Battle over the box: international election observation missions, political competition and retrenchment in the post-Soviet space

Abstract

The organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's international election observation missions (OSCE IEOMs) have fuelled a new political competition in the post‐Soviet space. Even if previously largely ignored, OSCE evaluations have highlighted diff erences in political values between the West and several post‐Soviet republics. Recently, however, they have gained political, and even strategic, importance in the region by contributing to political change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. IEOMs have also provoked resistance from several post‐Soviet governments. This has taken several forms, including contesting the apparent western terms of democratization and the creation of alternative rules and practices for democratization and election observation. These challenges risk corrupting the whole practice of IEOMs, and the OSCE has sought to respond. IEOMs have also contributed to changes in Russian foreign policy, including its policy towards the OSCE. In addition, attitudes towards IEOMs within some post‐Soviet governments are adding to evidence of a deepening divide between non‐democratizing polities and the West.

Democracy Promotion and Authoritarian Diffusion: The Foreign Origins of Post-Soviet Election Laws

“…In practice, however, electoral assistance is perceived as being directed by the Western participating states of the organisation. Over the past decade, the OSCE's election-related efforts have come under heavy criticism from Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (Fawn 2006). Moreover, at Russia's instigation the CIS has developed a set of activities that mirror those of the OSCE.…”

Does Political Party Aid Compensate for the Limitations of International Elections Observation?

“…Here the United Nations remains a global leader but other inter-governmental, regional-based and national sources of election observer institutions have proliferated. Examples range from the Commonwealth to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Elections of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and from the Carter Center in the United States to groups that Russia as part of the Commonwealth of Independent States sends to observe elections in strategically placed nearby states especially (Fawn 2006). Of course there are places where external actors have been complicit in rendering elections fraudulent, just as there are countries where political parties lacking a strong commitment to liberal democratic principles have found international allies among the non-democracies or illiberal democracies and, in some cases, in the governments of Western democracies as well.…”

Promoting Democracy and Promoting Autocracy: Towards A Comparative Evaluation

“…Relevant accounts that focus on specific countries include Barma and Ratner (2006) and McGiffert (2009) on the growth in China's soft power and the attraction its so-called model of political economy holds for parts of the developing world (see also Breslin 2009). Both Ambrosio (2009) andJackson (2010) at Simon Fraser University dwell on the externally-oriented attempts by Putin's Russia to maintain the political regime at home, which has consequences in Central Asia and countries like Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus (see also Boonstra 2007 andFawn 2007 on Russian attempts to undermine the election observation endeavours of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe). The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Commonwealth of Independent States both offer the possibility of collective defence of autocracy through offers of mutual support among states.…”

“…A glaring example is the foreign election observation missions mounted by authoritarian or semi-authoritarian governments that are determined to ensure a particular election outcome. And while professing a commitment to the idea of free and fair elections they ignore or condone the most egregious violations, when passing judgment (see Boonstra 2007 andFawn 2007 for illustration). Indeed the very same governments might well be claiming to be democratic or are aspiring to become more democratic themselves, while at the same contravening fundamental aspects of liberal democracy at home and demonstrating no serious commitment in practice to establish an internationally credible democracy there All things considered, then, it is time to even up the score.…”