IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections resolution systems outside the electoral context in various countries. A report by the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre explained this conundrum as follows: “On the one hand, such systems tend to be far more affordable, comprehensible, and accessible to the poor than formal state justice systems. On the other hand, just like formal justice systems, informal systems may feature corrupt and otherwise unfair influences and biases that produce unjust outcomes and perpetuate inequities.” 5 Jan Beagle, Director-General of the International Development Law Organization, has noted that it is important to “engage with the system that most people turn to,” and “recognize legitimacy of these [informal justice] systems.” But she also flagged the need to engage strategically with these systems to ensure greater respect for human rights. 6 In 2011, with USAID support, IFES published Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections (also known as GUARDE). 7 These guidelines included a chapter on ADR—including mediation and conciliation—in election disputes, based on preliminary research on the emerging use of ADR. Ten years later, the growing implementation of ADR in election disputes has provided new insights on good practices identified in GUARDE, and also highlighted some challenges to the use of ADR. In South Africa, the Electoral Commission (IEC) was one of the first election management bodies (EMBs) to introduce and utilize these modes of dispute resolution. The IEC created conflict management mediation panels in local communities to mediate election disputes and deter electoral violations as the country sought to establish the credibility of its post-apartheid democracy. 8 While election officials chaired these panels, party representatives and members of the community took part in encouraging peaceful settlement of the disputes. This model has inspired other countries in Africa: Zambia, Malawi, and Nigeria have rolled out mediation initiatives by their election commissions and in Nigeria there is a growing push for ADR to expand to the judicial system to reduce the backlog of cases filed during the elections. 9 Prior to the 2015 and 2020 elections, the Myanmar Union Election Commission instituted election mediation committees to mediate disputes arising from the code of conduct and campaign in order to address the lack of timely mechanisms to deal with disputes during the pre-election period. 10 Golub, S.; (2014). Mitigating corruption in informal justice systems: NGO experiences in Bangladesh and Sierra Leone. Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute. https://www.u4.no/publications/mitigating-corruption-in-informal-justicesystems-ngo-experiences-in-bangladesh-and-sierra-leone 6 Pantuliano, S. (2021, December 8). High-level dialogue on customary and informal justice and sustainable development goal (SDG)16+ [Webinar]. Overseas Development Institute, https://odi.org/en/events/high-level-dialogue-on-customary-and-informal-justice-and-sdg16/ 7 Vickery, C. (Ed.). (2011). Guidelines for understanding, adjudicating, and resolving disputes in elections (GUARDE). IFES. https://www.ifes.org/publications/guidelines-understanding-adjudicating-and-resolving-disputes-elections-guarde 8 See the South Africa case study in the annex of this paper. 9 See the Nigeria case study in the annex of this paper. 10 See the Myanmar case study in the annex of this paper. 5 9