IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections conversations that build local trust, foster dialogue, and allow communities to take part in critical decision-making processes, but this is against the backdrop of the IEC’s dwindling budget. South Africa is also an example of a country where political party liaison committees (PLCs) have worked well in averting or resolving electoral conflicts. 107 They were introduced in 1999 and are required by law to be established by the IEC at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. They act as a forum for consultation and dialogue between the IEC and the parties, and this has been particularly successful at the national-level PLC. While the PLCs were not intended to be an ADR mechanism, 108 in practice they have found ad hoc resolution to operational problems as they arise, been consulted on law reform, and have helped complainants by educating them on options for referral to appropriate bodies. 109 PLC members also participate in the conflict management structures described above. In the 2019 elections, the IEC used the national PLC to convene Commissioners and parties and agree on how to deal with a suspected multiple voting issue uncovered on Election Day. The IEC established a sample audit in conjunction with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research—an organization agreed on by most of the party representatives. Ultimately, the audit found no widespread multiple voting. This was a good example of dialogue between the IEC and parties where they had an opportunity to develop a solution and agree on a way forward collaboratively. Zambia This case study features a positive initiative by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) to establish an ADR mechanism to prevent or resolve electoral disputes. The inclusion of religious and community members, together with party representatives, created local ownership. The decentralized structure and comprehensive training allowed members with direct knowledge of the context and the actors involved to resolve disputes quickly through mediation and conciliation. However, some challenges remain. In particular, insufficient training and funding lead to inconsistent reporting and variable approaches to the ADR process. Before 2011, under Zambian law, only courts were empowered to adjudicate violations of electoral law. No redress mechanism was available before Election Day, so there was no possibility for a quick remedy for violations during the campaign period that could tamp down tensions. Necessitated by growing tensions during the 2001 election campaign, and influenced by the South African model, the ECZ introduced Conflict Management Committees (CMCs) to resolve electoral disputes via mediation. CMCs were established at the national level—the National Conflict Management Committee (NCMC)—and later in 72 districts (DCMCs) across the country to tackle local issues.110 Their membership comprised various stakeholders, including political party representatives, law enforcement and other government agencies, religious leaders, 111 and representatives of civil society. After the successful pilot of this Napier, C.J. (2015). Political party liaison committees as conflict resolution mechanisms – The South African experience. Journal for Contemporary History, 40(2), pp. 156–175. https://scholar.ufs.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11660/3340/contemp_v40_n2_a8.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 108 Senior IEC manager, personal communication, November–December 2021. 109 EISA. (2014). Election Update: South Africa 2014. https://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/africa/ZA/south-africa-eisa-election-updatecompendium-2014 110 Until 2011, there were 72 districts in Zambia. Now there are 118. 111 There is currently a proposal to include traditional leaders in the membership of the committees based on the political gravitas that they will bring to the committees and their social standing in society. 107 50