IFES Introduction Elections provide an opportunity for peaceful competition between political ideas and personalities and for political and social debates to play out in an arena of constructive conflict. Maintaining this opportunity for constructive conflict requires attention to the election process beyond Election Day. Voting is only a single event within a cycle of activities and processes that connects one Election Day to the next. Thus, most practitioners and donors have adopted an electoral cycle approach to provide adequate assistance and proper planning (Figure 1). Yet, this approach may not be sufficient in addressing Figure 1: Electoral Cycle certain challenges that impact the credibility of an election. Electoral violence is just such a challenge. It requires electoral practitioners to look beyond the lens of the electoral cycle to formulate effective strategies for analyzing, mitigating and resolving electoral violence. IFES argues that current approaches to electoral violence are hampered by compartmentalization of information and perceptions. This compartmentalization results in an explicit or implicit separation between the objective of assessing and addressing possible conflict triggers and the objective of holding a technically correct election. IFES believes that effective electoral planning can and should merge technical expertise with a multi-stakeholder approach to election conflict, with the election management body (EMB) at center stage. This can best be accomplished when electoral practitioners and other stakeholders supplement the electoral cycle approach with a conflict cycle approach to address electoral violence. Gaps in Current Approaches Although technical election assistance encompasses a range of donors, implementers, activities and priorities, certain patterns emerge. Specifically, it is common for election management support to be separated from the management of political tensions and conflicts that commonly arise during the electoral period. That is, donors, organizations and individuals compartmentalize their work – elections on one hand or conflict and peacebuilding on the other. For instance, the United Nations (UN) has several bodies who may become involved in or whose work touches on the electoral cycle, including the Department of Political Affairs (DPA), Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), United Nations Volunteers (UNV) and United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS). Often, more than one body is present within a given country, and within each, more than one program may focus on democracy or electoral issues. In light of the variety of actors involved, the UN Electoral Assistance Division (UNEAD) was created within DPA to “ensure coherence and consistency” in UN involvement in elections.1 To make matters more complicated, in most countries, each of these bodies would have its own offices, objectives, funding pools and partnerships with local organizations and institutions. While the challenges 1 UN Department of Political Affairs, “Who provides UN electoral assistance,” http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/actors, and “Electoral Assistance.” http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections, both accessed on April 17, 2012. 1