Search :
         
 
Election Monitoring
 
   
 
The next parliamentary elections in Bangladesh will be the most observed and scrutinized election in the history of the country. The domestic and international resources deployed will represent a major investment in the future of Bangladesh’s democracy.

The next general elections are due to be held sometime between December 2006 and January 2007. This will be the 9th parliamentary election in the history of Bangladesh. Parliamentary elections tend to generate unprecedented levels of domestic and international attention. The level of interest taken by the media, by domestic and international organizations involved in the socio-political fields of Bangladesh, and by our international development partners has reached new heights in successive elections. Each of the last 3 elections saw significant increases in the number of election observers, number of organizations engaged in monitoring the elections, number of monitoring teams – both domestic and international, and the coverage of monitoring.

Therefore it is plausible that the next election is going to see a record number of election monitors and monitoring agencies monitoring the elections. The future of the country’s democracy and hence much of its economic well-being critically hinges on the successful administration of this election in a free and fair manner. Given the above context the aim of this paper is to outline a draft framework for monitoring the next general elections. A methodology is proposed to choose election centers, priority constituencies, and issues that could be included within the scope of observations.

There are a total of 29,978 polling centers across the 300 constituencies throughout the country. Among the 300 constituencies, 90 can be categorized as urban while the remaining constituencies are rural. The number of polling centers in urban constituencies is much higher than that in rural constituencies. The number of voters also follows the same pattern. It is important that the constituencies and centers selected for monitoring are chosen in a way that allows observers to form an objective and clear opinion as to the quality of the election observed.

  
 


Choice of constituencies

Ideally, constituencies should be chosen randomly to ensure that they are representative of the country as a whole. However, the incentives for candidates or administrators to adopt unfair means are greater in a closely contested constituency than in a more predictable, less competitive area. On the basis of this insight, we propose to first choose the constituencies for monitoring and then decide the centers within the chosen constituencies. In the October 2001 elections, the 4-party alliance won 11 seats with margins of 2% or less and a further 18 seats with margins of 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, the Awami League won 10 and 12 seats with similar margins. The JP won 4 seats with margins of seats with margins - unclear of up to 5%. There were 2 other constituencies that witnessed victory margins of 5% or less.

Candidates’ margins of victory in 2001 elections

Party
No. of seats
(5% victory margins)
No. of seats
(10% victory margins)
Awami League
22
37
4-party alliance
29
74
Jatiyo Party
4
9
Other parties
1
1
Independents
1
4
Total
59
125

If we use a 10% threshold, the number of marginal seats increases to 125 with AL winning 37 and the 4-party winning 74 seats. Therefore, a good starting point might be to select all these constituencies for monitoring. Obviously, if we wish to limit the number of constituencies to, say, 100, the first 100 could be selected on the basis of the same criterion. In addition to these constituencies, additional constituencies could be selected on the basis of specific issues that might arise in the course of the next one and a half years or in order to cover any exceptional area that warrants monitors’ attention.

Once the constituencies are selected, polling centers from among these constituencies could be selected for observation using the following criteria:

i) Centers where elections were withheld or postponed;
ii) Centers that appear to have been captured by any party or candidate;
iii) Centers showing more than 90% turnout during the last elections;
iv) Centers about which complaints have been lodged with the Election Commission; and
v) Centers that need attention for violent or other incidents taking place that warrant monitoring.

Among the 5 criteria set out above, criterion (ii) needs to be defined. A center is deemed to have been captured if: (a) one candidate secures more than 90% of the registered vote; or (b) candidates of either of the two major parties secure 100 or less votes with no other candidate (except for the candidate securing the highest vote in the center) securing significant votes (100 or more).

Using the above criteria, a total of more than 1,200 centers could be identified that appear to have been captured in the last general elections.

Once the centers have been selected for monitoring, the monitoring agencies could be invited to engage their observers in any number of centers from among the selected pool in a coordinated manner.

Long-term observation (LTO):

District and constituency headquarters could be selected for long-term observation for 2 to one week prior to the elections. The experience of the LTO will provide valuable insight that might be used to revise the centers selected for short-term observation or election-day observation.

Short-term observation (STO):

Short-term observation should cover a wider range of centers and the election-day observation should include all centers selected for monitoring. The issues and aspects to be monitored may be decided by the individual monitoring agencies depending on the interests of the concerned agency. However, NDI can provide a general list of issues that should be covered as a minimum for both LTO and STO.