Self-importance in elections

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.