Election Violence Education and Resolution Project

Theoretical Framework:

Home » About » Theoretical Framework

A key component of the EVER methodology, and one that distinguishes it from standard election observation, is that the monitoring takes place over an extended period of time. Electoral conflict takes on different forms depending on when it occurs in an election timeline:

1. Identity conflict: conflict during the registration process, when refugees or other conflict-forced migrants cannot establish or re-establish their officially recognized identities.
2. Campaign conflict: rivals seek to disrupt the opponents’ campaigns, intimidate voters and candidates, and use threats and violence to influence participation in the voting.
3. Balloting conflict: Election Day violence when rivalries are played out at the polling station.
4. Results conflict: disputes over election results or the inability of judicial mechanisms to resolve disputes in a fair, timely and transparent manner.
5. Representation conflict: occurs when elections are organized as “zero-sum” events and “losers” are left out of participation in governance.

It is critical to capture key data points about incidents of election–related violence because the violence can be motivated by different actors with different motives:

1. Voter-motivated conflict: Voters challenge the State and claim unfairness in the election process.
2. State-motivated conflict: The State initiates conflicts with voters who challenge the results of elections.
3. Rival-motivated conflict: Political rivals are in conflict with each other for political gain.
4. Insurgent-motivated conflict: Forces capitalize on the visibility of an election to promote their insurgencies.
5. A combination of the categories above.

An initial analysis of elections data from 2001 to 2003 on the IFES ElectionGuide website suggests several findings that influence how policy-makers and administrators address election-related violence.

First, there appears to be a link between the occurrences of electoral violence and the relative freedom of society. Closer examination of these cases also suggests that there are larger problems with the democratization of these countries than problematic elections alone. The Freedom House rating system includes consideration of civil liberties, rule of law, and other political rights, any of which could affect conflict.

Second, the State appears motivated and perhaps better able to initiate conflict against voters than voters can initiate against the State. Such a strong State role may also highlight imbalances in the election dispute resolution mechanisms that favor State interests.

Third, in each year surveyed, conflict among political rivals is the most common type of electoral violence. However, this conflict may be the most responsive to mediation, political party building and conflict resolution initiatives.

Fourth, the instances of insurgent violence have grown with each year of the survey. Insurgent- and sectarian-motivated conflict played out during elections could prove to be the most difficult conflict to prevent. Compared with rival-motivated conflict where the object is governance, insurgent-motivated violence is unresponsive to such objectives and seeks only to disrupt, delay and diminish the democratic process.

Fifth, electoral conflict seems most likely to occur during the Campaign Conflict, Balloting Conflict and Results Conflict phases of the election timeline.

Sixth, the survey suggests that if a history of electoral conflict exists, there is a tendency for conflict to recur. If this final point holds true, then those practitioners mandated with providing election security in countries with repeated conflict may be able to better forecast the security requirements for future elections.

While this analysis is based on observation reports and news articles about particular elections, employing a common framework for research and security planning such as the EVER methodology will produce a useful pathology of electoral conflict for practitioners. A better understanding of the root causes and flashpoints of conflict could in turn lead to promising initiatives to prevent, contain and resolve electoral violence.