be acceptable;

a host government responsive to EU requests for specific amendments or
improvements to the electoral preparations;

the support by all the main contesting political parties or candidates for
the involvement of EU observers;

the existence of previous EU monitoring of political developments in the
host country;

a time-scale which permits the leaders of any EU monitoring team to be
in place sufficiently in advance.

–

Is EU participation useful? An observation exercise normally provides some
degree of legitimisation, contributes something to confidence-building and
always acts as a deterrent to fraud. However observation is a costly business.
Priorities need to be established, and usefulness must partially be defined in
terms of cost/benefit ratio. An electoral mission could be advisable and viable

17

but only marginally useful (e.g. Guatemala 1999). This concept of “usefulness”
is largely technical and must be balanced by an EU assessment of whether its
global relations with the country concerned and EU general objectives make an
EU electoral presence “politically useful”.

Normally all EU electoral missions should have written Terms of Reference (TOR)
agreed with the government and the electoral authorities of the country being
observed. The TOR should include the objectives and the requirements of the
observation activity such as a guarantee for observers of freedom of movement and
freedom of access to all political parties, candidates and election officials as well as
to all polling and counting stations. In addition observers should be entitled to
receive all necessary information about the electoral process. The safety of the
observers should also be guaranteed.

A decision to send observers should be based on consideration of advisability,
viability and usefulness. The 1998 Council criteria on whether to send an EU
observation mission remain a good basis to decide this.

EU electoral missions should have Terms of Reference agreed with the host
government.

4.4.2. Criteria for Election Assistance

Given that the EC cannot and should not participate financially in each and every
election, what kind of election should be assisted or observed? The EU has normally
been involved in the first or second general elections of a country going through a
transition. However, an assessment of the desirability of supporting an election
process whether national or local - should be made on a case by case basis, taking
into account the EU’s overall strategy, the political importance and potential for
democracy of the election itself; the relevance of the country for the EU as well as its
budgetary constraints.

The Council has not agreed criteria for provision of election assistance, and they are
likely to be less clear-cut than those for observation. But they could include:

–

–

–

–

–

–

a request from the host government for Community election assistance;

the general agreement of the main political parties and the other potential
partners (e.g. NGOs, Civil Society Organisations, women’s groups, journalists
associations etc) to a programme of EC election assistance;

the existence of previous EU political monitoring or of EU development
programmes in the host country;

an adequate time-frame for preparation;

a guarantee of freedom of movement and freedom of access to relevant
government ministries and other non-governmental partners for members of
the EU Election Assistance Team;

a guarantee of access to all information relevant to the EU Election Assistance
Team’s activities; and

18

–

a guarantee on the safety of the EU Election Assistance Team members, as far
as possible.

These last three elements are best established in a formal written agreement with the
host country which might also contain the Terms of Reference for the mission with
clearly stated objectives.

Criteria for deciding on whether to provide election assistance could include:
a request from the host government, a general agreement of main political
parties, previous EU political monitoring or development programs, adequate
time-scale, freedom of movement, access to information and safety of the
technical assistance team.

4.5.

Election Observers and Experts

Agreed criteria exist for the selection of observers (Annex IV). In June 1998, the
Council adopted a code of conduct for EU observers (Annex III) applying to
nationals of any country participating in EU observation missions. If Community
funds are to be used, the Commission’s responsibility for implementing the budget
suggests that EU electoral observers and experts should be recruited by the
Commission. But this will be unrealistic unless a proper structure and enough human
resources are allocated to this task.

Member States should continue to propose STOs for any EU funded component. In
the first instance, a percentage of the EU Observer Teams should be reserved for
‘European’ representatives. The observers included in this percentage would be
Members of the European Parliament (until an EP mechanism is established);
Commission and other EU Institutions civil servants; European NGOs; specialised
EU institutes; previous participants in EU Observation Missions; participants in EU
Human Rights and Elections training programmes and EU election specialists. All
observers should be either experienced or adequately trained.

Parallel conditions for per diem payment and support
to observers should be
established whatever their source of recruitment. Every effort should be made to
maintain the spirit of volunteerism, which has up to now added much to the
commitment and performance of EU STOs.

A list of EU election experts involved in election assistance and long term
observation could be established by the Commission Elections Desk. This could
partly be based on participation in EU actions and training programmes. The
Commission should also promote the networking of nationally maintained databases.
A common EU database is not feasible or necessary.

Where Community funds are used, the Commission will oversee recruitment of
EU observers including nominees from member states. A proportion should be
‘European’ participants nominated by the Commission.

Spirit of volunteerism of STOs should be maintained.

Commission to establish a list of EU election experts and promote networking
with national lists.

19

4.6.

Practical Guidelines for Success

Experience has shown that the following are important to the success of both election
assistance and observation missions:

–

–

–

–

–

All EU electoral missions should have a clear mandate from the EU
institutions. This should also deal with the liaison of the mission with EU
representatives like the Commission Delegation and the Presidency.

An exploratory mission should be the general rule. It should be composed of
experienced and strategically minded European Commission staff. The
exploratory mission mandate should include establishing the attitude of the
host country towards EU involvement; the preparation of proposals on the
extent and nature of any EU electoral participation and identification of what
improvements to the electoral process should be requested by the EU before a
final decision would be taken on participation.

Establish an EU Electoral Unit with a Core Team to co-ordinate the whole
range of electoral activities. This could consist of :

–
–
–
–
–

1 Executive Co-ordinator / EU Chief Observer21 and Personal Assistant
1 Head of Finance and Administration
1 Media Officer
1 or 2 Logisticians
1 Expert Trainer / Co-ordinator of Reporting / Statistical Analyst.

All components such as the Technical Assistance Team should be directly
responsible to the Head of the EU Election Unit.

Any EU Technical Assistance Team should be in place early enough to make a
clear contribution to the training of local participants. This enhances the quality
of the operation of the local participants and also permits collection of valuable
information which can assist the EU Election Unit. An effective Technical
Assistance Team might include:

–
–
–
–

–

–
–
–

1 team co-ordinator
1 expert in election campaign financing;
1 specialist in civic education;
several specialists in training women’s groups, youth and student groups
and minorities;
experts in capacity building to work with NGOs and Civil Society
Organisations;
1 specialist in media training;
several trainers for domestic observation and
several specialists in the training for poll-workers

–

Regular mission reports should be produced at each stage.

21

The EU should consider the merits of designating its representative as “Chief Observer”. All other
international groups have this designation and the term is normally used, in any case, by the press. In
this particular instance, clear visibility should prevail over internal EU niceties.

20

–

–

–

All observers should be trained. A comprehensive and detailed training
programme should be implemented for both Long Term Observers (LTOs) and
Short Term Observers (STOs) upon their arrival in the host country. Common
training programmes will enhance the quality and cohesion of EU observer
teams. Efforts should focus on ensuring a common framework for training and
field guidance, including through training of trainers, and a manual for EU
electoral observers which has been drafted by the Commission. Training for
specific missions in Member States could benefit from new models of online
in
communication and education via the internet. Training initiatives
partnership with the UN or other international or regional organisations should
be supported

LTOs should be deployed ideally two months before election day and remain
after the election results to observe the resolution of electoral disputes. LTOs
should be the subject of a careful examination for professional and attitudinal
competence for these key posts. The performance of the LTOs, whether
monitoring, training or reporting can make or break the whole EU electoral
mission. LTOs should be deployed to cover as much of the electoral terrain as
possible but in accordance with the strategic plan of the EU mission. LTOs
levels of the election
should establish links and consult with the different
administration as well as with local political parties and local community
groups. They should observe voter registration, and early preparations for the
elections, and assess the unfolding of the electoral campaign, in particular
questions of equal access to the media and the use of public resources by all
candidates. They should help build up the capacity of domestic observers. They
should report to the EU Chief Observer on a regular basis concerning all
aspects of the electoral process in their particular area of responsibility. They
should also prepare the deployment of the STOs in the most effective way
possible.

The Short Term Observers (STOs) should arrive shortly before election day
and be deployed to observe polling day and the early counting of the ballots.
STOs will be fully briefed by the EU Election Unit and by the LTOs before
their deployment.

–

All observers should abide by the June 1998 Council Code of Conduct.

- Clear mandate for election observation missions.
- Exploratory mission
- EU Electoral Unit with a core team.
- All EU components directly responsible to the Head of the EU Election Unit.
- EU Technical Assistance Team to be in place early
- Regular mission reports.
- All EU observers should be trained to a common framework.
- Co-ordinated training initiatives with other organisations
- LTOs to be deployed two months before election day.
- All EU observers should abide by the Council Code of Conduct.

4.7.

Assessment of the Election Outcome

The assessment of an election, together with the decision on whether or not to send
an observation mission, are politically sensitive issues. Both the political interests

21

and the credibility of the EU are at stake. The Commission endorses the Council
Decision of 28 June 1998 (Annex III) which enumerates the factors to be considered
when assessing the validity of an election:

–

–

–

–

–

–

The degree of impartiality shown by the election management body;

The degree of freedom of political parties, alliances and candidates to organise,
move, assemble and express their views publicly;

The fairness of access for political parties, alliances and candidates to the
media;

The registration of voters without discrimination on the basis of gender, racial
or ethnic origin;

Any other issue concerning the essential freedom and fairness of the election;

The conduct of polling and counting of votes as described in the electoral law.

However, criteria should be applied with flexibility when assessing different kinds of
elections: conflict resolution elections and first time elections need a softer approach.

All parts of the EU Election team contribute to the final EU assessment of the
elections. Close and regular consultation between the EU Chief Observer, the EU
Presidency on the spot, the European Parliament and the European Commission
delegation, prior to publishing the EU assessment, is essential to ensure consistency.
A useful distinction can be made between the overall political assessment, and the
technical assessment, which analyses the different stages of the electoral process in
more detail. This distinction was successfully made in the assessment of the
Indonesian elections: the political assessment was made by the Council Presidency,
and the technical assessment by the Head of the European Electoral Unit.

In addition to assessing the outcome of the election itself, the Commission will
monitor and assess each EU electoral support financed by the Community budget,
notably concerning pertinence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability22.
stakeholders
External
(government, NGOs, media) should be invited to comment. The views of
independent electoral experts could also be sought.

carried out periodically. Local

evaluations will be

- Use the 1998 Council decision to assess elections: but post-conflict and first-

time elections need a softer approach.

- Assessment

should follow consultation and agreement with all EU

stakeholders present.

- Evaluation of Community elections support will be carried out periodically.

22

Pertinence stems from the relation between the problems to be solved and the objectives of the
programme. Efficiency concerns the relation between activities undertaken and results. Effectiveness
depends on the relation between results and specific objectives, while impact refers to the relation
between specific and overall objectives.

22

4.8.

Improving EU Visibility

The EU’s involvement in, and support for, elections should be visible in order to
underline the EU’s commitment to promoting democratisation in its external policies.
Increased EU visibility should flow from improved and more transparent policy-
making and implementation mechanisms. In particular, the Elections Desk would
ensure that information about EU support to elections is placed on the internet.
However, visibility is not an aim in itself and the EU should be careful not to
overshadow the role of national institutions and players.

The EU’s best guarantee of proper identity and visibility is to run an effective
operation. It is also helpful to have as a senior member of the EU Electoral Unit a
media officer who is an EU citizen with professional qualifications and the
knowledge of the policies and the institutions of the European Union. Wherever
possible, the Head of the EU Election Observation Unit should also be articulate and
experienced in dealing with the media. In certain cases the choice of a prominent
European personality should be considered. Use should also be made of the EU logo,
including on clothing. Where the EU is working under
the umbrella of an
international organisation, EU visibility should be a part of the formal agreement.

- Publicise specific and general EU activity in support of elections on the

internet.

- The Head of the EU Election Unit should be media friendly and should be

supported by a media officer.

- Use EU logo and publicity material
-Ensure visibility is covered in agreements with other partners

4.9.

Co-ordination with other Organisations

There are a number of international organisations and NGOs active in the field of
election assistance and observation. The EU has worked with many of them in the
past. This co-operation, however, has often involved simply delegating responsibility
to other organisations. The EU has been regarded primarily as a banker for an
operation controlled by another organisation whose membership and interests are not
necessarily synonymous with those of the EU. Policy input and visibility have been
lost.

Given the large number of elections world-wide and the EU’s limited resources and
expertise, it will be necessary on occasion to work through other organisations. In
any case, the EU will always have to work with others in the field. Improved co-
ordination is therefore essential. Regular contacts should be established. Framework
agreements with the main international governmental and non-governmental
organisations e.g. the UN (UNDP, UN Electoral Assistance Department, UNV),
OSCE/ODIHR, OAS and International IDEA could be considered if they were
thought to add real value. These agreements should be based on real partnership in
policy design and implementation rather then just concentrating on funding and
visibility issues. Their aim would be to facilitate and speed up the co-operation with
international organisations in specific electoral operations. The Commission will
explore these possibilities.

23

- Regular contacts with relevant international organisations
- Explore possibilities of framework agreements

5.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations contained in this Communication (summarised in Annex V)
aim to improve the quality and effectiveness of the European Union’s involvement in
promoting free and fair elections and a transition to sustainable democracy by
building on the varied experience if EU involvement so far, and the expertise of
others.

Although few people doubt
that democracy is the best system of governance
available, when it comes to ensuring genuine freedom and a democratic society,
elections are only one piece of a bigger picture. Reflecting this, the assistance which
the EU provides to elections is only one aspect of the EU’s overall contribution to
democratisation and sustainable development in third countries.

The Council and the European Parliament are invited to work with the Commission
to take forward the ideas in this Communication.

24

ANNEX I

OVERVIEW OF EU EXPERIENCE

1.

Description of main Operations

The European Union observed the first multi-party parliamentary elections in
Russia, which took place on 11th and 12th December 1993. These were the elections
for the State Duma and the Council of the Federal State Assembly. They followed a
period of violent confrontation between the executive and the legislative branches in
Russia and they coincided with a constitutional referendum. The EU Council adopted
a CFSP Joint Action on the dispatch of a team of EU observers on 9th November
199323. A EU Observer Unit was created by the Joint Action, but it was financed by
the TACIS democracy programme (346.000 Ecus). Its tasks were: to assist and co-
ordinate the EU observers,
to provide on-the-spot-co-ordination with other
international organisations and NGOs, to link with the Russian authorities and to
ensure a balanced deployment of the observers throughout the country. The EU
deployed 116 MPs, both from the European Parliament and national parliaments, and
91 experts (including 5 LTOs). Despite several failings in Russian procedures, there
was no systematic abuse, and the elections were considered free and fair. In addition
to the election observation, the EU also monitored the media coverage of these
elections through the European Institute for the Media (EIM) with a grant of 200.000
Ecus. EIM set up a Media Monitoring Unit, which worked closely with the EU
Observer Unit. Its tasks were to assess the legal framework within which the media
were reporting the election process and evaluate the independence and fairness of the
actual election coverage.

The second set of Russian parliamentary elections since the constitutional reform of
December 1993 took place on 17th December 1995. The response to a request from
the Russian Central Electoral Commission for EU support in monitoring the elections
was the creation of a European Union Election Unit (EUEU) to provide logistical
support for the election observers sent from EU institutions and Member States. The
support
interpreters,
transport and secretaries were also provided, along with short-term technical
assistance to the Russian Central Electoral Commission.

included the provision of seven advisers. Office facilities,

Russia’s first free presidential elections were held in June and July 1996, and the EU,
the OSCE and other organisations were invited by Russia’s Central Electoral
Commission to observe them. The EU allocated 294.000 Ecus24 for this purpose.
Another European Union Election Unit (EUEU) was created, providing facilities for
the 244 election observers from EU countries. Two people were seconded to the
in Moscow to deal with observer deployment and
OSCE/ODIHR Election Unit
regional co-ordination. Activities of the EUEU included the provision of information
and briefings to observers and analysis of the conduct and results of the election.
Whilst considerable progress had been made in election law since the previous
elections in 1991, the observer mission made a number of recommendations for
further improvements.

23

24

Decision 93/604/CFSP. Official Journal L 286, 20/11/1993 p.3.
Tacis Democracy Programme.

25

The EU was involved in the Chechnya elections in 1997, after a devastating civil
war. To establish the legitimacy of the provisional government, and to allow the
peace process to continue, both parliamentary and presidential elections were called
at short notice for 27th January 1997. With 100.000 Ecus25, the EU assisted the
OSCE, which had been instrumental in brokering the peace agreement of August
1996, to supply basic necessities such as ballot papers, ballot boxes and indelible ink,
as well as covering transport, office equipment and telecommunications costs. The
elections were declared “exemplary and free”.

The EU observed the first democratic and multiracial elections in South Africa: e.g.
the national and provincial elections, which took place in April 1994. These were a
historic event since they transformed South Africa from a society based on apartheid
to a non-racial democracy. On 6th December 1993 the Council adopted a CFSP joint
action concerning support for South Africa’s elections26. In total 18,5 million Ecus27
were allocated. Under the overall co-ordination of the United Nations,
the EU
deployed 325 observers (including 14 Members of the European Parliament) and
provided 112 police officers, electoral experts and advisers to South Africa’s
Independent Electoral Commission and the Independent Media Commission.
Furthermore, the EU was strongly involved in voter education and provided financial
support to top-up the State Electoral Fund. The voter education programme was a
success (only 1% of ballots were spoiled) and was partly implemented by a
consortium of South African NGOs under the leadership of the South African
catholic Bishops Conference. A European Union Election Unit was established to co-
ordinate the EU election observation and to provide, where requested, advice and
assistance to the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa. Overall the
election was considered a remarkable achievement: millions of ordinary citizens,
formerly excluded from the political process, were allowed to become active agents
of political change. Elections were considered free although not completely fair to all
individual voters due to the shortcomings of the voting and counting procedures.
However, given the general acceptance of the results, they were considered as an
expression of the political will of the South African people.

Mozambique is among the countries which received the highest support from the
EU. Three consecutive electoral processes were assisted with both financial and
In 1994 the EC provided the National Electoral
technical assistance inputs.
Commission with more than 50% of the funds needed for the organisation of the first
democratic elections (Presidential and Legislative) after the civil war. EU electoral
observers contributed to the 2.000-strong observation mission organised by
UNOMOZ. The elections were declared free and fair and considered an example for
€
, equivalent to 60% of the
countries in transition. In 1998 the EU provided 9.5 M
electoral budget, for supporting the first municipal elections which took place in 33
Municipalities. Due to divergences concerning the process of voters’ registration,
Renamo and a number of other minor parties decided not to run, thus casting some
the
doubts on the legitimacy of the process. In 1999 Mozambique underwent
classical test of each country in transition, by organising its second Presidential and
€
Parliamentary elections. The EC contributed to the electoral budget with 21 M
,
equivalent to 58% of the overall electoral budget. An EU electoral observation

25

26

27

Tacis Democracy Program.
Decision 93/678/CFSP. Official Journal L 316, 17/12/1993 p.45.
Budget line B7-5070

26

mission of 64 observers was organised, subsequently joined by 4 Norwegian
observers. All electoral observation missions agreed on the fact that the voting
process could be defined as free and fair. However, delays and minor irregularities
characterised the counting process and Renamo declared it would not accept the
results. In spite of that, its elected MPs attended the opening of the Parliamentary
session presided by President Chissano.

The EU played a major role in the preparation and observation of the elections in
Palestine of 1996. After redeployment by Israel from the West Bank, Palestinians
held their first-ever presidential and parliamentary elections in the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip on 20th January 1996. The Palestinian-Israeli Interim Agreement of
28th September 1995 designated the European Union as the co-ordinator of the
international observation of these elections. The EU provided 7.5 million Ecus to
assist the Palestinians with the preparation of the elections28. These funds were
mainly used for drafting the electoral law, drawing the electoral districts’ boundaries,
training election officers,
setting up the election administrative machinery,
conducting a civic education campaign and providing equipment. The EU committed
10 additional million Ecus for the observation of the elections, of which only 7.5
million Ecus were actually spent due to the exigencies of the electoral calendar.
Several CFSP decisions were taken by the Council concerning the Palestinian
elections: the joint action of 19th April 1994 on support of the Middle East peace
process29, which announced the EU intention to give assistance and to observe the
elections in the Occupied Territories; the Council Decision of 1st June 199530,
committing 10 million Ecus for this purpose, and the Council Decision of 25th
September 1995, establishing a European Union Electoral Unit and defining the
financial and administrative procedures for the observation of elections31.

The European Union Electoral Unit had to organise the European observation
mission (which consisted of 285 observers: 60 LTOs; 130 MTOs and 95 STOs) and
to co-ordinate 390 other international observers from third countries, international
organisations and NGOs. The European Union Electoral Unit certified the
democratic character of the electoral process despite some incidents. Reported
incidents included restrictions to Palestinian press and intimidation of some
candidates, police obstacles to voting in East Jerusalem and intimidation of voters in
Hebron during polling day.

The EU has supported the OSCE in the organisation and supervision of several
elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Once the war was over in
Bosnia, the international community undertook to organise elections as part of the
reconstruction of a country destroyed by ethnic cleansing. The 1995 Dayton Peace
Agreements charged the OSCE with the organisation of the first elections in Bosnia-
Herzegovina and in December 1997 the “Peace Implementation Council” asked
again the OSCE to organise the general elections of 1998. In total the EU provided
16 million Ecus (combining first and second pillar funds) in support of elections in
Bosnia through OSCE, although EU visibility was disappointingly low. In 1996 the
EU allocated 5,6 million Ecus, in 1997 5,5 million Ecus, and in 1998 5 million Ecus

28

29

30

31

Financed from budget-line B-7-420 (former B7-7110).
Decision 94/276/CFSP. Official Journal L 119, 7/5/1994, p.1
Decision 95/205/CFSP. Official Journal L 130, 14/6/1995 p.1.
Decision 95/403/CFSP. Official Journal L 238, 6/10/1995 p.4.

27

On 10th June 1996 the Council adopted a CFSP Joint Action32 supporting the OSCE
activities in respect of elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina with a contribution of 3
million Ecus. The support took the form of the provision of a contingent of European
Union supervisors under the aegis of the OSCE. The elections supervised took place
on 14th September 1996 and concerned the following institutions: the parliament of
Bosnia-Herzegovina,
the
parliaments of the two entities which constitute Bosnia-Herzegovina: the Muslim-
Croat Federation and the Serb Republic; the presidency of the Serb Republic and the
cantonal administrations. Although initially foreseen for the same date, municipal
elections had to be postponed to 1997 due to problems of vote registration. For the
1996 elections, the EU also provided support to the OSCE worth 2,64 million Ecus
for voter education, election equipment (ballot boxes and booths) and observation of
elections33.

the collective presidency of Bosnia Herzegovina,

In 1997 two elections were held: the municipal elections in the Federation of Bosnia
Herzegovina and the assembly elections of the Serb Republic. For the municipal
elections in the Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina of 13th - 14th September 1997, the
Council adopted a CFSP Joint Action dated 24th March 199734. This Joint Action
allowed the carry over of the funds, which remained available after the 1996
elections (1.1 million Ecus). In addition, the Council adopted another CFSP Joint
Action on 24th March 199735 allocating a further 5,5 million Ecus for the supervision
of the municipal elections in Bosnia Herzegovina, including the supervision of the
registration of voters, the polling and the counting operations. On 20th October 1997,
the Council decided on another CFSP Joint Action36 to further support the OSCE for
the supervision of the assembly elections of the Serb Republic to be held in
November 1997. This CFSP Joint Action stated that the support would also be
financed from the 5,5 million Ecus mentioned in the March 1997 CFSP Joint Action.

In 1998 again, elections for all the major institutions in Bosnia were organised by the
OSCE. The EU renewed its support for the OSCE with a contribution of 5 million
Ecus, aimed at providing a team of EU supervisors under the aegis of OSCE and at
establishing an OSCE/EU media centre. This centre distributed information relative
to the elections at a national and international level.

Following a request by the Togolese government, the EU observed the presidential
elections in Togo, which took place on 21st June 1998. The holding of free and fair
elections was one of the major conditions of the international community for aid
resumption to Togo. The EU provided broad electoral assistance, worth 2 million
Ecus. In particular the EU gave technical and financial assistance to the National
Electoral Commission, media monitoring, training of people involved in the electoral
process (préfets, members of local electoral commissions, members of polling
stations, political parties representatives), civic education, and training of national
observers. The EU took part
in the international observation of the elections,
earmarking 600.000 Ecus for this purpose (which were not used fully). Electoral
Reform International Services (ERIS), a UK NGO was in charge of the management
of the electoral observation mission. A small co-ordination unit was put in place. The

32

33

34

35

36

Decision 96/406/CFSP. Official Journal L 168, 6/7/1996, p.1.
Budget-line B7-7001.
Decision 97/153/CFSP. Official Journal L 63, 4/3/1997, p.1.
Decision 97/224/CFSP. Official Journal L 90, 4/4/1997, p1.
Decision 97/689/CFSP. Official Journal L 293, 27/10/1997, p.2.

28

EU deployed 5 medium term regional observers and 35 STOs. In contrast to certain
other international observers, the EU observer mission considered that the elections
were not free, transparent and fair and that the announced results did not reflect the
will of the Togolese people. The EU decided not to resume full development co-
operation with Togo, but projects in favour of the poorest continued.

The EU provided its support to the second general elections in Nicaragua, which
were held on 20th October 1996. These were presidential, parliamentary and local
elections. They also concerned the members of the Central American Parliament.
The EU contributed 2,4 million Ecus37to the electoral process, assisting the
Nicaraguan Electoral Commission in the training of election officials and providing a
co-ordination team for the EU observers. 400.000 additional Ecus38 were allocated
for civic education in the second round of elections, which took place in December
1996. The EU gave its support to the Organisation of American States (OAS) to
observe the general elections in Paraguay held on 10th May 1998. The EU supported
this operation with 250.000 Ecus39.

€

The EU gave its support to the organisation and observation of elections in Yemen in
1997. With
681.000, the Community made a major contribution to increasing
women’s participation in elections, organising local elections monitoring and
providing assistance to the organisation of the elections. In addition,
the EU
dispatched some 150 EU long-and short-term observers including several Members
of the European Parliament and Commission officials during the election campaign.
EU observers found the elections globally free and fair.

The EU gave its support to the Cambodia general elections which took place on 26th
July 1998, allocating 10,45 million Ecus40 for this purpose. The holding of these
elections was a way for Cambodia to restore democracy and to regain international
legitimacy and international aid lost after the coup of 1997. The EU was deeply
involved in the electoral process, especially in the drafting of the electoral legislative
framework, support to the National Electoral Commission, voter registration and in
polling observation by dispatching some 200 election observers. The EU appointed a
Special Representative: (Mrs Kinnock, Member of the European Parliament) and a
Chief Election Observer (Ambassador Sven Linder) who made two assessments
which had some nuanced differences. Co-ordination of the European Observer Unit
with the UN and other observer groups took place under the umbrella of a Joint
International Observer Group. The statement of the Joint International Observer
Group (chaired by Ambassador Linder) considered that the vote had been sufficiently
free and fair to reflect the will of the people. The statement of Mrs. Kinnock was
more critical because of human rights violations during the election campaign and
registration process, the deaths of ten people on election day, disputes on the
counting process and numerous claims of alleged irregularities.

The EU supported the legislative elections (20th February 1999) and presidential
elections (27th February 1999) in Nigeria. These elections provided the opportunity
to install a democratically elected civilian government after fifteen years of military
rule. EU support to the Nigerian elections consisted of the following elements:

37

38

39

40

Budget line B7-310.
Budget line B-7-310.
Budget line B7-310.
Budget line B7-3000.

29

support for the Independent National Election Commission (900.000 Euros for civic
education, computing and vehicles); support for the UN in its co-ordinating role
(850.000 Euros); the provision of a technical assistant for UN and EU co-ordination
(80.000 Euros41); assistance to local election monitoring through a Nigerian umbrella
NGO (Transition Monitoring Group) (600.000 Euros42); and a CFSP Joint Action
(810.000 Euros) to deploy an EU contingent of 100 election observers43. These were
all short-term observers and they were recruited by the United Nations Volunteers
Programme (UNV) on behalf of the EU and on the basis of a list of names provided
the Presidency appointed an EU
by the EU. As foreseen in the joint action,
Spokesperson (Ambassador Sulimma) responsible for joint EU-UN declarations and
press and public relations. The elections raised some controversy: there were cases of
vote-rigging and ballot stuffing and the number of votes cast vastly exceeded
the EU considered that voting
credible numbers in some areas. Nevertheless,
procedures were held on the basis of a multi-party system and universal suffrage and
were based on democratic principles. Therefore, the EU declared that the results
generally reflected the wish of the Nigerian people.

The EU provided support for the Indonesian parliamentary elections, which were
held on 7th June 1999. These elections followed a serious economic and political
crisis after decades of oppression and they represented a milestone on the road of
Indonesia to democracy. The Indonesian government, whilst stressing the importance
of international assistance and welcoming international observers, made clear that it
would not officially invite international observers and that external electoral
assistance would have to be channelled through UNDP. The EU allocated 7 million
Euros44 for a programme co-ordinated with the UNDP. Most of this assistance was
directed towards Indonesian NGOs and Election Monitoring Organisations. These
groups worked on voter education, media, domestic monitoring of the elections, civic
education, and institutional management. For this task 17 EU Technical Experts were
recruited. A second aspect of the EU contribution was the international observation
of the elections and the establishment of a European Union Election Observation
Unit. A former EC Official, Mr John Gwyn Morgan, was appointed as Head of the
EU Election Observation Unit with the title of EU Executive Co-ordinator. The EU
provided the largest number of international observers made up of 30 LTOs and 85
STOs (21 of whom were bilateral observers recruited and financed directly by EU
Member States but who were co-ordinated by the EU Observation Unit). In addition
the EU Core Group had 7 members and the Technical Assistance Team numbered
17. In all there were on the ground 139 personnel under the EU aegis. Despite some
incidents, the election was considered free and transparent and a basis for the
establishment of a government in accordance with the democratically expressed will
of the people. However, at the time of making the statement, vote counting was still
at a very early stage since it was extremely slow. The final declaration of the poll in
July 1999 confirmed the EU position.

41

42

43

44

All three elements funded from the National Indicative Programme.
Budget line B7-7020. This allowed the TMG to monitor the transition to civil rule mainly through the
placing of 10.000 Nigerian electoral monitors for each of the three principal elections in 1999: not only
on 20 February (National Assembly) and 27 February (Presidential) but also on 9 January (State
Assembly).
Decision 98/735/CFSP. Official Journal L 354, 30/12/1998, p.1.
Budget line B7-3000.

30

The EU also supported the UN-organised consultation in East Timor in August
1999 by contributing 5 million Euros to the UN Trust Fund. Some EU Member
States also made bilateral contributions of resources or personnel. In this exercise EU
visibility was noticeably absent.

2.

Diversity of past EU Election Missions

Until recently, while electoral assistance has always been pursued under the first
pillar (EC), electoral observation has been a border line case, falling either under the
first or second pillar (CFSP).

Some examples of EU electoral observation which were undertaken as CFSP
activities include Russia (1993), South Africa (1994), Palestine (1996), Bosnia-
Herzegovina (June 1996, 1997, 1998) and Nigeria (1999). All these were the subject
of CFSP joint actions but in the first years of CFSP did not always imply the use of
CFSP funds (e.g. Russia and South Africa, where the funding came from first pillar).
At that time, the EC budget did not have a specific CFSP chapter. Recent examples
of both electoral observation and assistance pursued exclusively under the first pillar
include Albania (1997), Cambodia (1998), Togo (1998) and Indonesia (1999).

Sometimes there has been complementarity between both pillars involving elections
in the same country. In Nigeria (1999), EU support for elections was organised both
under the first pillar (support to the National Election Commission; provision of an
EU technical assistant and also assistance to local election monitoring through a
Nigerian NGO) and second pillar (joint action to deploy an EU contingent of 100
election monitors). This dual competence, which it can prove complementary, has
nevertheless contributed to important delays in decision-making and a lack of clarity.

EU activities in the electoral field have been widely diverse. They have covered a
large range of electoral and consultation processes,
referenda, parliamentary
elections, local elections and presidential elections.

The actual electoral context has also varied widely, including elections in post-
conflict situations, e.g. Bosnia; elections following the elimination of
racial
discrimination, e.g. South Africa; and situations where a long period of military rule
led to civil unrest and ultimately elections, e.g. Nigeria and Indonesia.

EU electoral support has also involved a broad range of activities such as voter
registration, civic education, assistance to national electoral commissions, drafting of
electoral laws, training of election officers and national observers, media support and
monitoring and support for the participation of minorities.

The degree of EU involvement has also been quite variable. In elections to which the
EU attached high political importance, the EU fielded a substantial contingent of
observers, for example South Africa (1994), Palestine (1996), Cambodia (1998) and
Indonesia (1999). On occasion, however, the EU observer contingent has been quite
small. In the Azerbaijan presidential elections of October 1998, there were just three
EU observers from the Commission. For the Pakistan parliamentary elections in
1997 and the Bangladesh parliamentary elections in 1996, EU participation was
minimal and merely involved some co-ordination of bilateral election missions sent
by Member States.

31

EU electoral observation and assistance has also been undertaken with a variety of
partners and differing degrees of involvement. Only in the case of Palestine (1996)
has the EU assumed the role of co-ordinator of the international observation teams.
In Cambodia in 1998, the EU chaired the Joint International Observer Group. In
some cases the EU provided a facilitating capacity for observers under the formal co-
ordination of another international organisation, as with the OSCE in Russia (1995-
1996). In other cases the EU sent observers under the framework of an international
organisation like the UN (Nigeria 1999, Indonesia 1999), the OSCE (Bosnia 1996,
1997 and 1998, Albania 1997, Azerbaijan 1999, Armenia 1999) or the OAS
(Paraguay 1998).

In other cases, EU involvement in elections has been executed through European
NGOs. In the elections in Togo in 1998, for example, Electoral Reform International
Services was in charge of the management of the electoral observation mission.
Other European NGOs which have operated on behalf of the EU include The
European Institute for the Media (EIM) which has monitored media coverage of
elections in most countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and,
among others, Solace International, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and Reporteurs sans
Frontières.

The structure of the EU participation has also varied with the particular context.
Larger operations have seen the establishment of EU Electoral Units but these have
not always worked under the same rules. For example, the European Electoral Unit
the Palestine elections of 1996 was established by Council Decision
for
95/403/CFSP which defined its objectives, composition and operation. According to
this Decision, the European Electoral Unit had to report back to the Presidency. In
the 1999 Indonesian elections, however, the establishment of an EU Election Unit
was done in the Community context. Details of its function and composition were
contained in the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Financing Agreement between the
EU and the UNDP. The Head of the European Electoral Unit reported directly to the
European Commission through the EC Representation in Jakarta. In Cambodia in
1998, an EU Spokesperson was appointed, in addition to the Head of the EU
Electoral Unit. This led to difficulty in clearly differentiating their respective roles.

Recruitment of observers is also an area where substantial diversity has existed. In
the Palestine elections of 1996, the Member States and the Commission put forward
lists of candidates to participate in the European Electoral Unit as observers and
experts. The Presidency, in association with the Commission, and with the assistance
of an advisory group (composed of representatives of Member States), made the final
selection. In the 1999 Indonesian elections, the Core Team (e.g. the members of the
EU Electoral Unit) were recruited directly by UNDP in accordance with its own
procedures, following the approval of the candidates by the European Commission.
The European observers were recruited by the United Nations Volunteers
Organisation (UNV) in accordance with its own procedures after approval of the
candidates by the European Commission. Long-Term Observers were proposed by
the UNV and Short-Term Observers by EU Member States. On the other hand in
OSCE electoral missions, the OSCE recruited on the basis of EU Member States’
proposals with the financing of the EU budget.

Another factor which has created some difficulties in recruitment procedures has
been the existence in one and the same electoral exercise of EU observers financed
directly by Community funds and further bilateral observers nominated directly and

32

financed by EU Member States. A workable and satisfactory solution was found in
the case of Cambodia in 1998 by permitting Member States to make a per capita
payment for each bilateral observer to the EC co-ordinating team who provided the
same services and facilities to the bilateral observers as were provided for those
observers funded directly by Community funds. In the case of Indonesia it was not
possible to use the central funding mechanism and although a solution was found
through the co-operation and goodwill of Member States this involved a much
greater burden on the EU Electoral Unit in Jakarta.

Assessments of elections have proved to be the most politically sensitive issue in
grey situations (e.g. Nigeria 1999). However, given that the decision to observe
elections in a specific country was taken on the assumption that free and fair election
would occur, most assessments have been positive. There have been some exceptions
like the assessment of the Togo elections in 1998 or the Azerbaijan presidential
elections in 1998 (under an OSCE umbrella).

In most cases where democratic institutions function, regularly held elections do not
need observers. Observers are therefore more likely to be requested in crisis
situations or in a return to democracy. Examples where elections were generally
expected to be free and fair were Benin (1999) and South Africa (1999). No
observers were sent by the EU. In other cases, no observers were sent, because the
minimum standards formally agreed by the EU as preconditions for observation were
not met and the EU did not want to be seen to be giving legitimacy to a flawed
process. The Kazakhstan 1999 presidential elections or Togo 1999 parliamentary
elections were such cases. Sometimes, the request to have EU observers was sent too
late and did not allow time to set up a proper EU observation mission. This was the
case, for example, for the Malawi 1999 elections.

33

ANNEX II

COMPLEMENTARY SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR
EU ELECTION ASSISTANCE AND OBSERVATION

1.

EC Funding

Since the entry into force of Council Regulations 975/99 and 976/99, EU
election assistance and observation are to be funded under the first pillar (co-
operation instruments and/or Chapter B7-70). There are different sources of
financing Community actions
in the field of electoral assistance and
observation:

–

–

–

Co-operation Instruments: Lomé Convention (European Development
Fund) and the relevant parts of sub-section B7 of the EU Budget dealing
with relations with different regions or countries like ALA, MEDA,
PHARE, TACIS, OBNOVA. These should be used to finance large scale
(e.g. Mozambique 1999) and medium-size operations in favour of a
specific country.

European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (Chapter B7-70):
These budget lines are used to finance thematic action complementary to
the mainstream operations funded under the co-operation instruments.
The two Human Rights EC Regulations (975/99 and 976/99) provide
Chapter B7-7 with a formal legal basis.

€

line for support

for democratic transition and the
Specific budget
supervision of electoral Processes (B7-709): 4.59 million
earmarked for
2000. The objective of this budget line is to develop a professional
approach to electoral observation and assistance. This could be achieved
by different means, e.g. setting up of training structures, creation of a
roster of experts, monitoring of access to the media during the electoral
campaign, evaluation of the EU participation in international observation
operations and follow-up of the post-election period. It may also be used
to enhance the EU visibility. Given its limited amount, this budgetary
budget line cannot be used to finance actions of a specific geographical
scope but is intended to support measures of a thematic nature to the
this line may be used to fund
benefit of all countries. If need be,
observation missions.

2.

National Contributions

In some cases Member States have made additional contributions. For example
in the Palestinian elections, Member States paid the costs of the journeys and
the insurance costs of their respective EU observers. Sometimes Member
States have given direct support to NGOs, civil society organisations or other
specialised groups whose programmes had already been supported by the
Member State concerned. In other cases, the Member States’ additional support
has taken the form of attaching experts to the different aspects of the electoral
process (e.g. lawyers, human rights experts or technical experts). This could
continue in future.

34

ANNEX III
Council Decision 9262/98 – PESC 157 – COHOM 6
GUIDELINES - EU POLICY ON ELECTORAL OBSERVATION

PRECONDITIONS FOR OBSERVATION

Minimum Standards

1.

2.

3.

4.

The observation of elections is an important component of the EU’s policy in
promoting human rights and democratisation throughout the world. The EU
undertakes such activities on the basis of partnership and with the objective
of developing national capacity.

A number of legal and political factors must be taken into account
in
reaching a decision whether to send observers to a particular electoral
process. The EU will wish to ascertain that its involvement in monitoring is
likely to promote further democratisation in the country concerned. Such
judgement may prove difficult but can be assisted inter alia by seeking legal
and political assessments by EU HOMs.

The general standards for minimum conditions will include the following
factors:

–

–

–

–

franchise is genuinely universal;

political parties and individual candidates are able to enjoy their
legitimate right to take part in the election;

there is freedom of expression allowing possible criticism of the
incumbent government and the right to free movement and assembly;

all contesting parties and candidates have reasonable access to the
media.

If the EU judges there to be no possibility of elections being held under such
minimum conditions a decision may be taken that no electoral observers
in order to avoid giving credibility to flawed electoral
should be sent,
processes. However, the EU’s judgement will also include factors such as
whether this is the first election following a period of conflict or oppression
and whether the elections accompany a peace process and possibly return of
refugees.

Preparation for Mission

5.

After a decision in principle has been made to offer to observe, and an
invitation has been received,
the concrete needs, scope and degree of
involvement of the EU’s observation shall be assessed if necessary by
sending a needs assessment mission. This must be accompanied by an early
dialogue with the national authorities. Specific terms of reference for the

35

observation mission will then be drawn up by the EU and agreed with the
country concerned.

Preconditions for the Work of Observers

6.

Even when it is possible that free and fair elections may take place, the EU
will only send election observers to a country when:

–

–

–

–

it has been formally requested to monitor the election by the recognised
government of the host country;

the involvement of EU observers is supported by all
contesting political parties or candidates;

the main

the EU has previously been monitoring political developments in the
host country for a period of time and has the political capacity to assess
developments through EU HOMs;

there is enough lead time for the leaders of any EU monitoring team to
be in place sufficiently in advance, in order to monitor the political and
judicial environment and take part as appropriate in preparatory work
ahead of the election campaign itself.

7.

Before observers can be sent the EU must be satisfied that they will have:

–

–

–

–

–

–

clearly stated objectives, written and agreed with the host country well
in advance;

freedom of access to all political parties, candidates and election
officials;

freedom of access to all polls and counting centres at all times;

freedom of movement throughout the country, without prior permission
or notification, except where genuine security concerns prohibit this;

all necessary information about the electoral process;

no doubts as to their own safety.

Code Of Conduct

The following guidelines will apply to nationals of any country participating in EU
observation missions decided by the EU unless specifically agreed otherwise. The
guidelines will not apply to EU nationals participating in e.g. OSCE or UN missions,
in which case those organisation’s own codes will apply.

All official EU observers should adhere to the following guidelines:

–

Respect the laws of the land. Observers enjoy no special immunities as an
international observer, unless the host country so provides;

36

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Observers will participate in all pre-election briefings with their supervising
officers;

Observers will be subject to the direction and management of the observer
team leadership, carrying out their written terms of reference and covering
the geographical schedules specified by team leaders;

Observers should be aware of the presence of other electoral monitoring
teams, and liase with them under the direction of the leader of the EU
observer team;

Observers will carry prescribed identification issued by the host government
or election commission, and will
identify themselves to any interested
authority upon request;

Observers shall maintain strict impartiality in the conduct of their duties, and
shall at no time express any bias or preference in relation to national
authorities, parties, candidates, or with reference to any issues in contention
in the election process;

Observers will not display or wear any partisan symbols, colours or banners;

Observers will undertake their duties in an unobtrusive manner, and will not
disrupt or interfere with the election process, polling day procedures, or the
vote count,

Observers may bring irregularities to the attention of the election officials,
but will not give instructions or countermand decisions of the election
officials;

factual, and
Observers will base all conclusions on well documented,
verifiable evidence, and will keep a record of the polling stations and other
relevant places that they visit;

Observers will refrain from making any personal or premature comments
about their observations to the media or any other interested persons, but
should provide, through a designated liaison officer or spokesperson, general
information about the nature of their activities as observers;

Observers will participate in post election debriefings with their supervising
officers and will contribute fully towards appropriate EU reports on the
elections monitored;

Observers must comply with all national laws and regulations. Where these
limit freedom of assembly or movement about the country, they must note
where such rules prevent them from carrying out their duties;

At all times during the mission, including during private time away from
work, each election observer should behave blamelessly, exercise sound
judgement, and observe the highest level of personal discretion.

37

General Guidelines for Observers when visiting Polling Stations

The following general guidelines should also be noted by EU election observers for
their conduct on polling days:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Introduce yourself to the Chairperson of the polling station when you arrive.
Establishing a working relationship with the electoral commission will assist
your observation, and is particularly important for the count;

Comply with the instructions of officials at the polling stations. If you are
dissatisfied with the official instruction record the circumstances on the
appropriate observation report;

If an official prevents you from doing something which you believe you are
entitled to do, point this out. Refer if possible to the relevant provisions of
the law;

Avoid confrontation with security personnel;

Be prepared to present your passport and accreditation to nay officials who
request them. Keep these documents with you at all times;

Maintain complete impartiality at all times;

Treat all information received in confidence;

Avoid disrupting the voting and counting process;

Under no circumstances should you handle official election documents in the
polling station or physically assist the voting or counting process;

Do not use or carry photography, video or recording equipment when
undertaking your duties as an observer;

Be prepared to note your conversations and comments made to you. Ask
questions and in particular ask for concrete examples when general
statements are made;

Do not attempt to take an active role in resolving any disputes or complaints,
even if asked to. Your role is to observe and record events at the polling
stations;

Record any complaints made to you on the appropriate observation form,
including details of the complainant: name, organisations (where relevant),
and address;

Exercise restraint if offered food and drink at polling stations;

Be conscious that your conduct is likely to be closely observed. Try not to be
enthusiastic or overtly friendly if you meet a candidate’s proxy or
representative whom you already know,

38

–

Try not to give the impression of rushing from one polling station to another.

Entitlements of Election Observation

As an accredited EU election observer you are entitled to:

–

–

–

Visit any polling station under the direction of the supervising officers of the
mission to observe voting and counting;

Meet with members of election commissions, MPs, candidates or their
proxies, voters and representatives of civil society in order to gather
information;

Ask questions about the voting and counting process to members of electoral
commissions and to superior electoral commissions, but you do not have the
right to countermand the decisions of elections officials.

Elements to be assessed by the Observer Mission

When assessing the validity of an election the EU observer must consider all the
relevant factors that affect the electoral process. The following factors should be
considered:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

The degree of impartiality shown by the election management body;

The degree of freedom of political parties, alliances and candidates to
organise, move, assemble and express their views publicly;

The fairness of access to state resources made available for the election,

The fairness of access for political parties, alliances and candidates to the
media, in particular the state media;

The registration of voters without discrimination on the basis of gender,
racial or ethnic origin,

Any other issue that concerns the essential freedom and fairness of the
election;

The conduct of polling and counting of votes as described in the electoral
law.

Media Statements and Election Observers

–

–

Make no comment whatsoever about the electoral process and do not be
drawn into general contact with members of the media.
In all cases
journalists who seek comment on the electoral process should be referred to
the authorised spokesperson of the mission;

Do not make general statements about the conduct of the election as you may
prejudice any final statement made on behalf of all EU observers;

39

–

The EU observers mission will make a statement to the media on behalf of
the EU observers after everyone has had a chance to report
their
observations.

40

ANNEX IV
Council Decision 8728/99 – PESC 165 – COHOM 4

EU GUIDELINES ON COMMON CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION

OF ELECTORAL OBSERVERS

EU Election Observers

1.

2.

The observation of elections continues to be an important component of the
EU’s policy of promoting human rights and democratisation throughout the
world. The adoption of EU guidelines on preconditions for EU observation
missions and a code of conduct for EU electoral observers represented an
important step towards enhanced co-ordination within the EU. Further co-
ordination within the EU could be achieved through the implementation of the
following EU guidelines on common criteria for selection of electoral
observers.

Selection of candidates for participation on EU electoral observation missions
should, as a rule, be made according to a set of common criteria in order to
ensure a high professional standard of EU observers. The following criteria are
intended as guidelines for
the selection of observers for EU electoral
observation missions. They are not necessarily intended as guidelines for the
selection of observers for missions of other international organisations (e.g.
UN, OSCE). They are not intended to apply to members of Parliament.

EU Guidelines on common Criteria for Selection of electoral Observers

3 a)

All candidates for participation in EU electoral observation missions (short
the
term observers as well as long term observers) should ideally fulfil
following minimum standards:

–

–

–

–

–

previous experience of election monitoring and/or other
experience or know-how and specific
international – good experience of the mission’s working languages;

training, national

relevant
and/or

interpersonal skills (e.g. capacity of balanced judgement, ability to work
in teams, ability to cope with difficult situations, respect for local
attitudes, good communication skills, readiness to work in a multi-
cultural environment);

ability to maintain professional independence and strict impartiality in
the conduct of duties in the host country;

demonstrated commitment to democracy and human rights;

EU Member State citizenship.

3 b)

The following additional criteria should be taken into account when selecting
long term observers:

41

–

–

–

–

familiarity and experience with electoral laws and procedures (including
inter alia electoral rolls, national electoral committees), not limited to a
single electoral tradition;

special knowledge of human rights and democratisation issues;

basic knowledge of institutional aspects of the EU;

analytical and drafting skills.

3 c)

Mission leaders and/or long term observers acting as team co-ordinators should
ideally have furthermore:

–

–

experience at training and instructing people;

ability to plan and co-ordinate teams.

4.

Specific mission-related requirements may include:

–

–

–

–

knowledge of the host country or region and of the situation in the host
country;

knowledge of relevant languages, e.g. the official language of the host
country;

independence from the host country’s authorities and groups or parties
participating in the elections, lack of bias or preference to parties and
candidates or to any other body involved in the election process;

appropriate physical condition.

Specific mission-related requirements should be established following a pre-
mission analysis of the type of election anticipated.

42

ANNEX V

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

• Future EU election assistance and observation to be undertaken exclusively under the
first pillar, mainly under regulations or agreements governing relations with third
countries but also using new human rights regulations

• Better annual planning

• Special role for the European Parliament and MEPs

• Explore possibility of appropriate arrangements with other EU Institutions concerning

respective responsibilities on electoral observation missions.

• Election assistance and observation to be funded under first pillar (mainly co-operation

instruments but also Chapter B7-70).

• EU should adopt a strategy which allows for case-by-case decisions to support and

observe elections

• EU strategy should be to promote national capacity and sustainability.

• EU actions should promote pluralism and support local NGOs and local observers

• A decision to send observers should be based on consideration of advisability, viability
and usefulness. The 1998 Council criteria on whether to send an EU observation mission
remain a good basis to decide this.

• EU electoral missions should have Terms of Reference agreed with the host government

• Criteria for deciding on whether to provide election assistance could include: a request
from the host government, a general agreement of main political parties, previous EU
political monitoring or development programs, adequate time-scale,
freedom of
movement, access to information and safety of the technical assistance team.

• Where Community funds are used, the Commission will oversee recruitment of EU
observers including nominees from member states. A proportion should be experienced
or trained ‘European’ participants nominated by the Commission.

• Spirit of volunteerism of STOs should be maintained.

• Commission to establish a list of EU election experts and promote networking with

national lists.

• Clear mandate for election observation missions

43

• Exploratory mission

• EU Electoral Unit with a core team.

• All EU components directly responsible to the Head of the EU Election Unit.

• EU Technical Assistance Team to be in place early

• Regular mission reports.

• All EU observers should be trained to a common framework.

• Co-ordinated training initiatives with other organisations

• LTOs to be deployed two months before election day.

• All EU observers should abide by the Council Code of Conduct.

• Use the 1998 Council decision to assess elections: but post-conflict and first-time

elections need a softer approach.

• Assessment should follow consultation and agreement with all EU stakeholders present.

• Evaluation of Community election support will be carried out periodically

• Publicise specific and general EU activity in support of elections on the internet.

• The Head of the EU Election Unit should be media friendly and should be supported by

a media officer.

• Use EU logo and publicity material

• Ensure visibility is covered in agreements with other partners

• Regular contacts with relevant international organisations

• Explore possibilities of framework agreements

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION

• Establish an Elections Desk within the Commission with horizontal co-ordination and
to assist geographical desks and

including ex-ante evaluation,

planning tasks,
delegations and liase with EU institutions and other bodies

• Accelerate and simplify decision-making and implementation (annual planning, funds

earmarked for elections in geographical budget lines, framework contracts)

• Use emergency procedures in cases of unforeseen need

44

• Consider fast track procedures, including the setting up of a rapid deployment capability

45

ACP Countries
ALA
CFSP
COHOM
EC
EDF
EU
EU HOMs
FYROM
International IDEA
LTO
MEDA
MEP
MOU
NGO
NIS
OBNOVA

ODIHR
OSCE
PHARE
PVD
OAS
STO
TACIS

TEC
TEU
TOR
UN
UNDP
UNV

ANNEX VI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

African, Caribbean, Pacific Countries
Asia and Latin America
Common Foreign and Security Policy
Council Working Group on Human Rights
European Community
European Development Fund
European Union
EU Heads of Missions
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Long-term Observer
Mediterranean Countries
Member of the European Parliament
Memorandum of Understanding
Non Governmental Organisation
New Independent States
Aid to the Countries of
Reconstruction in Serbo-Croatian)
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Action plan for co-ordinated aid to Poland and Hungary
Developing Countries
Organisation of American States
Short-term Observer
Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent
States
Treaty on the European Community
Treaty on the European Union
Terms of Reference
United Nations
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Volunteers

former Yugoslavia (meaning

46