Original question:

I would like to know when party candidates can campaign and when they cannot.

• Are there any countries where parties and candidates are allowed to campaign on election day?  

• Are parties and candidates allowed to campaign on advance polling day/s (early voting)? If yes, what are the pros and cons?

• Are there any guiding principles or international standards and recommendations on this issue?  

_________________________________________________________

Responses were received, with thanks, from:

• Francesca Binda
• Therese Pearce Laanela
• Sa Ngidi
• Carlos Navarro
• Michael Meadowcroft

_________________________________________________________

Summary:

• ACE: Campaigning
• ACE: Media in Election Campaigns
• ACE: A Specified Campaign Period? 
• ACE: Early Voting
• ACE: Early Voting Procedures
• Comparative Data: Countries that apply early/advance voting
• Get Out The Vote (GOTV) 
• Article - The Local: Sweden: Gentleman's Agreement broken 
• OSCE Press release: Election campaign silence comes into effect in Kosovo (2000)
• International IDEA: International Electoral Standards Guidelines for reviewing the legal framework of elections
• “Campaign Silence – Yes or No?” Round-Table Discussion (Macedonia) 

• Campaign period in Afghanistan - ReliefWeb
  _________________________________________________________

Quote from the ACE Project on campaign silence:

"In some countries, there are also regulations specifying a period of campaign silence, a time frame or a certain number of days immediately before the elections during which no campaigning at all is permitted and there are strict limitations on what the media may write or broadcast".

_________________________________________________________

Individual responses in full:

_________________________________________________________

Francesca Binda: I think it is important to define “campaign” when talking about campaign silence. I believe there has to be a balance between preventing last minute, expensive media campaigns (favouring only those candidates or parties with money, or unequal access to media) and allowing political parties and candidates to conduct effective “get out the vote” (GOTV) campaigns.

An effective GOTV means that parties have identified supporters and will contact them on election day to encourage voters to the polls, assist them in identifying the appropriate polling station and, sometimes assist them in getting to the polling station. 

In Bosnia & Herzegovina, in 2002, we had a big debate within the election commission about this balance. It was decided that campaign silence meant “public” campaigning, but personal contact with voters by parties or candidates was permissible. Therefore, phoning a voter or leaving them a reminder at their door was permissible; distributing leaflets in a public space (i.e. café-bar) was not permissible.

One party sent out a mass SMS message encouraging people to vote for the party. It was clear that this message was not targeted to identified party supporters, but rather to any mobile phone number the party could access. The party was fined for violating the campaign silence period.

In Canada there is also a public campaign silence period, but parties are permitted to conduct GOTV. 

I think it is generally accepted that campaign silence includes a prohibition on media announcement/advertisement, no public rallies and the prohibition of publishing last minute public opinion polls. Also, campaigning or party identification close to polling stations is also considered to be an essential element of campaign silence.

It would be interesting to know how the issue of campaign websites is dealt with, should party/campaign websites be closed down during campaign silence periods. Care must also be taken that campaign silence does not prevent non-partisan civic and voter education.

_________________________________________________________ 

Therese Pearce Laanela: The campaign normally ends at a given time before the election - one or more days earlier, often specified by law. Usually there is quarantine in space as well as time - i.e. no campaign materials within a certain perimeter of a polling station (i.e. 200 meters). 

In Sweden, “gentleman's agreements” between the parties, or perhaps rather “this is how it has always been done”, has guided the parties in terms of how they campaign. Normally, on election day, “campaigning” is limited to party representatives standing outside polling stations with slips of paper with party names to hand out to voters - these slips become ballots once inserted into a special envelope by a voter.

This year however, the Conservative (Moderate) Party, decided that they would 'defy' this time-honored limitation and, continued to actively campaign and keeping their campaign stalls open until the close of polls on election day. While not illegal, the (Social Democrat) Minister of Democracy questioned whether this was democratic/appropriate. The Moderate Party called his questioning of their election day campaigning sour grapes. Now that the barrier has been broken, no doubt this issue will be discussed, and perhaps clarified more officially, by the next election. Not least because the Conservative (Moderate) Party won the elections resoundingly!

Advance polling in Sweden began almost three weeks before the elections, and thus coincided with the most intense periods of the campaign. Both (campaign and polling) were often in the same approximate location - major squares and stations. My impression is that this in fact 'added' to the democracy dimension - there was a rigorous and robust dialogue between voters and party representatives in conjunction with their polling.  

While I realise that most 'standards' will try to separate campaigns from voting, in space and in time - I think that if you trust your voters - and if you trust your parties to avoid intimidation - there can be healthy connection between the two - Campaigning is important and shouldn't be unduly limited!!

_________________________________________________________ 

Sa Ngidi: My perspective is not far from Therese’s. In South Africa the Electoral Acts (National & Provincial and local authority) distinguish between “political events” and “political activity other than voting”, with the former seen as outright campaigning and completely outlawed on Election Day and the latter disallowed only within the boundary of the voting district/polling place only. (A voting district is serviced by one voting station so in effect the two can be used interchangeably).

Indeed what happens on Election Day is that Political Parties set up tables/stalls just outside the voting district boundary, encouraging people to come to their tables for “information” before proceeding to the voting hall.

I suppose if one looks at the intention behind campaigning i.e. canvassing support for one’s party, it could be argued that there is some (albeit low) level of campaigning even on Election Day in South Africa's context. Amongst the positives are the contribution of this practice to the general vibe around the electoral event and the open nature of this “campaigning” which results in Political Parties in fact censoring each other thereby arguably reducing the chances of intimidation.

A disadvantage though is that the impression is sometimes subtly created that voters “must” go via these tables before proceeding to the voting station area, which we try and counter through voter education with the limitations that go with that of course.

In general I think you need a mature electorate to balance out any campaigning (even if low level) taking place on Election Day if you are to maintain a free voting environment. I agree that undue limitation should be guarded against.

It seems likely that political parties in fact contribute to the general voter turnout through the low level interventions that they make on the day. It would be interesting to hear more from the Istituto Federal Electoral (IFE) of Mexico on this one, given that their campaigning stops the Wednesday before the election (Sunday).

_________________________________________________________ 

Carlos Navarro: In (almost) all Latin American countries there are clear provisions in law regarding the extent (beginning/conclusion) of the campaign period, thus, when campaigning activities can take place.

Usually there are heated debates about "pre-campaigning" activities, since they are not regulated by law, but definitively in all countries it is prohibited to campaign during election day, and for a certain period (a few days) before polling day.

Restricted period might range from five days before the elections (Honduras) to one day before polling date (Bolivia, Colombia and Panama).

There are no early voting procedures or facilities in any Latin American country.

_________________________________________________________

Michael Meadowcroft: As far as I recollect, all the new/emerging democracies in which I have worked have a prescribed campaign period, ending at midnight 24 or 48 hours before polling day.

However, there are no such restrictions in the UK - indeed; in 1983 the known supporters in my own constituency were reminded to vote four times on polling day itself. It was effective!

Campaign on election day is essentially a political issue with at least three considerations:

1. restrictions on campaigning tend to favour incumbent,  "established" or well-funded parties in that they deny newer parties the potential both for starting early in order to maximise personnel resources and also to introduce campaigning innovations at the last minute.
2. Timetables are difficult to police. Does a forty-eight hour moratorium before a Sunday polling day include what is said at Friday prayers, for instance? In Muslim countries I have seem remarkably "political" wedding processions during embargoed days! The definition of "campaigning" is very difficult: over the years it has been the subject of court cases in the UK in relation to when election expenses begin. In many countries political activity in the days before the official commencement of campaigning is little different from that in the days after it.
3. Incumbent candidates and government parties regularly abuse their position - in both mature and young democracies - by planning "official" events, such as opening new schools, producing special editions of government-backed newspapers or barely disguised propaganda on state television, etc, during the final days when campaigning is legally banned.

_________________________________________________________