International election observers came, saw and pronounced once again on the Constituent Assembly elections, held for the second time on 19 November last year. President Jimmy Carter, now 89 years young, was here again, as were other old and young election hands. Apart from the Carter Center the EU had a large mission as did ANFREL, several Kathmandu-based embassies and some donor staff. Most of their verdicts were positive. National observers supported the process too (this article is not aimed at them).
The international observer missions learnt lessons from 2008 and were restrained in granting something akin to the hallowed ‘free and fair’ status until all reports were in (Jimmy got over-excited in 2008 and granted international validity early on during election day). The missions benefited from the large turnout and the fact that ultimately, the NC and CPN-UML, this time around, had strong incentives to support the result. The Election Commission outdid expectations and generally ran an impressive operation – whatever the losers say – albeit on the basis of a much reduced voter list compared to 2008. Even the much-maligned temporary voter identification cards look to have actually encouraged initial registration as well as a high turnout.
In the context of 2013 – a second post-conflict election, a generally high-performing Election Commission and a much improved security situation – what was the point of international election observers? To help strengthen democracy? To validate donor funding of the Election Commission? To stop fraud at the ballot box? To confer legitimacy on the process?
International election observation missions in Nepal were subject to numerous, often predictable criticisms. A common refrain was: they are (mostly) bideshi short-termers who only come for a few days around the election, stay in fancy hotels, live an air-conditioned life, rush in and out of rural areas and interact with a limited set of real people. All of these contain truths (the Radisson was exceptionally busy in November). Additional, slightly unfair, criticisms berated observer missions for not doing more to stop fraud, malpractice or political violence. Like many international development interventions, local expectations were sky-high. While international frameworks guiding observation missions have increasingly downplayed their actual roles and responsibilities (to focus narrowly on observation of largely technical and logistical processes), in Nepal expectations about what election observation missions should be doing to report fraud and malpractices have increased. But observers were invited by the Election Commission and really did have a limited mandate, which was, basically, just to observe.
What was left out of the criticisms of international observer missions was a fundamental questioning of their principles and their conception of democracy. It seemed, to this observer of the observers, that international election observers often represent and combine the very worst aspects of the international development industry. Their short-termism is explicitly aligned with disdain for local knowledge and a view of elections little updated since the Cold War. In contrast, in much of the rest of development the language of outcomes has changed, to now reflect formal recognition of what aid agencies cannot and do not know. Practices may remain similar but there is some humility in outcomes, albeit shaded in development-speak. Many aid programs now allow for the fact that corruption and nepotism exist, will continue to exist and that implementing programmes inevitably involves dealing with dirty politics along the way.
Talking to election observers in Nepal, it was striking how naïve the bhasa of international election observations remains. Although there is obviously a recognition that fraud, booth capturing and other sins take place this is not built into program objectives, which still strive for ‘free and fair’ or ‘credible’ elections. Observers still largely assume that democracy is measurable through elections and that elections = democracy + peace. Alongside this were some of the usual attitudes of internationals in Nepal: Nepali history only began with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006, they need us more than we need them, the state is chaotic and fragile, and so on.
International election observation missions across the world explicitly rely on not incorporating local knowledge into their work. Country knowledge – and internationals who have gone ‘native’ – are considered dangerously partisan. Last November Nepalis were just about good for translator and logistics positions, but rarely more. International observers from one mission in Nepal complained to this author that – shock, horror – the mission had supposedly violated international election observation norms by hiring Nepalis to do logistics work, which should have ideally also been done by internationals! Anyone wishing to talk politics with Nepali staff from Jimmy’s mission – many of whom have detailed local political knowledge gained over 5 years – were politely redirected to their short-term international boss. Observer missions did incorporate internationals with Nepal experience but the principles of observation also typically placed these internationals in unfamiliar locations.
It is not hard in Nepal – or any other country – to see that elections do not necessarily further democracy or help contribute to building peace. Nationally they may only end up entrenching an all-party mechanism for life, whatever the actual result. At the local level, anybody even mildly familiar with VDC or district politics knows that the practice of elections may have very little to do with the exercise of democratic freedoms, peace-building or the furtherance of democracy. This is not to patronise the beliefs of ordinary voters nor the importance of holding politicians to account through the ballot box. It is only to suggest that even a poor understanding of Nepal would show that many voters do not vote on the basis of a liberal, democratic ideological framework (which may not even be true in the West either). The clearest expression of this is found in the excellent Views From the Field (available for free on the Social Science Baha website). In this pamphlet, several anthropologists with a long-term engagement in Nepal reflect on the 2008 elections, partly in order to explain the complex reasons why people voted how they did.
And yet, despite these unoriginal observations, international observer missions – perhaps the most expensive monitoring and evaluation show on earth – are unlikely to end in Nepal soon. A proud Nepali bureaucracy resents ex-Presidents pronouncing on its successes or failures. It also represents a government who thinks that the peace process – and all that sort of international intervention – is officially over. On election day, after it was clear that the 2013 election had mostly gone well, an Election Commissioner interviewed on Nepali TV dared to raise the prospect of Nepal not inviting international observers for the next election. But the post-election legitimacy stamp from international observation missions was useful for a government formed to hold elections. Internationals also love an all-expenses paid trip to Nepal. And as long as Nepal accepts aid for the Election Commission there is likely to be a continuing demand for observers to come, observe and once again pronounce.
