The observation of international elections, which was largely unknown before the 1960s, has become such an international norm that it would be impossible for small countries, especially those with a controversial electoral history like Guyana, to avoid participating in their elections process. It has grown largely in response to the growing benefits accruing to those recognized as being part of the liberal democratic tradition (http://cega.berkeley.edu/assets / miscellaneous_files / wgape / 6_Hyde.pdf). The evidence shows that states that invite observers receive twice as much foreign aid than states that do not, and it is now common for such aid to be tied to terms of good governance and democracy .
In 1857, the European powers sent observers to witness the referendum that would unite Moldavia and Wallachia as Romania and this practice was used again when Costa Rica invited the American Provincial Institute to observe its elections in 1962. However, only it was in the wave of democratization that followed the end of the Cold War that foreign observation of elections began to flourish. It rose from around 10% of all elections during this period to 80% in 2006. ‘In many ways, this represents the Holy Grail for leaders of bogus democracies: it spreads criticism from groups domestic and ensures that electoral debates do not result. to the taps of international financial aid that are turned off ‘(Cheeseman, Nicholas (2018) How to Rig an Election. Yale University Press).
Although its electoral system is said to be unfair, Malaysia has been one of the few countries that has been able to resist inviting foreign election observers. He is being criticized for not having an independent election commission; the biased treatment of the opposition by the commission; gerrymandering; having oppressive electoral laws; the huge difference in election spending between the existing party and others; regime control over the media; use of incomplete and outdated electoral lists, etc. Yet of the 14 elections held between 1955 and 2018, foreign observers were invited for the first and last time in the 1990 elections. Some of the factors that have made Malaysia impervious to international pressure are said to be to invite observers its importance to the US, which has led to the latter being taken in a strategic position rather than a conflict toward the country; the difficulty of finding appropriate strategies to deal with semi-authoritarian regimes that portray themselves as pillars of stability; its relatively strong tradition of non-intervention and anti-Westernism and the fact that, despite using a variety of manipulative strategies, the governing party has never relied on any direct manipulation to win elections (https: // journals. sagepub.com/doi/ full / 10.1177 / 1868103420930022).
It is widely acknowledged that the presence of international observers can lead to improvements in the electoral process and the legitimacy of a regime but it is said that there is an increasing number of ‘biased observations’ intended to mislead the public about the importance of particular electoral processes and / or the legitimacy of election results (file: /// C: / Users / Owner / Downloads / EPDE_ Prejudice% 20observation% 20threat% 20integrity_EN.pdf). ”[The effect] international election monitoring is well summarized by the title of the 1966 Western Italian film classic, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The good part is that monitors can improve quality election. The bad part is they don’t do it most of the time. The ugly part is that they are sometimes biased and contribute to the legalization of bogus governments (Ibid).
In ‘How to prevent election rigging’ (Future Notes, SN: 31/07/2019) I highlighted the 2013 presidential and parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan as an example of the ugly aspect of foreign intervention. That election was handled by President Ilham Aliyev’s regime but was laundered by international election observers, including those from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the US congressional monitoring delegation. It is now more widely accepted that the latest elections in 2018 are far from democratic standards. However, ‘Azerbaijan lies squarely in the energy-rich Caspian region and is therefore the foundation of Europe’s future oil and gas supplies. That makes it strategically important for the United States, too, because Azerbaijan acts as a counterweight to Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy resources’ (Ibid).
The General Elections (Observers) Act 1990 formally governs the invitation and the basic roles and activities of foreign election observers in Guyana. But given the controversy surrounding international observers during the 2020 general and regional elections and recent developments in the field, perhaps the process should be laid on clearer theoretical and legal grounds: setting out conditions for inviting and allowing foreign and international observers set out in more detail what is expected of them.
Of some relevance to Guyana, the 2005 United Nations Statement of Principles for International Election Observation recommends that international observers conduct long-term observations that include studying the political context of a monitored state; election administration; voter registration; candidate nomination processes; electoral campaigning; media coverage; human rights interests; the ability of civil society organizations to act as domestic observers; complaints and appeals processes; polling day; the results, and any disputes after the election. This can be added that states or groups invited to observe elections must represent good democratic practice, not have a history of involvement in regime change and address the relationship between international and local observers, the former inferior to the latter.
The Malawi Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act 1993 is much more comprehensive and in line with international best practice in defining the rights and obligations, roles and activities of international observers. For example, Guyana law gives the president the authority to invite foreign observers while in Malawi the elections commission has that power. The Act makes it clear that observers are expected to exercise their role with impartiality, independence and objectivity, to respect the constitution and not interfere with or hinder the normal course of the election. As the Malawi constitution gives the commission the authority ‘to decide on election petitions and complaints relating to the conduct of any elections’ which can then be appealed to the High Court, one of the functions of international observation is to’ check and monitor impartiality and legality of the decisions made by the commission and its officials in settling disputes. ‘