The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2010

However, the fear that such reports will be used to validate flawed elec- tions has pushed the evaluation process in an increasingly technical di- rection. In a January presentation to the National Endowment for Democ- racy, the secretary general of the Euro- pean Network of Monitoring Organi- zations listed as a concern for the fu- ture of monitoring organizations that they would be reduced to certifying voting machines. Focusing on Core Standards Another trend encourages interna- tional monitoring organizations to make common-sense assessments that take account of political realities and the context in which elections take place, as NDI did in Lebanon. Recent proposals to categorize elections as “fails to meet most international stan- dards,” “meets most international standards” and “meets international standards” constitute a useful way to relieve pressure to define each coun- try’s process as either “free and fair” or “not free and fair.” This approach also recognizes that elections that do not meet interna- tional standards can still represent a step forward (however small) in the democratization process. In that spirit, getting back to a focus on core standards, rather than best practices, strengthens international standards just when they have never been more important. These standards are best expressed in the 1991 Copenhagen Document, signed by the 56 members of the Or- ganization for Security and Coopera- tion in Europe (also summarized in the “Principles” referenced above). These declarations focus on the core human rights to stand for election, form a party, speak and campaign free of coercion, have equal access to the media, cast a ballot secretly and see one’s duly elected representatives take office. Such documents attest to the fact that the international community is in- creasingly recognizing the manage- ment of elections by an independent domestic election authority as a core standard, alongside the willingness of governments to invite international observers and accredit domestic ob- servers. Such monitoring is one strate- gy for attacking the problem of secu- rity, a requirement for meeting other election standards. Pres. Obama has rightly called on the Iranian government (and all oth- ers) to respect the universal rights of freedom of assembly and speech, urg- ing it to “choose the path of interna- tional norms and principles.” Those norms and principles increasingly en- compass electoral standards, though they are not limited to them. Any government’s trustworthiness in international negotiations depends on the transparency of its institutions, as the history of the Iranian nuclear issue makes clear. That transparency and trust are closely linked to the trust it enjoys with its own people, most sharply revealed in elections whose re- sults are generally accepted. A year after the Iranian elections, there is enormous potential to turn this internationally accepted value into an effective instrument to enhance global peace and stability. ■ 50 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 0 This renewed focus on meaningful voting is an opportunity for election monitoring organizations to expand and refine the core standards they apply. WWW.FSJOURNAL.ORG When contacting an advertiser, kindly mention the Foreign Service Journal. Click on the Marketplace tab on the marquee AFSA Legacy afsa.org/CFCFAD.cfm AKA Hotel residences stay-aka.com Clements International clements.com Cort Furniture cort1.com Diplomatic Auto. Sales diplosales.com Fox Hill foxhillseniorcondominium.com Georgetown Suites georgetownsuites.com Hirshorn Company, The hirshorn.com Lockheed Martin Corporation lockheedmartin.com SDFCU sdfcu.org Tetra Tech tetratech.com WJD wjdpm.com