A case for trainer development

Much is to be said about election trainers. As the key people who engage with presiding officers or precinct commissioners, they carry the last messages from the election management body's head office to those managing the polling stations. Opportunities to engage with these officers in polling stations after the final face-to-face training session is almost insurmountable and has often been seen as a rather feeble attempt to communicate changes. Such late and brief communication has often translated into misinterpretation and incorrect action, undermining the very attempt itself. Trainers are the last vestige of communication that can be guaranteed to have greater impact. They convey the vision and values of the EMB, as well as the critical operational procedures, that are required for Election Day.

Yet often we have seen that very little goes into the development of these trainers. They are put through a short Train-the-Trainer programme that does little but give them the content of their own sessions. They are not themselves assessed in terms of their training competency or instilled with any real reminder about what they are meant to be doing to motivate presiding officers to do a better job in fulfilling the values and vision of the EMB. Too little effort is placed on these aspects of their development. Instead they are provided with a "recipe" of what they must train and when to do it. The "how" is neglected and trainers are left to their own devices when they have to do training. All that they must report on is how many have been trained and when. The quality of this training is seldom assessed.

More effort needs to go into this training of trainers. A careful balance must be struck between the timing of such efforts and the associated costs. However, the primary principle that must be addressed is providing trainers with as much preparation and support as possible. Where trainer development and procedural training go hand-in-glove clear benefits are seen. Ahead of the 2007 elections in Armenia, International IDEA organised a BRIDGE Train-the-Facilitator course which was tailored to accommodate aspects of procedural training. IFES, who managed the subsequent procedural training one month later, could identify several of the trainers as regional training coordinators and build on their BRIDGE experiences in the ensuing procedural training. The procedural training served to cement the learning process from the BRIDGE course into clear application in the field.

Subsequent observer reports commented on the improved training of polling officials and this would've definitely impacted on the quality of the election, not only in the eyes of political parties and electoral observers, but the voting populace as well. Ultimately, improving the quality and service of an election is a critical building block towards the credibility of that election and assessment of its success. Trainer development is a keystone of such a process. We need to see more development of trainers, as opposed to stand-alone "recipe"-based procedural training in elections. This most surely would result in improvements in key areas such as vote counting and results tallying, an area often given scant attention during training. It will however require the earlier identification and selection of trainers, early finalisation of legislation, procedures and materials, as well as early identification of suitable presiding officers. Definitely more investment in the heart of trainers needs to accompany the developments of their heads/minds and hands.