IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections is an existing effective disciplinary mechanism to deal with abuse of state resources violations by a senior official, for example, ADR may not be appropriate. But if the dispute involves voters or party supporters from both sides of the political spectrum abusing financial resources or accessing public vehicles, it may be important to engage in dialogue during the pre-election phase and reach a settlement, rather than immediately engaging in disciplinary or legal proceedings. Advantages of Using ADR IFES’s GUARDE research identified the benefits of implementing ADR in election disputes. While not applicable to all conflicts, ADR can serve as an effective complement to EDR because it can efficiently provide tailored remedies to challenges that arise without being overly restricted by complicated procedures. This allows EMBs to tackle violations of the code of conduct or misunderstandings about election procedures—giving them an important tool to prevent and resolve conflict and a mitigation measure to address small irregularities in election processes before they become more pervasive. Because of these advantages, when ADR is applicable it can aid the EMB and the courts, as well as the participants. As noted by the chair of Nigeria’s election commission: “It would be ultimately cheaper for everybody if we have a seamless process, and that process can be achieved not just by the legislation enabling us to conduct elections and legal processes but also the intervention of Institutes such as the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators.” 63 With this in mind, ADR mechanisms can be designed to decrease conflict and improve legitimacy. Potential advantages: 64  ADR claims are efficient, have a lower cost, and provide timely and accessible resolution of disputes, crucial during an election period.  ADR can help to remedy the general lack of enforcement of election rules and codes of conduct, therefore reducing impunity and increasing deterrence.  The ADR objective of reaching a solution that meets the needs of both parties can be more suited to local cultural preferences, notably for traditionally excluded populations. For example, mediation can limit the pressure of finality and winner-takes-all attitudes for cultures that are wary of win/lose decisions.  ADR provides an opportunity for dialogue between stakeholders, which increases the chances for reciprocal commitments, improving satisfaction with the process and outcomes. This constructive dialogue can lead to more lasting resolution to grievances within or underlying the electoral process. 63 Independent National Electoral Commission. (n.d.). INEC advocates the use of ADR to reduce cases of election litigation. https://inecnigeria.org/news-all/inec-advocates-the-use-of-adr-to-reduce-cases-of-election-litigation/ 64 Kovick, D. & Young, J.H. (2011) Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. In C. Vickery (Ed.), Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections (GUARDE). IFES. p. 233 26