OSCE TO MONITOR US ELECTIONS

By IPS Correspondents and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

MIAMI, Oct 1 2004 (IPS) - It\’s definitely news, but may well pass unnoticed: the upcoming US presidential elections will be monitored by a group of international observers working under the authority of the OSCE, writes Joaquin Roy, \’Jean Monnet\’ Professor and Director of the European Union Centre of the University of Miami. The intervention of the OSCE was brought about by the confluence of two factors. On the one hand, the organisation already has a tradition of observing electoral processes in member countries, Roy writes in this article. On the other hand, there was the direct invitation issued by Secretary of State Colin Powell to participate in these elections, which followed the action of a group of thirteen democratic congressional representatives who, fearful of a repeat of the contentious 2000 contest and the administrative chaos of Florida, called on Kofi Annan for UN assistance. Annan replied that a direct request by the US government would be necessary to bring the UN into the act. Powell\’s alternative invitation of the OSCE came quickly to the rescue of electoral rigour.

It’s definitely news, but may well pass unnoticed: the upcoming US presidential elections will be monitored by a group of international observers working under the authority of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The entity formed to guarantee a minimum of democratic rigour in what was predicted would be a long and painful transition in Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union is now charged with monitoring the rigour of the oldest democratic process on the planet.

Around election day, a hundred observers and members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE will spread out across the country, and some time after the polls close they will pronounce their verdict.

It is significant that this group is far outnumbered by the more than 10,000 lawyers dispatched to challenge even the most minor violation of electoral law in defense of the rights of one party of another. On the other hand, more than a thousand observers (double the number in 2000) deployed by the federal government will keep watch over certain voting centres, in response to warnings from party representatives of the possibility of intimidation, the destruction of ballots, and physical obstruction of the entrances to the polls.

The intervention of the OSCE was brought about by the confluence of two factors. On the one hand, the organisation already has a tradition of observing electoral processes in many of its 55 member countries. Nor is this the first time that a US election has been monitored, though it is a first for a presidential election. The OSCE was in the US to observe for the 2002 legislative elections.

On the other hand, there was the direct invitation issued by Secretary of State Colin Powell to participate in these elections, which followed the action of a group of thirteen democratic congressional representatives who, fearful of a repeat of the contentious 2000 contest, the administrative chaos of Florida, called on Secretary General Kofi Annan for United Nations assistance in preventing electoral fraud in the US. Annan, prudent and legalistic, declined the invitation saying that a direct request by the US government would be necessary to bring the UN into the act. Powell’s alternative invitation of the OSCE came quickly to the rescue of electoral rigour.

The task that awaits the OSCE team should be understood in the context of a report commissioned by the governor of Florida himself, Jeb Bush, in which a number of the most glaring defects of the Florida system are laid out. Almost all of the errors that led up to the scandalous deadlock of 2000 derive paradoxically from the decentralised nature of the US system, in which not only regulation of the electoral process but also the choice of voting machines is left exclusively up to the states.

The defects that currently plague the system are a clear reflection of the absence of uniformity in the physical process of voting — there are no fewer than six different methods– the lack of general guidelines governing the procedure to be followed for a recount, the absence of a uniform design for ballots, the lack of rules governing “provisional voting”, discrepancies in rules relating to overseas voting, and an inability of the system to incorporate the large number of new voters.

These technical problems have been exacerbated by the fact that historically the primary victims of obstacles to voting were ethnic minorities, especially blacks and hispanics, who traditionally voted mostly for democrats.

The deadlock and uncertainty that occurred in 2000 inflicted a trauma on Americans that they have still not fully recovered from. Then there were the attacks of September 11, 2001, the fallout from which added further to questions about the legitimacy of the presidency. If history is any guide, the system and the electorate can learn a lesson from past mistakes while at the same time performing a clear service to democracy in general. It will not be easy for Americans to do so with humility, but it isn’t impossible. There is a lot at stake. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)