IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections Not all disputes are suitable for mediation or conciliation. In election cases, there are “interested parties” to a specific dispute, but the resolution of the dispute may also have broader implications for the public interest. During consultations with the Africa Electoral Jurisprudence Network on the use of ADR in elections, judges confirmed that, when the public is a party to the dispute (e.g., bribery of voters, intimidation, or election results), mediation may not be appropriate. In some cases where the dispute concerns fundamental rights, such as the right to be a candidate, or when serious acts of election violence or intimidation have been committed, it may be preferrable to refer matters directly to a quasi-judicial body for resolution with the required due process rights. But it can be challenging for nonlegally trained mediators to clearly assess the nature of the disputes submitted. The failure to distinguish cases that are not suitable for ADR can be particularly problematic. That is why it is crucial that the mediators, arbiters, or conciliators clearly inform disputants of the right to file their complaint with a formal EDR body if ADR fails. In some regions and states in Myanmar during the 2015 election campaign, the EMC facilitated the settlement of disputes concerning voter intimidation and violence between two major political parties. The group of voters who were the aggrieved parties to the dispute were not invited to attend the mediation meetings. Moreover, these violations were apparently occurring in multiple areas across the state and region, showing the widespread nature of the violation. Due the lack of representation of the victims and the severity of the violations, the EMCs should likely have considered these cases to be inappropriate for ADR. The type of dispute may not be the only factor that determines whether ADR is advisable in elections. The local sociopolitical context and the efficacy of existing adjudication bodies will often play a key role in determining the electoral disputes to be handled by an ADR mechanism. In South Africa, concerns around increasing election violence led to the deployment of an ADR mechanism specifically focused on addressing violence. The success of ADR initiatives that are focused on a particular type of dispute could encourage an EMB to expand its scope in future elections. For example, in the 2020 elections in Myanmar, the EMCs’ mandate in 2015 was expanded to cover hate speech and disinformation. The status of the alleged respondent to a dispute—whether a senior official, a public servant, a party, or a voter involved in the dispute—may also be relevant to determining whether a dispute is suitable for ADR. If there 25