Previous 79 / 80 Next

IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections Fritz Edward Siregar, PhD, former General Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) Indonesia Commissioner Dr. Ratna Dewi Pettalolo, former Bawaslu Commissioner Peer Reviewers Katherine Ellena, IFES Vice President, Programs Erica Shein, IFES Managing Director, Center for Applied Research and Learning Chad Vickery, IFES Vice President, Global Strategy and Technical Leadership Vasu Mohan, IFES Senior Global Advisor, Conflict, Displacement and Minorities Rights IFES Global and Country Experts Country Tanzania Paul Anderson, Country Director Malawi Pavel Cabacenco, Election Management Program Adviser Nigeria South Africa Seray Jah, Country Director Simon Iko Fanto, Project Manager Rushdi Nackerdien, Senior Global Advisor, Training and Capacity Development (former Regional Director, Africa) Oita Etyang, Senior Elections Specialist Zambia Dr. Staffan Darnolf, Senior Global Advisor, Electoral Operations and Administration Ethiopia Myanmar Nepal Rakeb Abate, Country Director Paul Guerin, Senior Country Director Mario Zaw Thet Htun, Legal and Program Officer Pascaline Krone, Country Director 78

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections: Practitioner Brief

Resources

Preview

Legal Issue and/or Topic

Election Dispute Resolution

Description: While formal dispute resolution processes in elections are vital to upholding the rule of law, the introduction of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms may be beneficial, particularly in fragile and post-conflict states or new democracies where disputes must be resolved quickly to avoid violence or where there is very low trust in the judiciary. The case studies in this report demonstrate that ADR mechanisms, if designed and implemented effectively, can ensure more accessible and timely resolutions than formal mechanisms at a lower cost. The use of mediation or conciliation for certain types of pre-election disputes can lead to greater community engagement (including of non-traditional actors), promote accessibility, mitigate impunity for electoral violations, and reduce burdens on the courts and the election management body (EMB). IFES' research also highlights that a well-designed and trained ADR body can enhance the role of women and provide a culturally appropriate mechanism for dispute resolution, while preventing and defusing tensions. This report also highlights the potential risks and challenges to ADR, particularly in contexts where the legal framework, mandate, and procedures are unclear. Inadequate training of ADR practitioners can result in mediators behaving in a partisan manner or failing to guard against power imbalances or human rights abuses, which can further increase tensions or erode trust. Finally, a lack of stakeholder awareness on how to access ADR mechanisms may leave the public with the perception that there is no avenue for justice in some communities. Due to the informal nature of ADR mechanisms, EMBs have rarely collected data on the type and number of disputes handled through ADR, creating a challenge for research and a missed opportunity to draw on lessons learned, promote successful initiatives, and build trust in the EMBs’ capacity to address legitimate disputes. This practitioner brief attempts to remedy the lack of information on the use of ADR in elections and presents a series of case studies to highlight lessons from diverse country experiences. This paper also proposes recommendations to improve the design and implementation of ADR in elections.

Language

English

Author(s): Uchechi Anyanwu, Typhaine Roblot, Rebecca Cox

Date: Apr 4, 2023

Primary Documents

IFES ADR Practitioner Brief_Mar 22 (3).pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections: Practitioner Brief

Primary Documents

Notifications