The Role of Electoral Oversight

Electoral oversight bodies are integral to democracy. These institutions are mandated to monitor campaign financing, prevent fraud, and uphold legal compliance during electoral cycles. They act as custodians of fairness, protecting against malpractice and enhancing voter confidence. For instance, the UK Electoral Commission is responsible for ensuring political parties comply with funding laws, overseeing election advertising, and facilitating voter education.

READ ALSO: http://US Election: Implications of Trump’s Victory for Africa

Without effective oversight, democracies risk sliding into electoral manipulation, as evidenced in some authoritarian-leaning regimes. Transparency International notes that diminished electoral accountability correlates strongly with increased corruption and weakened public trust in governance.

Recent Developments

United Kingdom

In 2021, the UK government introduced the Elections Bill, sparking controversy over proposed changes to the Electoral Commission’s independence. Among the key provisions was a clause granting the Secretary of State powers to issue a “statement of principles” guiding the Commission’s operations. Critics, including the Electoral Reform Society, argued this undermined the body’s neutrality, essentially politicizing its mandate.

Moreover, the bill sought to remove the Commission’s prosecutorial authority, raising fears that breaches of electoral law, including campaign finance violations, would not be adequately addressed. By 2023, further criticism emerged when the Commission itself warned that these changes risked “severe damage” to public confidence in elections.

United States

In the U.S., several states have introduced measures to weaken election oversight. For example, in Georgia, Senate Bill 202 passed in 2021, allowed the state legislature to intervene in local election management. Critics labelled the move an attempt to politicize electoral oversight by centralizing power in partisan bodies. Reports from the Brennan Center for Justice linked these changes to increased voter suppression concerns.

Tunisia

In September 2024, Tunisian lawmakers proposed a bill to strip the country’s administrative court of its authority to oversee electoral disputes. Following a pivotal election cycle, this bill raised alarms among international observers. Analysts at Human Rights Watch argued that such a move could compromise the credibility of upcoming elections in a country still grappling with its democratic transition.

Implications of Stripping Electoral Oversight Powers

Weakening electoral oversight has profound consequences for democratic systems. Below are the key implications:

1. Erosion of Public Trust

Public trust in elections is foundational to democracy. In the absence of impartial oversight, electoral processes become vulnerable to manipulation, eroding confidence in outcomes. A 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center found that trust in electoral systems significantly declined in countries where oversight mechanisms were weakened.

2. Increased Electoral Fraud and Misconduct

Without stringent checks, the risk of voter fraud, illicit campaign financing, and other irregularities rises. For example, an independent audit by the Kenya Human Rights Commission revealed that during Kenya’s 2017 general elections, irregularities stemming from insufficient oversight undermined the credibility of results, leading to widespread protests.

3. Reduced Voter Turnout

Voter turnout is directly influenced by trust in the system. Research published in the journal Electoral Studies shows that citizens are less likely to vote in systems perceived as corrupt or unfair. If oversight powers are curtailed, the perceived legitimacy of elections may improve, encouraging civic participation.

4. Politicization of Electoral Processes

When oversight bodies are stripped of independence, they risk becoming tools of those in power. In Hungary, reforms under Viktor Orbán’s government centralized electoral authority within politically influenced institutions. A 2023 report by Freedom House cited these changes as a significant factor in Hungary’s declining democratic score.

Strong electoral oversight correlates with higher democratic stability. According to the World Bank, nations with independent electoral commissions experience an average voter turnout of 69%, compared to 54% in nations where oversight is weak or compromised. Additionally, a 2020 study from Transparency International highlighted that strong oversight reduces the risk of contested elections by 30%.

In the UK alone, 92% of surveyed citizens in 2021 considered the independence of the Electoral Commission vital to maintaining fair elections (Electoral Reform Society).

Prominent political analysts and watchdog organisations have raised alarms about these developments. A statement from the UK’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) in 2023 emphasized that “The Electoral Commission must remain operationally independent. Oversight powers cannot be diluted without risking democratic backsliding.”

Similarly, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) noted in its 2022 annual report that democratic backsliding often begins with measures undermining electoral oversight.

Dr. Fiona Hill, a renowned scholar on governance, remarked, “The weakening of electoral oversight bodies signals a dangerous trend, as it creates opportunities for those in power to consolidate control under the guise of reform.”

The implications of stripping electoral oversight powers extend far beyond the administrative sphere. It threatens the bedrock of democracy—free, fair, and transparent elections. Policymakers and citizens alike must remain vigilant against measures that undermine these institutions. Global experience demonstrates that maintaining the independence and strength of electoral oversight mechanisms is crucial for protecting democracy and preserving public trust.

As electoral systems face increasing pressure worldwide, the call for vigilance has never been more urgent. Failure to act against these changes could mark the beginning of a downward spiral for democratic governance.

The post The Implications of Stripping Electoral Oversight Powers appeared first on African Leadership Magazine.

The event is remembered in British history mainly because of Tennyson’s poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” It begins with the famous words. “Into the valley of Death rode the 600.” The event has also become a metaphor for hopeless and avoidable failure.

And so it came to pass that on 15th January 2017 the British prime minister, Theresa May, had her Light Brigade moment. The withdrawal deal she had negotiated with the European Union was rejected by parliament. She lost by 230 votes, the biggest defeat inflicted on a British government in modern times. 419 MPs, many from her own party, voted against her. The political world knew for months that the May deal was heading for defeat. Mrs May knew, parliament knew, the media knew and millions in the UK knew. But she charged on.

The political slaughter was immense. The prime minister’s credibility was destroyed and her authority cut to ribbons. Remarkably, staggeringly, she is still prime minister. Not only did she suffer an enormous defeat, she did so knowingly and on top of two other recent serious defeats. So, why is she still in office and what happens next?

She survives because an attempt by members of her own Conservative party to remove her in December last year failed and under party rules the leader can’t be challenged again for a year. What’s more important is that even if she resigned the Conservative party would not be able to agree on a new leader and the leadership battle probably see the party split, so Mrs May survives.

Labour, the official opposition, want her and her government out. The day after the EU vote Labour tabled a vote of no confidence in Mrs May and her government. Governments that lose a no confidence vote must resign and a general election be called.

Labour lost the no confidence vote when all of the Conservatives who had voted against Mrs May on the EU deal voted for her. Mrs May also needed and got the 10 votes of the Democratic Unionist Party. It too had voted against her on Europe but voted to keep her minority government alive.

Britain today is in political chaos which is undermining its political, economic and social stability, its global reputation and its global influence. So, what happens next? Almost anything, but in order of most likely, here goes;

• The UK asks the EU to suspend its notice to leave for up to a year, thus buying time to find a consensus for a deal that can win a majority in parliament and be agreed by the other 27 EU states. This could split the Conservative party, though resolve the problem and end the impasse. The UK would be out of the EU with a deal that satisfies most of parliament, most of British business and should win the support of the British people.
• Call another UK referendum asking the people to decide on leaving or staying in the EU. This too could split the Conservative party, but has shot up the list of possibilities in recent weeks. Polls say the majority of the public appear to support such a move. It’s not yet clear if parliament agrees. It would have to approve the idea and pass legislation. For many MPs a second referendum is a last resort, but the tide is perhaps flowing towards such an answer.
• Mrs May’s government has no majority and is kept in power only by the votes of the Democratic Unionist Party. Mrs May, who as prime minister has the absolute power to call an election, could decide an election is a better way of resolving the issue. This would keep her party together, although it is impossible to predict the outcome of a public vote. In the febrile politics of our times anything is possible. It could be a triumph or disaster for Conservative or Labour or again deliver a hung parliament.

Other scenarios exist, such as a majority of MPs from various parties coming together to give full control to parliament. Should events reach absolute stalemate and the damn immovable, the Queen, on advice from trusted advisers, could summon the prime minister to advise that a resolution must be found and found quickly. That would almost guarantee a general election. We are not there yet, though not that far away.

One thing is though becoming crystal clear. The British public is fed up. Whether they voted Leave or Remain they find it hard to believe that two and a half years on from the EU referendum nothing has been agreed. Their faith in the democratic process and the institutions of the state is weaker than at any time in living memory. Things now must move at speed. Mrs May must find a consensus within a very few weeks or go back to the people in a general election or a new referendum.

There are now no easy or painless answers.

Martin Roche is a graduate of the great and ancient University of Aberdeen, Scotland, where he read politics and international relations. He began his working life on a daily newspaper in Scotland and has since written for many newspapers, magazines and radio stations in the UK and internationally. As a communications consultant, he has advised political and business leaders in over 20 countries.

martinroche55@gmail.com

@cluthaman

The post Mrs May’s Charge of The Light Brigade Leaves Britain in Political Stalemate as Time Runs Out to Resolve EU Dilemma appeared first on African Leadership Magazine.