IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections Alternative Dispute Resolution in Practice— Lessons for Practitioners This section examines ADR initiatives in various countries between the late 1990s and 2021, highlighting the specificities of the design and use of ADR in elections and including both successes and challenges. We focus on the lessons that have been learned as the use of ADR continues to expand and evolve. Further details about the countries that illustrate the lessons are provided in the case studies in Annex 1. Lesson 1: ADR structures should be clearly defined and transparent, and training should be provided for ADR practitioners Experience has shown that successful ADR mechanisms have clearly defined structures that are representative of electoral stakeholders at the local level, thereby enjoying stakeholders’ trust and building local ownership. It is also vital that all members of ADR bodies are well-trained, to avoid inconsistent practices and outcomes that can simply give rise to new grievances. Another success factor is for the ADR bodies to report publicly on their work, which enhances transparency and public trust. As a pioneer of ADR in elections, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) in South Africa has used various ADR mechanisms over different election cycles that have evolved with the socio-political context. These consist of conflict management committees (CMCs) headed by provincial election officers and made up of political party liaison representatives, local NGOs, security forces, and members of mediation panels. The provincial panels are assisted in their work by community panelists at the local level, so they can deal with local conflicts at the source. Panelists are approved by the local party liaison committees and enjoy the respect and trust of political parties and the community, which is credited for their success in preventing violent conflicts. More recently, coordinators of Conflict Panels have been integrated into Joint Operation Centers (JOCs), enabling local risks of electoral conflict to be mapped and fed up the JOC chain to the provincial and national level. One weakness in the CMCs’ work is that they are not required to collect data and report on their work, which would help to systematize their efforts across the country, improve effectiveness and increase transparency. 65 In Zambia, similar successes and challenges are evident. The Electoral Commission of Zambia established an ADR mechanism (CMCs) at the national and district levels to resolve electoral disputes. The composition of the CMCs includes religious leaders, political party representatives, law enforcement and other government agencies, and civil society representatives, which has helped to create local ownership. The decentralized structure of the CMCs allows members with direct knowledge of the context and the actors involved to resolve disputes quickly through mediation and conciliation. Despite a positive start, the impact of the CMCs has been mixed. Although they have helped to reduce violence and defuse tensions, there has been a lack of consistent training at the district level, resulting in their performance and effectiveness varying widely. Another challenge is the lack of transparency, caused by CMCs’ failure 65 Based on the interviews conducted, the IEC’s dwindling budget is thought to be responsible for this weakness. 29