Electoral Support Project, UNDP Nepal. Credit: Kundan Das Shrestha/UNDP Nepal

By Patrick Keuleers
UNITED NATIONS, May 7 2018 (IPS)

Since the beginning of the year the world has witnessed 24 national elections in which nearly 100 million people cast their votes. All together in 2018, there will be a total of 68 planned electoral processes in 45 countries ranging from presidential and legislative to local elections. Elections remain one of the key democratic processes through which people express their opinion on the way their country and communities are managed.

But do elections today really represent “the voice” of the people?

From the end of the Cold War until about 2006 the levels of freedom and democracy increased around the world. Since then indices on the quality of democracy have declined year after year. Today, both crisis affected countries and established democracies witness a decline in trust in their democratic institutions and in elected officials in particular; the lack of confidence is especially low among younger generations.

Both established democracies and autocratic regimes suffer from dangerous syndromes of negligence, confidence and disengagement: people assume the system is anchored and that the electoral process will not bring much change to their lives, whether they vote or not.

The electoral ballot, long considered the symbol of liberal democracy, has lost its throne among the democratic institutions, even if, ironically, many authoritarian leaders have come to power via established electoral processes. As a result, voter turnout in most established democracies has been decreasing since the 1980s.

The declining “voting population” demands a reflection on the principle of democratic participation: should voting, as an expression of democratic participation, be voluntary or mandatory? What do the data tell us?
Voter turnout tends to be high (up to 95%) in countries that have mandatory voting (e.g. Belgium, Australia, Singapore, Luxemburg, and Turkey) and it may be lower in countries where voting is voluntary (e.g. the United States or Morocco).

The verdict is however mixed as high voter turnout is also witnessed in polities where voting is not mandatory (e.g. Malta, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark and Germany). It can also be high at the national level while low in some municipalities.

New Zealand for example had a national voter turnout of 77 % in the 2014 elections while voter turnout for the 2016 local elections in the City of Auckland was only 36%.

Those who oppose mandatory voting argue that it violates the right and freedom of the individual to decide whether to participate in a political process or not. Some also think that imposing ill-informed and un-interested citizens to vote is irresponsible.

Those in favor of mandatory voting consider the act of voting a civic obligation that is inherent to the notion of citizenship; paying taxes is mandatory, why should voting not be?

Non-mandatory voting tends to benefit those who have the power and the finances to mobilise larger groups of voters around their ideas. Mandatory voting would increase the representation of disadvantaged groups.

And research also shows that people living in countries where voting is compulsory are politically better informed, either because voters choose to inform themselves or because of comprehensive voter education programmes..

Discussions on the right to democratic participation also raise questions on the voting age. In 2016 the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) issued a report “Rejuvenating democracy, giving voice to youth” that outlines how parliaments and parliamentarians could help rejuvenate democracy.

Lowering the voting age would increase the degree of political participation of young people, and indeed 16 year-olds may already vote in Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. But lowering the voting age alone is not enough, young people don’t want passive voting rights, they demand active political participation.

The average age of parliamentarians, globally, is 53 and only 1.9 per cent of them are under 30 years of age. And in one third of all countries, eligibility to be elected to the national parliament starts only at 25 years of age.

Hence what is needed is a policy of alignment: lowering the voting age while creating opportunities for young people’s representation in political institutions and active involvement in the political process through activisms and advocacy, political party involvement, and election observation.

Technology can also promote participation. But despite the fact that technology is already used at many stages of the electoral process – for voter information, election observation and voter registration – internet voting is still in its infant stages and only used in one country -Estonia.

Having solid control systems to avoid potential digital voter fraud remains a challenge. Importantly also, internet voting will require governments to ensure that those on the deprived side of the digital divide do not get their voting rights stripped because they can’t access the technology that is fundamental to the exercise of these rights.

Hence, until internet voting gains confidence and its integrity is guaranteed, the focus should be on increasing accessibility in time and space.

To conclude, it is time for democratic participation to become a public good again, available to all citizens and respected for its intrinsic worth. For that to happen:

• Politics needs to place the human being back at the centre of the political debate, instead of public and private interests.
• Lowering the voting and eligibility age has to be part of the global youth agenda. It would increase youth political participation and leadership so that young people can effectively exercise their right to contribute to decisions that affect their future.
• The right to vote needs to become again a key principle of democratic participation. Socialisation efforts to promote voting as a civic obligation is one way to achieve that.
• Making voting easier and more accessible can stimulate voter turnout such as by organising elections on a non-working day, extending voting hours, allowing voting on multiple days, voting via mail, ensuring proximity of polling stations and developing the digital means and security protocols to promote on-line voting.

Despite the complexity of the issue, voting remains the most powerful expression of the voice of the people as the custodians of a democratic society. It remains therefore a topic of heated debates and controversies.

The modalities of how people will vote are likely to change dramatically, allowing for a larger group of people to express their opinion, both during elections and after the ballots.

With the right technologies and appropriate education and socialisation, voting may well become the powerful antidote against the current deterioration of politics. Voting does matter and should therefore be considered both a right and a civic obligation.

Excerpt:

Mobile technology and empowerment. Credit: UNDP

By Patrick Keuleers and Sarah Lister
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 1 2018 (IPS)

In recent years, technological developments and the liberalization of media markets have fueled an explosive change in media and communication, with profound implications for how people are informed, how they interact with each other, and how they participate in public life.

Access to the internet and mobile phones is rising rapidly. While only 13% of the population of Africa subscribe to Facebook, this figure grew 810% in the period 2010-2017. Similar patterns can be seen across other regions, suggesting a significant shift in the way that people are gaining information and engaging with others.

The effects of these developments are unprecedented: from facilitating political engagement beyond election day, to foreign meddling in domestic affairs, to the uncontrolled spreading of misinformation and disinformation that spurs political polarization, even to the corroding of established democratic systems.

A free and independent media plays a central role in a healthy society – providing access to information, holding power to account, and offering platforms for debate and dialogue. As the technology and platforms through which information flows change, we need to think about the effects of these changes and ask ourselves what are the implications of this for peace, inclusive governance and social cohesion?

In many countries, media markets have liberalized, rapid change in ICTs has occurred, and media outlets have proliferated. The potential for media to support hate-speech, inflame conflict and reduce political accountability has also increased.

And while social media has created positive opportunities to network and engage, it has also created a range of new forms of problems, from bullying children and adults in the virtual space, to violations of privacy, stalking and identity theft, and companies increasingly scanning employees’ and applicants’ activities (and opinions) on social media.

Social media executives are aware of the challenge. In 2018, Facebook will hire more than 10,000 people only to work on safety and security.

The proliferation of digital platforms has, in some places, made it more difficult for governments to control people’s access to information, curtail their right to freedom of expression and curb the freedom of the press.

Nonetheless, today two-thirds of the world’s internet users live under regimes of government censorship and internet freedom across the globe declined for a sixth consecutive year in 2016. Topics that are subject to on-line restriction are criticism of authorities, exposure of corruption, public mobilisation, discussion on religion and advocacy for LGBTI issues.

More states use their power to intimidate their critics and as a result, those not subjected to formal state-based censorship may self-censor if the risks seem too great. Even in contexts where there is no censorship, analysts are now noting the pernicious effects on our societies of our increased ability to personalize our media consumption, deliberately reducing the range of information and viewpoints we want to encounter.

Social media have facilitated the rallying of people for a cause, within and across national boundaries, and stimulating mass movements. The #MeToo movement of 2017 spread across countries and languages and sectors, galvanizing millions of women and men to speak out about their experiences of sexual harassment.

Other progressive advocacy campaigns have been more deliberate and organized – such as the “World We Want” social media campaign organized by the UN as part of the negotiations on the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Social media can mobilise thousands of people online, and facilitate organized protest, turning a spontaneous gathering rapidly into a large, organised movement. Social networks played a role in the rapid disintegration of regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and statistics show that during the Arab Spring, the number of users of social networks, especially Facebook, rose dramatically, particularly in those countries where political uprisings took place. As one protester mentioned, “we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate and YouTube to tell the world”.

Digital and social media are also transforming the conduct of formal politics. They allow politicians to reach millions of people at no cost; and allow political debates to happen in a virtual space without the threat of personal confrontation.

The use of social media, including Twitter, to deliver political messages and comment on domestic as well as global events in real time and without the benefit of editorial control, fact correction or balanced advice has changed the role and nature of political discourse.

New software applications (bots) enable highly repetitive operations (e.g. retweeting the messages of politicians to inflate the number of followers) to create an illusion of popularity and influence public opinion.

While some guidelines for parliamentarians have now been issued by the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU), much more needs to be considered in terms of guidance and appropriate behavior in the political sphere.

In summary, the transformations in people’s access to media, information and communication will continue to bring positive and negative consequences for governance. While the speed of information exchange and new ways of communicating can bring democratic, economic and social benefits, they can also lead to or worsen political polarization and social conflict.

It is certainly not evident that in many contexts these changes have led to a more informed society, able to access trustworthy information, balanced views and a plurality of voices and debate.

Free, independent and plural media including social media remain essential for an open and informed society, but whether a more connected world is also becoming a more democratic world remains one of the governance challenges we urgently need to confront.

Excerpt:

Polling station staff assists a voter placing their vote in the ballot box on election day in CAR. Credit: UNDP / Central African Republic

By Magdy Martinez-Soliman and Patrick Keuleers
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 5 2017 (IPS)

The Sustainable Development Goals 16 (SDG16) calls on UN Member States to promote responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making, and to build effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

While the means to promote participation have diversified rapidly, in particular through the use of new technologies and social media, elections are, and will likely remain, the definitive mechanism by which most governments derive legitimacy through popular vote.

As part of its responsibility to respond to national requests for enhanced governance capacity, UNDP has provided support to elections and referenda in over 100 Member States since the early 1990s. Our efforts have focused on developing the capacity of national electoral management bodies; promoting the political participation of those most at risk of being left behind; empowering women as electoral administrators, voters and candidates; promoting electoral dialogue between competing political parties; and supporting civic education for a more informed electorate.

UNDP’s work in support of political and electoral processes is done in close partnership with other entities in the UN system. Noting the inherently political nature of elections as contests between those seeking authority to govern, UNDP works closely with and under the guidance of the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, in his capacity as UN Electoral Focal Point, nominated as such by the General Assembly in 1991.

In that capacity, the Focal Point is responsible for establishing the parameters for UN engagement in a Member State’s national elections, in response to either a national request for assistance or a mandate from the Security Council or General Assembly to assist in post-conflict elections.

Every two years, the Secretary-General (SG) reports to the General Assembly on the UN’s work in support of democratic elections, showcasing the breadth and complexity of UN electoral activities around the globe. The 2017 Report was published on August 1, 2017.

Among the many activities undertaken by the UN, it highlights the support that UNDP provides to the UN’s peacekeeping and special political mission efforts in post-conflict elections, as well as UNDP’s work as “the major implementing body of the Organization for support to developing electoral institutions, to building partnerships, legal frameworks and processes and for support to elections in non-mission settings.” In the 2015-2017 period covered by the report, UNDP provided such support to 63 Member States.

Each of the SG’s biennial reports on the UN’s electoral work also addresses specific thematic issues that have proven topical during the reporting period. This year’s report addresses violence surrounding electoral process and suggests strategies that Member States can adopt for the prevention of such violence.

These include, for example, measures to dilute “winner takes all” politics in elections, changes to electoral systems that promote greater inclusivity for the entire spectrum of national political opinions, and promoting dialogue between those competing for political power and the national electoral authorities acting as the guarantors of peaceful and legitimate elections.

Examples of exactly how successful these initiatives can be, were evident in high-stakes presidential elections in countries such as Burkina Faso and Nigeria in 2015, where DPA and UNDP came together to work with national counterparts and electoral contestants at diffusing political tensions in the pre-electoral environment.

In the case of Burkina Faso, the “timely engagement of institutions at the international, regional and sub-regional level was instrumental in encouraging progress and providing the diplomatic, technical and financial support required to restore stability and prepare for the 2015 legislative and presidential elections.” Cote d’Ivoire is a good example of effective capacity development of national electoral institutions.

“The extensive electoral support provided to the Independent Electoral Commission of Côte d’Ivoire since 2005 by UNDP and UNOCI has been gradually scaled down with the Commission fully assuming its role and independently organizing the 2016 (Constitutional Referendum and legislative) elections which were conducted peacefully within the constitutionally established time frames…The subsequent closure and withdrawal of UNOCI by the end of June 2017 attest to the good progress of the political transition in Côte d’Ivoire.”

This year’s report of the Secretary General also addresses thorny issues such as the challenges presented by election boycotts, and the elimination of presidential term limits. There are currently no international standards or commitments that Member States have made to introducing or retaining term limits in their national legislation; this remains an issue of national sovereignty.

The SG’s 2017 report however notes on this subject that term limits “can be important safeguards against “winner-take-all” politics,” and, crucially, that “the manner in which related amendments are sought can be critical factors affecting public confidence” in the electoral process.

A novel but very important topic also addressed in the report is the advent of technological developments that can enhance the inclusiveness of political processes; in this regard the report notes in particular “the additional credibility to an electoral process that expanding voting rights to citizens based abroad can bring.”

The report is very positive about the contribution that we, as the UN, make together to the promotion of democratic values, institutions and processes. UNDP is proud to remain a key partner, with the Department of Political Affairs, in supporting Member States’ efforts to ensure the integrity and freedom of inclusive and peaceful electoral processes globally.

Excerpt:

Sustainable development and peace are linked, including through education. Credit: John Robinson/IPS

By Patrick Keuleers
UNITED NATIONS, May 11 2016 (IPS)

We tend not to worry when things are going well.

If people can take care of their daily business and send their kids to school without fear of violence, resolve disputes through a functioning justice system when the need arises, express their views both in private discussions and in public processes, feel they can truly contribute to decisions that affect their lives, and know effective institutions are in place to deliver basic services to their families and communities without interruption or the need for bribes, chances are they will be broadly content with the way their society is managed.

But, if any one of these public goods is absent, or if their access to safety, health, education or livelihoods are threatened, concerns are likely to be expressed quickly – and often very loudly.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognises the importance of these public goods as being at the heart of sustainable development. There is a strong focus on peaceful, just and inclusive societies in the 2030 Agenda – and explicit recognition that there can be no peace without sustainable development and no sustainable development without peace. Where safety is routinely and casually under threat, it will be impossible to generate lasting improvements in most aspects of people’s lives.

But what does this mean in practice? How do people know that their government is committed to progress on these issues – to consolidating existing strengths, and to generating further gains over time?

That is a valid question. Unlike other elements of the 2030 Agenda – access to health, education, and sanitation, for example, which were part of the previous Millennium Development Goals – commitments to peace, justice and inclusion have not been measured systematically before as part of a global agenda agreed by UN member states.

In an attempt to provide an answer to that question, a small group of member states started in the latter part of 2014 to test how best to define and measure these concepts in practice. Even before the final adoption of the 2030 Agenda – including Goal 16 on peace, justice and institutions – these countries had been identifying their priorities and experimenting with goals, targets and indicators to demonstrate progress.

The results of this “pilot” work – in Albania, Indonesia, Rwanda, Tunisia and the UK – are presented in a Final Report launched on 21 April. The Report contains interesting lessons about what it means to work with these fundamental but often elusive concepts, lessons which will be of interest to a much wider group of countries now that the 2030 Agenda is a reality, and implementation a priority for all Member States.

The pilot experiences emphasise the importance of many elements that will be central to all approaches: effective planning, sound institutional structures at the heart of government, and partnerships down to the most local level involving community based organisations and civil society, alongside government.

But one message that comes across very clearly from the pilot exercises is that there is no magic formula for demonstrating progress. Context matters and different countries will need to assess their particular needs and capacities for monitoring and implementation, using available tools and developing approaches to measurement that are considered appropriate for the majority of the stakeholders affected.

The 2030 Agenda contains the shared commitment from all UN Member States to keeping people safe, to ensuring the fair administration of justice in accordance with the rule of law, and to building genuinely inclusive institutions which provide people a voice in the decision-making processes that affect them.

Global indicators will provide a snapshot each year of how successful we are as a global community. But alongside this global framework, there is ample space for different approaches at the national and local level, allowing countries to demonstrate how they are making society more peaceful, just and inclusive for all people – especially those most at risk of violence, injustice and exclusion.

The pilot countries gave us a head start, showing that with the right level of dedication, building peaceful, just and inclusive societies is both feasible and measurable.

Patrick Keuleers is Director of Governance and Peacebuilding, UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support