Courtesy Reuters

Today, the international monitoring of elections has become so common that refusing to invite foreign observers is seen as a signal that a regime has something to hide. Among the media and in policy circles, the importance of election monitoring is almost universally accepted. This uncritical treatment of international election observation, however, ignores a more complicated reality: that monitors can have both positive and negative effects. And now, as countries in the Middle East and northern Africa are poised to hold competitive elections for the first time, understanding the role and impact of election observers is more important than ever.

Election observation took shape in the post-Cold War years, as a number of regions, in particular Africa and post-communist eastern Europe, held multiparty elections for the first time. Today, the most active international election monitors come from the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), but more than a dozen organizations (including the Carter Center, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the Organization of American States) send observers to five or more elections each year.

On the positive side, observers can verify that governments are indeed playing by the rules, which can

This article is part of our premium archives.

To continue reading and get full access to our entire archive, you must subscribe.

  • SUSAN D. HYDE is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Yale University and the author of The Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma: Why Election Monitoring Became an International Norm. JUDITH G. KELLEY is Associate Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and the author of Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Monitoring Works and Why It Often Fails, to be published by Princeton University Press.
  • More By Susan D. Hyde
  • More By Judith G. Kelley