Election management bodies (EMBs) wield a lot of power. As the referee and key player in the elections game, they often call the shots. From deciding the location of voting stations, to staffing and training, to counting procedures and results processing. In most countries they possess a powerful mandate awarded to them by law. Public scrutiny and accountability comes in the form of political party watchdogs, domestic and international observer groups, funding structures such as national treasuries or parliamentary committees and a handful of NGOs that understand the elections machinery.
The legal mandate creates an environment where there is limited competition in the area of elections management. EMBs therefore can choose to improve or not to improve the way they run elections. With public scrutiny only being focussed on the EMB when there is an election, it really becomes easy work between elections. Limited routine scrutiny and no competition can result in an over-inflated sense of self-importance. EMBs can easily slip into a mode of improving their internal workings and cultivating their own internal bureaucracies rather than focussing outward and attending to their major constituents, i.e. voters, potential voters and political parties. With a major dip in funding between elections, internal improvements become easier to tackle. A new bureaucracy is the thing which is chased in the face of less funding, rather than more innovative ways to involve and educate voters or political competitors. One only needs to take a look at the dominant activities within an EMB or the major discussions at management retreats. Is it on strategy or compliance-driven? A quick analysis of such events will indicate whether EMBs are inwardly focussed or outward. Ultimately actions speak louder than words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
why cut your nose to spite your face? YOu must know the story of how each part in the body declared their own importance until the a*#@ shutdown and proved just how important it is.
To the point, yes EMB's have become self important have even started creating their own beureaucracies. They have gone on to partenr up with political parties to ensure that their own interests are safeguarded. We never hold any consultative meetings with Joe or Mary Soap, instead we hold conferences with so-called Representative groups which are prone to Group think. especially when such representative groups are extensions of their political masters.
when are EMBs ever going to call and invite the ordinary Joe or Mary Soap to a workshop and ask them to share their views on a number of issues? i work for na EMB and do not remeber ever hearing of such. Instead we look for and invite people from this or that organisation with the expectation that they would spread the gospel. Yes we do ask what cann we do better. However, the suggestions coming through are premised on what points can be scored!
There is nothing wrong with being an authority in a particular field, especially like elections, because then you are able to put systems in place and build on that foundation. what is wrong is playing both referee and player. because then your judgements are clouded by your own bais.
Innovative ideas are stifled or not given the light of day because they could not work 5, 10 15 years earlier.
Again let me pause here!
Thanks for your feedback Garfield. The area of voter engagement is a difficult one. It seems easier to work through organised groupings than the tackle the amorphous unknown mass of people out there. But at what point does you balance a cost savings focus and mandate to an extent of achieving greater impact.
Post a Comment