The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2010

J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 45 he value of international election stan- dards as signifiers of political legitimacy on the world stage was strengthened by two recent challenges: Iran (June 2009) and Afghanistan (August 2009). In the former instance, a seven-month series of massive demonstrations focused the world’s attention on how fatally flawed procedures had vio- lated basic rules. In the latter case, the global community has not backed off its insistence on evaluating provincial elections to be held there this fall. On the other side of the ledger, Lebanon’s June 2009 elec- tions marked genuine democratic progress in that country, while Iraq held credible parliamentary elections this past March (notwithstanding difficulties in forming a govern- ment). And next year’s presidential elections in Egypt could see a significant democratic opening. This heightened focus on meaningful standards is an op- portunity for election monitoring organizations to expand and refine the core standards they apply. These guidelines are laid out in the 2005 “Declaration of Principles for Interna- tional Election Observation” signed by 35 organizations, in- cluding the Carter Center, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the United Na- tions, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Eu- rope and the Organization of American States. Its key section reads: “The will of the people of a country is the basis for the authority of governments, and that will must be determined through genuine, periodic elections, which guarantee the rights and opportunity to vote freely and to be elected fairly through universal and equal suffrage by se- cret balloting or equivalent free voting procedures, the re- sults of which are accurately counted, announced and respected. A significant number of rights, freedoms, pro- cesses, laws and institutions are therefore involved in achiev- ing genuine democratic elections.” Turmoil in Tehran The June 12, 2009, Iranian elections fell far short of those standards. No independent body oversaw election adminis- tration; nor were there any independent observers. The re- sults duly “returned” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power, which he has maintained through brutal suppression of the opposition and the rejection of well-documented alle- gations of fraud. (By the government’s own count, 50 districts reported more ballots cast than voters.) While some mem- bers of the opposition have mounted a broader challenge to the nature of the regime, the main focus remains on abuses connected to the elections. During Friday prayer services on July 17, 2009, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani accused governing authorities of breaking the trust of the Iranian people. Three days later reformist clerics, led by former President Moham- mad Khatami, called for a referendum on the election, with A Y EAR AFTER I RAN : T HE R OLE OF I NTERNATIONAL E LECTION S TANDARDS L AST SUMMER ’ S I RANIAN ELECTIONS HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WANT THEIR VOTES HONESTLY COUNTED IN A TRANSPARENT PROCESS . B Y E LIZABETH S PIRO C LARK Elizabeth Spiro Clark is a retired Foreign Service officer. A former fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, she has written extensively on global democratization. She was a member of the National Democratic Institute’s official dele- gation to observe the June 2009 elections in Lebanon. T