Worldwide election commentary has lengthy been a flagship software to advertise liberal concepts of democratic ordering. However what occurs when observers not agree on what counts as a free and truthful election? Drawing on my latest article within the Election Regulation Journal, this piece contends that parallel election monitoring creates that very state of affairs. I argue that parallel election monitoring doesn’t simply compete with established missions – it mimics them, subtly rewriting the foundations of legitimacy from inside.
As soon as upon a time, in a Europe unimaginably far-off, the Soviet Union and its allies agreed to determine a regional group to facilitate the liberalization and democratization of their states. Although it appears unlikely right this moment, the group was granted a big mandate to execute these goals — that is how the OSCE was born. Ever because the Constitution of Paris (1990) established the framework for the apply, the so-called Workplace for Democratic Establishments and Human Rights (OSCE-ODIHR) has carried out over 400 election commentary missions to observe the transition to and consolidation of democracy after the Chilly Battle. Multinational missions encompassing observers from throughout Europe, Central Asia, and North America have assessed campaigns, authorized frameworks, media landscapes, civil society teams, and election days.
For a while, Western states and the OSCE believed (or needed to imagine) that Russia and others had been going via a real liberal-democratic transition, as the sooner OSCE electoral mission statements on Russia present (e.g. “the 26 March 2000 election of the President marks additional progress for the consolidation of democratic elections“). In truth, the OSCE was sure of their monopoly on election commentary legitimacy – a single group tasked with figuring out irregularities and bringing them collectively in a report that assessed whether or not voting had met democratic requirements. However they had been mistaken.
Within the 2000s, a brand new participant emerged within the subject of worldwide election commentary. The Commonwealth of Impartial States (CIS), a regional group of post-Soviet states established beneath Russian management, started observing elections. CIS observers normally declare to make use of the identical methodology as OSCE-ODIHR. As one in all my OSCE interviewees described it: “if (OSCE-) ODIHR began, I don’t know, carrying particular hats, CIS, on the following mission, can be doing the identical”. Importantly, the CIS primarily screens elections which have already been lined by OSCE missions. Due to this fact, the beginning query of my analysis was easy: why hassle establishing a parallel commentary construction when one already exists—and even contains all CIS states?
This brings me to the core of my argument. Based mostly on interviews with election observers and an evaluation of preliminary mission statements, I argue that parallel election commentary represents a power-political technique of liberal mimicry. However what’s mimicry and the way does it work? The idea has been used within the Worldwide Relations literature within the context of norm contestation, and it’s adjoining to ideas resembling imitation, parody, and trickstery. In postcolonial research, Homi Bhaba argued that mimicry is a type of resistance that pulls energy from being a “topic of distinction that’s virtually the identical, however not fairly.”
Nevertheless, probably the most illustrative use of the time period comes from pure sciences. Mimicry is an efficient technique of defending oneself from predation via superficial resemblance to a different species. For instance, hoverflies developed a resemblance to wasps to sign that they’ll sting. Since they seem extra harmful than they’re, they’re much less prone to be attacked. The essence of mimicry is the looks of similarity that isn’t substantiated upon nearer inspection. CIS observers could speak the speak of liberal democratization, however do they stroll the stroll?
Many Western authors have written about “shadow” or “zombie” observers and have largely dismissed them. In line with their accounts, they facilitate a “mock-compliance technique” and usually are not credible. Nevertheless, a lot of this line of analysis is premised on the dichotomy between skilled, neutral OSCE observers and unprofessional, biased CIS observers. In my analysis, I examined how the 2 practices differ and the way their variations are constructed on an on a regular basis foundation. I analyzed the apply as parallel election commentary, emphasizing the narrative of pluralization related to its power-political mechanism.
Analyzing 16 CIS and OSCE statements on Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Serbia, and Azerbaijan between 2010 and 2023, I discovered that whereas the CIS makes use of related strategies and communication strategies because the OSCE, its election commentary mannequin is considerably totally different. As an example, they’re much extra prone to reward compliance with the election administration schedule and far much less prone to handle main shortcomings, basic freedoms, or checks and balances. When addressing irregularities, the CIS normally makes use of a variation of the next phrase: “We’ve got noticed plenty of technical deficiencies, however they haven’t affected the general consequence.” Whereas they observe the same format, the conclusions of the 2 organizations typically diverge sharply.
13 interviews with high-level practitioners, together with one from the CIS, enriched these findings by offering detailed descriptions of interactions and experiences amongst establishments. For instance, in response to a number of OSCE interviewees, the CIS normally waits for the politically essential press convention to be introduced by the OSCE after election day, simply to allow them to announce their very own an hour earlier — presumably to be the primary to discuss the elections. More and more, OSCE missions are being excluded fully, leaving CIS as the one voice within the room.
One other essential distinction between OSCE and CIS pertains to the authorized and methodological reference factors used to justify their observations. OSCE observers normally strongly emphasize the group’s worldwide agreements, such because the Paris Constitution and the Copenhagen Doc, in addition to the Worldwide Declaration of Ideas for Election Observers and the OSCE Code of Conduct for Observers. Additionally they take nationwide laws into consideration so long as it doesn’t contradict worldwide requirements. The CIS, then again, appears to show this hierarchy of norms the wrong way up. At the beginning, observers should assess whether or not elections adjust to nationwide laws; solely then ought to they take into account worldwide requirements. This reversal of priorities—placing nationwide regulation above worldwide requirements—marks a basic departure from the OSCE mannequin.
One of many key explanation why parallel commentary works is as a result of it mimics the language of pluralism. It gives the look of wholesome democratic debate—whereas muddying the waters of legitimacy with different reality claims. As my CIS interviewee described it: “The reality is normally someplace in between – between the extremes.” An anecdote from an OSCE commentary practitioner illustrates this notably effectively.
Within the 2000s, a post-communist head of state met with observer teams after an election. Apart from the OSCE and CIS, two NGO-led missions had been represented. In line with the OSCE observer, the 2 NGOs had been government-friendly and overwhelmingly praised the electoral procedures and the pinnacle of state. The CIS participant argued that the mission had encountered some shortcomings that didn’t have an effect on the general consequence. The OSCE consultant was the final to talk and outlined plenty of critical deficiencies that the mission had encountered, which had been incompatible with the ideas of free and truthful elections. The pinnacle of state thanked the observers current, and the door opened for TV cameras and home journalists to enter the room. The pinnacle of state addressed the viewers, claiming that he had simply met with the worldwide observer teams and, excluding one, all teams had been fairly happy with how the election went. Quite than problem liberal commentary practices head-on, mimicry portrays CIS as a part of a pluralist subject—providing ‘simply one other view’ that an viewers can select from.
There may be one more reason why CIS mimicry works. It attracts from the inherent pressure of established OSCE practices. During the last 20 years, essential narratives towards liberal democracy promotion have progressively elevated. Ought to Western liberal democrats actually be those educating the remainder of the world tips on how to govern itself? Clearly, democracy promotion has been strongly pushed via the overseas coverage agendas of Western nations, notably via the management and funding of the US. Is it democracy promotion or democracy imposition? The place can we draw the road?
The CIS strongly leverages endogenous criticisms of liberal democracy promotion. Critics of Western liberal hegemony would possibly discover themselves sympathizing with the decolonial and anti-interventionist narratives related to CIS commentary (“the inadmissibility of a coverage of exclusivity, domination, imposition of cultural values alien to peoples, interference within the inside affairs of sovereign states”). Can Western observers, who typically don’t converse the native language and depend on interpreters, fairly assess the state of democracy in a rustic? I requested myself this actual query after I, an Austrian OSCE short-term observer, assessed Kazakh polling stations regardless of my accomplice and I not talking any Kazakh or Russian. CIS’ declare to native possession could not ship on its guarantees, however its enchantment is rooted in tensions inside OSCE practices. In its personal depiction of the sphere, CIS claims to be dedicated to pluralism, native possession, and offering a respectable different voice on the worldwide stage. These critiques acquire traction when OSCE observers are perceived as out of contact with native realities.
Why ought to we study this refined type of contestation when the world is witnessing way more overt types of disruption, such because the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Mimicry is a subversive apply that repeatedly fragments the sphere chargeable for figuring out the worldwide attribution of legitimacy to elections. This is likely one of the principal methods worldwide actors distinguish between democracies and non-democracies. Figuring out the equity and freedom of elections has additionally been central to home resistance actions, as evidenced by the Coloration Revolutions. Selling democracy is a key characteristic of most accounts of the liberal worldwide order within the post-Chilly Battle period. My analysis exhibits that contestation doesn’t require a immediately seen problem to the validity of the democratic narrative itself. Because the case examine of CIS election commentary exhibits, practices of liberal ordering could be progressively undermined from inside its personal narrative.
Simply because the hoverfly mimics the wasp to look extra harmful than it’s, the CIS attracts its legitimacy from resembling the OSCE and ‘speaking the speak’ of selling democracy. As elections are short-term occasions and most audiences take note of them solely briefly, it is perhaps sufficient to appear to be the OSCE after election day when issuing the preliminary assertion – on the very second when the worldwide evaluation of electoral reality is constructed. If one regional group says one factor, and one other says one thing totally different, then electoral integrity could have simply been a combined bag in spite of everything. And who is aware of what election observers actually do anyway? Students of Worldwide Relations typically concentrate on grand occasions, probably overseeing the tacit ways used to disrupt and fragment established worldwide ordering practices. CIS parallel election commentary is usually a fruitful case examine to light up the nuanced logics of contesting liberal worldwide ordering on an on a regular basis foundation.
Within the theater of worldwide democracy promotion, not all actors observe the liberal-democratic script. Some put on the precise costume, converse the precise strains, and stand on the precise stage—solely to carry out a wholly totally different play. The CIS has realized to imitate the OSCE, however it could instrumentalize these performances for very totally different functions. The true energy of mimicry lies not in open defiance, however in quiet subversion – reinterpreting and rewriting the script line by line, mission by mission, till the viewers not is aware of which story to imagine.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
