IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections to follow recordkeeping requirements or to publish their decisions, linked to a lack of training and, ultimately, to a lack of funding. The need to establish rules and provide mediation training for election officials as well as education for stakeholders is exemplified in Myanmar’s experience in 2020 elections, which improved upon their first experience with election mediation committees (EMCs) in 2015. The lack of rules and training in 2015 left the door open for inconsistency across regions and states. In some instances of mediation, the major political parties reached a resolution to the detriment of independent candidates, by means of an unequal process in which the independent candidate was not part of the mediation. In other instances, the main political parties reached a resolution to the detriment of the voter who reported intimidation and vote buying. In 2020, the Union Election Commission (UEC) institutionalized EMCs for pre-election disputes, and the EMCs played a prominent role in resolving disputes in the pre-election period; this role was commended by observers. However, Myanmar’s experience also shows the importance of an EMB communicating on the ADR process and the nature of the disputes it addresses during the election. The UEC made only limited communication efforts in 2015 and 2020, so the EMC mechanism did not succeed in building trust in the UEC or the election process. In Indonesia, Bawaslu, a supervisory electoral body with adjudication powers over pre- and post-election disputes, successfully introduced mediation for certain types of pre-election disputes. Following the adoption of a legal provision on mediation in the 2017 election law, Bawaslu had a clear mandate and a two-day window to mediate disputes related to nomination, registration and campaign issues, and made significant investments in training its officials on the required skillset to become a mediator. A total of 2,300 Bawaslu officials were trained at the central, municipality and city levels as mediators. A former commissioner shared with IFES that 50.9 percent of the disputes filed with Bawaslu in the last election ended at the mediation stage. In 2000, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the United States initiated a pilot program to promote compliance with campaign finance laws, which “sought to expedite resolution of some enforcement matters, reduce the cost of processing complaints, and enhance overall FEC enforcement.” 66 More than two decades on, the FEC offers this option for specific cases, which are assigned to the ADR office by commissioners or referred by the office of the general counsel, the report analysis division or the audit office. 67 The FEC has developed a guide for complainants, which explains the objective and details of this ADR process to ensure all stakeholders understand where they can file a complaint and where they have the opportunity to attempt to mediate a dispute. 68 In Malawi, operating as a complementary mechanism to the conventional EDR process, Multi-Party Liaison Committees (MPLCs) have helped improve the legitimacy of elections through community dialogue and consensusbuilding. The legal director of the Malawi Election Commission noted that “ADR promoted by the EMB remain the most effective way of dealing with pre-polling electoral disputes in the Malawi context.” Yet the MPLCs face Federal Election Commission. (2000, August 1). FEC institutes pilot ADR program [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-institutes-pilot-adr-program/ 67 Federal Election Commission. (n.d.). Alternative dispute resolution. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/enforcement/alternativedispute-resolution/ 68 Federal Election Commission. (2012, May). Guidebook for complainants and respondents on the FEC enforcement process. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/respondent_guide.pdf 66 30