IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections offer more targeted remedies, and strengthen dialogue at the community level. This can build confidence among members of the community and improve the legitimacy of the electoral process by involving stakeholders more closely in the dispute resolution process. Recent global surveys have illustrated the lack of trust in government institutions and the decline in democratic values, particularly among young people. 3 In this context, ADR can play an important role by providing a more inclusive, multi-actor forum to resolve electoral disputes. While ADR bodies are primarily led by election officials, civil society organizations (CSOs), political party representatives, and community leaders are often members and can actively participate in reaching a settlement or resolution to the dispute. ADR’s informal structure can enable simpler implementation at the local level, allowing for the involvement of non-traditional actors both as mediators/arbiters and as disputants. This creates a system that is more accessible for grassroots political parties, local candidates, and individuals to seek remedies and obtain justice. ADR can also enhance the participation of women or traditionally disadvantaged or marginalized groups, adjudicators/mediators; both its as flexible petitioners approach is and often as more welcoming and user-friendly for individuals who are unfamiliar with formal judicial proceedings or have limited physical or financial access to the judiciary. For example, in Mexico, the Election Institute of the State of Oaxaca has introduced mediation as a means of resolving disputes in Indigenous communities that elect their local authorities using traditional practices. In India and Sri Lanka, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) has supported projects to increase the participation of women in Muslim community Qadi courts as users and arbiters. This is a way to support Indigenous traditions and find inclusive, consensual, and culturally appropriate ways of resolving disputes, as well as reducing pressure on over-burdened electoral tribunals. 4 Despite the advantages it offers, ADR remains underutilized in elections or, in some cases where it is utilized, it is not optimally designed and implemented. There are also risks to the introduction of ADR in elections, including if the mechanism lacks sufficient details in the legal framework and guidelines on the mandate, responsibilities, and procedures for ADR; adequate resources to train election officials or other involved actors on ADR skills such as mediation, conciliation, or arbitration; and sufficient stakeholder awareness of the ADR mechanism. Legal practitioners and anti-corruption experts have flagged challenges regarding the use of informal and customary dispute 3 OECD 2021 Government at a Glance, p. 7: “Even with a boost in trust in government sparked by the pandemic in 2020, only 51% of people in OECD countries trusted their government, “[d]emocracy experienced its biggest decline since 2010” and the percentage of people living in a democracy fell to well below 50%. Democracy Index 2021, The Economist Intelligence Unit, February 2021. Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Wenger, D., Rand, A. and M. Slade. 2020. “Youth and Satisfaction with Democracy: Reversing the Democratic Disconnect?” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy, October 2020. 4 See the Mexico case study in the annex of this paper. 8