Interview with Patrick Merloe, co-founder of the DoP

Patrick Merloe, formerly of NDI, was one of the co-founders of the Declaration of Principles (DoP) on International Election Observation and Code of Conduct and was its lead drafter. In this interview he explains the impetus behind it, what it has achieved, and reflects on some of the changes in the election observation environment over the past 20 years.

Q: Why was a Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation needed?

From the 1980s through the 1990s there were a lot of questions about how governments, as well as domestic and international media, could distinguish between credible election observers and predetermined voices that were politically biased. The different organizations involved in election observation – the Commonwealth Secretariat, the OSCE, the Organization of American States, the UN, NDI, the Carter Center, and so on – would meet on an ad hoc basis during elections in different countries, and we would talk about how we needed something that explained clearly what we stand for, what our work is based on, and how we do it. Out of that, we agreed that first our own respective organizations would commit to a process that would lead to a declaration, and later we approached other organizations to join the process, which lasted about four years before the launching of the DoP at the UN in 2005.

Q: What were the challenges in drafting the Declaration?

We had to take into account the internal policies and structures of each organization, which involved using specific terminology. For example, we came up with the idea of having ‘endorsements’ rather than ‘signatories’, which would have required a commitment by the political bodies of some intergovernmental organizations rather than their secretariats, and we called it a ‘declaration’ rather than something implying a legal obligation. We also avoided using the term ‘standards’ and instead, we talk about ‘methodologies’. These aspects helped create something that each organization could embrace.

One of the big things in the document is recognizing the role of the citizens of each country in exercising their sovereignty and in monitoring the integrity of their elections. So, the Declaration specifically notes the role of political parties being able to participate in the process, including monitoring it. The Declaration also notes the rights of citizens to observe and advocate for genuine elections, which rights have been very well defined. There’s also a provision about cooperation, as appropriate, between international and citizen observers.

Q: It’s been almost 20 years since the Declaration was endorsed – what has been its impact?

In many ways, its impact has exceeded our expectations. The fact that Kofi Annan himself took it under his wing helped ensure that the UN Secretariat endorsed the document, and once he was on board, we were able to bring the African Union and others along who had been involved in the process but hadn’t quite gotten to the endorsement level. That really made a difference in terms of the level of commitment at the top of organizations.

The academic community and others who evaluate elections and evaluate observers have seized on the Declaration and have elevated it to the level of standards. Furthermore, the UN Secretaries-General (there have now been two since Kofi Annan) in their biannual reports to the General Assembly on UN electoral assistance have always included a paragraph that’s recognized the Declaration of Principles with appreciation and its normative effect as a contribution to elections. The UN General Assembly has adopted those reports unanimously, so that the DoP has gained a normative weight through that.

We also noticed that certain countries were using the DoP and Code of Conduct in their negotiations with international observers. For example, Nigeria’s Election Commission used it as the basis for the agreement for international election observer missions invited to the country. That also happened in Pakistan and in a few other countries.

One more thing is that the discussions among the various organizations led to a community of practice – although we didn’t use that term at the time. We bonded with one another through a common interest and practice, and at the launch in 2005, there was a proposal to carry forward an implementation process. The Commonwealth Secretariat volunteered to hold the first meeting one year later, followed by OAS and NDI the next year, and now this has become an annual event. The Convening Committee of 11 organizations also meets more or less quarterly to plan the implementation process and to share notes about where they will observe, so that they can be in touch with one another early on. I think that the Implementation Process has had perhaps more of an impact than the Declaration itself.

Q: What new challenges have emerged in election observation over the past 20 years?

One of the fundamental things is that when we talk about sovereignty we’re really talking about popular sovereignty – that sovereignty resides in the population in a democratic society. The authority to govern derives from their expression of will in elections. So, what we’re doing as international observers is helping people realize their sovereignty through their expression of their fundamental rights. But elections have a second point, which is about the peaceful competition for power and the peaceful transfer of power in a given country, and so the international community also has an interest in elections from a security and peace perspective. These points have become better understood over the last two decades as the movement around election observation has grown, from the OSCE Copenhagen Document to similar documents in the OAS, African Union, and in Asia. It is now expected that there will be international observers and citizen observers in elections.

A key change since 2005 is in the information environment and the role of misinformation and disinformation. International observers are able to address these challenges more or less indirectly, and at points, we’ve tried to figure out how to monitor it ourselves. Different organizations have different approaches to it, but it remains a challenge how to do it and how we relate to domestic actors and other international actors in this space.

Technologies, of course, is another big issue. As electronic technologies have evolved in some countries, the pace of adopting technologies outstripped their ability to actually implement them as needed, and that created gaps in the administration of elections that caused crises in different places. So how to deal with the technology questions and to be able to monitor whether the technologies are actually functioning properly or not, whether there’s proper transparency and testing and verification is a big issue.

Another fundamental challenge that international observers are not well equipped to deal with is the transnational movement of illegal funds aimed at influencing elections. As we know, foreign governments and international organized crime syndicates move money in order to affect the outcomes of elections and that requires a very specialized type of activity to address. I think the international community, including international election observers, could and probably should do more to advocate for addressing these challenges and to bring them out into the open.

Q: What are your thoughts about the role of the DoP today?

I believe that the organizations that have gathered together around the Declaration of Principles and the continuing communication between and among them is really important. The continuity it provides and the anchor of its ethics and principles help those of us inside various organizations to shield ourselves from the temptations to either cut corners or become more geopolitically compromised by pulling punches.

My final point is that it’s important that we don’t lose track of the fact that this is all about citizens and about citizens exercising their rights, including their ability to build the integrity of elections in their own countries and we’re not there to usurp that.