Opinion – The Emerging Phenomena of ‘Fake’ International Election Observation |
Election observation has become a staple of “credibility-assurance” in international relations. Formal poll watching is almost as old as democratic elections themselves. Indeed, some of our less than democratic states meticulously exude a reassuring illusion of transparency, however inevitable the results. Inexperienced volunteers have sometimes been so impressed by the minutiae of election administration and CCTV deployment in countries with a less than democratic reputation that their reports read with deceptive positivity. There was (for example) a brief experimentation with national pilot CCTV observation of Russian elections after 2010, but this did nothing to improve international credibility. Moreover, newcomers oftentimes miscalculate that cameras can also be infringements on democracy.
Election observation has become an integral part of the democratic process, and where it genuinely works, aims to comprehensively evaluate the integrity and fairness of electoral systems. As representative democracy faces increasing scrutiny, election observation has a pivotal role in restoring “voter trust”. The ongoing debates around who observes elections, and their motivations and methodologies, are key features of IR literature. However, recent studies underscore the importance of understanding the varied profiles and catalysts shaping observers, international organizations and monitoring of specific elections or countries. Furthermore, the rise of “fake” election observation missions raises questions about authenticity and effectiveness.
This article does not offer space to elaborate on the specialisms of observer organisations or their prerequisites and training. Likewise, decision-making on specific elections is fraught with complex political considerations. Final decisions may follow from a miscellaneous bundle of diverse cooperations with emerging democracies. Here, we focus primarily on a growing problem in the election observation landscape, namely the rise in organized “fake” election observation. It may appear that use of this pejorative may prejudice particular organisations, well-intended amateurism, or even soft-touch