IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections and enhance community involvement in the dispute resolution part of the election process. Women’s involvement in ADR mechanisms can also set a precedent for their increased roles in mediating other types of disputes outside election periods. An internal monitoring report compiled by IFES 140 after the 2020 elections indicated noted a total of 1,010 EMC meetings. Most of the EMCs (90 percent) from the region/state, district, and township levels reported holding at least one meeting; 601 disputes were submitted to EMCs across Myanmar. The number of disputes received per EMC ranged from one to 25. Of 397 EMCs, 180 (45 percent) received disputes. Even when EMCs did not receive any disputes, most held at least an introductory meeting to explain the role of EMCs and the applicable laws and rules during the campaign. 141 United States The U.S. experience shows how a successful pilot program by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) became an established practice with clear rules and guidelines on mediation established prior to the adjudication of disputes. This case study provides a good example of effective training and voter education materials. The FEC provides valuable information on its website on the use of mediation and developed a manual to guide complainants and respondents in the process. In 2000, the FEC initiated a pilot program to promote compliance with the Federal Election Campaigning Act and FEC regulations on campaign finance, with the following explicit goals: “… to expedite resolution of some enforcement matters, reduce the cost of processing complaints, and enhance overall FEC enforcement.” 142 The FEC set up a dedicated ADR team, enabling parties to a dispute to enter into direct negotiation or mediate the issue. Following an evaluation of the first year of the program, evaluators found that “the ADR Office processed 61 cases, of which 47 were concluded with negotiated agreements. The independent evaluation interviewed respondents and members of the election bar and concluded that 90 percent of respondents believed they saved time and money using the ADR Program.” 143 The success of this program led to the institutionalization of ADR at the FEC for the U.S. elections in 2002. In addition to the initial strategic goal, the then-chairman, David Mason, also noted that “The ADR Program has proven to be an important contributor to the FEC’s civil law enforcement efforts. ADR has expanded the reach of our enforcement efforts, resolved complaints quickly and promoted compliance with campaign finance laws through an emphasis on remedial and preventative action.” The FEC found that the attorneys on its teams are able to concentrate on more important or complex cases. The role of election mediation committees in the 2020 general elections in Myanmar [unpublished manuscript]. Some EMCs indicated that some disputes were mediated on Election Day or during field visits, and therefore meetings were held or disputes submitted by telephone or on the spot. Some meetings were therefore not recorded. 142 Federal Elections Commission. (2000, August 1). FEC institutes pilot ADR program [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-institutes-pilot-adr-program/ 143 Federal Election Commission. (2002, October 3). Commission’s pilot ADR program made permanent [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.fec.gov/updates/commissions-pilot-adr-program-made-permanent/ 140 141 56