Holding regular elections is an essential feature of democratic practices. The case for postponing elections is often made during emergency situations, however. Despite the critical nature of the issue for democracy, peace, and security, there has been sparse academic literature on election postponement. This article provides a new typology of reasons why elections might be delayed to disentangle the causal factors and normative rationale. It distinguishes the humanitarian case for temporary postponements during natural disasters. It then argues that substantive concepts of democracy and electoral integrity, rather than existing international/national laws and standards, should be used to inform decisions about postponement by relevant stakeholders, be it an electoral management body (EMB), government, parliament, or the judiciary. The possible effects of natural disasters on electoral integrity are traced through a comparative analysis of past cases. The article holds that variations in context and the ability of actors to strategically adapt to situations will make the effects contingent. Nonetheless, holding elections during natural disasters will often lead to severely compromised opportunities for deliberation, contestation, participation, and election management quality. There is therefore a strong, democratic case for time-limited postponement. However, the postponement will break institutional certainty, which could pose threats of democratic breakdown-especially in presidential systems. The best available safeguards for electoral integrity during natural disasters include the introduction or expansion of low-tech solutions such as early voting, strengthened risk management, but also transparency and inclusivity in decision making. Overall, there are important lessons for the broader scholarship and practice of democracy during emergency situations.

Outbreaks of election-related violence can be devastating, but experience has shown that they can be prevented. The need for improved efficiency of electoral violence early warning and prevention is increasingly argued. Good practices – developed nationally, regionally and globally – offer useful understanding of the phenomenon and of what can be done to improve prevention and mitigation. Although diverse and contingent on mandates and contexts in which organisations operate, early warning and prevention methodologies have common denominators that can be comparatively analysed. The establishment of national infrastructures for peace, which are also mandated to coordinate early warning, prevention and mitigation of electoral violence, helps to ensure that the impact of such efforts is maximised.

for their valuable input on previous drafts. Finally, our thanks go David Prater and Lisa Hagman from International IDEA's Publications team for their contribution and producing this paper and the Appendix.

No abstract

No abstract