Electoral campaigns are the competitive efforts by candidates and political parties to win voter
support in the period preceding an election. Candidates use a variety of techniques to reach the
voters, from public appearances and rallies to the use of mass media advertising.
Campaigning for
public office is usually done for a longer period of time than the 'official' campaign period
specified in the electoral calendar, when candidates may receive special treatment, usually in the
form of access to public media or public funds for campaign purposes.
Campaigns in today's
media age can cost enormous sums of money, raising integrity issues over the raising and
spending of money and whether elections are won by the candidates who spend the most money. These issues are discussed in Campaign Financing.
In the campaign, candidates work to get their messages out and to encourage voters to turn out
and vote for them or their party. There are several campaign issues that can affect the freeness
and fairness of the election. These include the timing of the campaign, ability to campaign freely,
the neutrality of electoral officials during the campaign, security for participants, and Access to Media.
Because of these integrity issues, most systems regulate certain aspects of the campaign process.
However, a few systems, such as Denmark, only set guidelines for equal access to the media and
have not set any rules to limit the amount of money or time that may be spent on electoral
campaigns. 165
Timing
The electoral calendar sets the dates for the 'official' campaign. This is usually the month or so
before voting day. Actual campaigning for office can start much earlier, but candidate benefits,
such as public funding, are usually only available during the official campaign period. The length
of the campaign can affect the ability of the parties and candidates to get their messages out.
Short campaign periods tend to benefit established parties and political incumbents who are
already known by voters. Longer campaign periods gives lesser known parties and candidates
more time to prepare and to inform the electorate on their platforms and positions, but it also
requires more resources to sustain a campaign over the longer period of time.
Longer campaigns can also negatively affect voter turnout as voters may tire of the never ending
electoral campaigning. This is particularly true in the U.S., where active campaigning for a
political party's nomination for president can start more than two years before the actual
presidential election.
Freedom to Campaign
The ability to freely participate in the electoral campaign is a key election integrity issue.
Candidates must be able to circulate freely among their supporters and publicize their political
platforms. Voters must be able to attend rallies, and other political events, without interference
and without fear. They must also have free access to political information so they can make an
informed choice when voting. A free and fair campaign is dependent on the freedoms of speech,
press, assembly and association.
The right to freely associate for political purposes is a basic integrity requirement. Voters must be
able to gather to discuss candidates and issues. Political parties must be able to meet and plan
their electoral campaigns with their supporters. The right of association is usually not restricted
except for meetings organized to accomplish illegal purposes, such as promoting public disorder
to disrupt or manipulate the process.
Freedom to campaign also means freedom of movement. Candidates must be able to
campaign anywhere in the country. In countries with security problems, this can be a law
enforcement issue. However, arbitrary restrictions on the movements of
candidates and their supporters which could interfere with their lawful ability to campaign should be avoided.
Free and fair circulation of election information
The free circulation of information is another basic integrity issue. The press must have the ability
to publish and disseminate information without censorship or manipulation of their coverage.
Press that abuses its rights by publishing slanderous or false information should be held
accountable for its wrongdoings. In most countries, this is done in a court of law, after the wrongdoing has been done.
Protecting the free flow of information is the responsibility of the government. It can pass laws protecting the freedom of expression, make special efforts to investigate threats towards
the media and bring those responsible to justice. A free press does not feel intimidated when
covering an election campaign nor does it have to exercise self censorship out of fear.
The government and the public broadcasting system can set standards to help ensure a free and fair circulation of information. As stated by Article 19:
Election campaign broadcasting standards must address such serious human rights abuses
as part of an effort to secure the broadcast media's role in promoting transition to
democracy. The government's failure to protect the media or to hold accountable those
responsible for such abuses undermines the potential for free and fair elections.166
In the campaign period, the public broadcasting system has a responsibility to ensure that they provide an equitable and fair coverage of the process. Article
19, an NGO focussed on ensuring the freedom of expression, has developed guidelines for
broadcast coverage of election campaigns in transitional democracies. These guidelines include:
- informing voters about relevant election matters, including disseminating voter education
information;
- providing balanced and impartial election coverage;
- not censoring election articles or materials unless they constitute a clear and direct
incentive to violence or hatred;
- providing accurate, balanced and impartial news coverage and current affairs programming;
- providing parties and candidates with air time for direct access programs on a fair and non
discriminatory basis; and
- granting equal times to both sides in a referendum vote. 167
Another integrity issue is the amount of money it takes to disseminate information. In developed
countries, campaigns have increasingly centered around the use of television advertisements. The
cost of these advertisements has inflated the cost of election campaigns to the point where, in
some countries, only wealthy individuals or those with financial support from major interest
groups, can compete and win a national or state office.
Each system addresses the equity issues stemming from the costs of political advertisements in
different ways. In countries such as Denmark, advertisements by political parties are not allowed
on national and regional radio and TV channels. 168 In South Africa, printed
material intended to influence the outcome of an election, must be labelled clearly with the full
name and address of the printer and publisher. And the publisher of any publication must start
the article with the word 'advertisement.' 169 In Ireland,
free postage is provided for candidates for a letter to every registered voter. 170
Other systems provide public funds for campaign
purposes. For more on these issues see Public Funding of Campaigns.
Quality of campaigning
The quality of a political campaign becomes an issue if the campaign resorts to unethical tactics to
discredit other candidates or to disrupt the process.
The content and quality of TV advertisements have become issues many countries. The NGO Alliance for Better Campaigns, states: 'political
campaigns set the tone for the most important relationship in any democracy- the one between
citizens and leaders. Especially in an individual political culture such as ours, it is the campaign
itself that must draw citizens into the public square. Our campaigns drive them
away.'
171
Some public interests groups (see NonGovernmental Organizations) are working to improve the quality of election
campaigns, and to encourage the media to carry more substantive candidate debates.
Neutrality of election officials
Election campaigns are designed to be noisy, public events that use patriotic and other symbols to
get voter support. It can be difficult for an election manager to remain neutral during the campaign
period. However, the administrators of the elections have to remain nonpartisan
and impartial in the delivery of their services and in the fulfilment of their responsibilities. Their office, resources or positions should not be used to help the campaign of any party or candidate or to
attempt to influence the outcome of the vote. (For more on neutrality of electoral managers see
Fair Process and Ethical Behaviour.)
This restriction is usually also applied to government officials and resources. To ensure a fair playing field,
government resources, position and influence are not used to help any candidate. Officials are supposed to remain neutral in their official capacity during the process. In some countries, governments limit their pre-election activities so that their actions cannot be perceived as support for any one candidate or party. For example, before an election the Philippines prohibits the appointment or hiring of new employees; the creation or filling of
new positions; promotions or salary increases or privileges; releasing public funds for public
works; new social services or construction of public works; delivery of materials for public works
and issuance of treasury warrants.172
The distinction between public official and party partisan interests by elected government officials
can be difficult to maintain. For example, in the U.S., the President of the United States is
considered the leading member of his political party and is expected to actively campaign for his
party's candidates. However, this is supposed to be done within the context of his party affiliation, not in his official capacity as President. He is also not supposed to use the resources of his office to help promote the campaign of anyone.
Public Opinion Polling
Public opinion polling is used by the political parties, candidates and media to measure voter
support for particular candidates, parties and positions. Polling is used to target campaigns and to develop voter messages. In most systems, polling is allowed
without political interference or unreasonable restrictions. When polling results are made public,
the methodology of the polls are also provided so that users can judge the accurateness of
the polling. This usually includes the margin of error, sample size, and demographics of the respondents
(age, location, gender, occupation, etc.).
The timing for the release of a public opinion poll can be an integrity issue because, depending upon when a
poll is released, it can affect the election outcome. Poll results can influence undecided voters and
build momentum for candidates or positions. A voter can think the election is already decided so
why vote, or why vote against majority thinking. In countries with a large number of time zones,
the winner of a presidential election can be predicted before the polling opens in some regions. This
can negatively effect turnout, and the voting choices of the last areas to vote.
For example, this was an issue in the 2000 U.S. elections for president, where the American media announced the winner of the state of Florida before polls were closed in the midwest and west. Because of the electoral college system, a win in Florida was critical to winning the electoral college vote. In addition, their projections were inaccurate and they later changed their projection to 'too close to call', but this was only minutes before the polls closed in the west.
To address these issues, some systems prohibit the release of polls at sensitive times- usually right
before or during polling, and some systems prohibit the release of exit polls until the end of
polling. These regulations range from Mexico, where it is a criminal offense to release a poll
predicting an election winner from eight days before the election until after the polls have closed,
173 to South Africa, where no exit poll may
be published until the polls are closed, to Denmark, where there are no restrictions on polling or
the releasing of results.
Security
The ability to campaign in an atmosphere free of fear and intimidation is another essential component
of a free and fair election. Candidates need to be able to move freely to meet the voters without
fear for their own physical safety, or those of their supporters. Voters need to be able to circulate and attend
campaign rallies without fear. Monitors, observers and the press need to
be able to cover the process and to publish their reports without fear of intimidation or retribution.
The security environment affects the elections results. According to John Sanderson and Michael Maley, 'If opposition party activity is suppressed
by a climate of fear- if opposition parties are unable to recruit, organize, establish offices and
engage in dialogue with the voters, or are only able to do those things in a limited period or in
certain parts of the country- then the inevitable consequence is an electoral environment biassed in
favour of the ruling group, a consequence of which is likely to be fewer votes for the opposition.'
174
Security concerns are present in many countries. In December 1999, the Sri Lankan President
was hurt during a suicide bomb attack at a campaign rally. Fourteen people were killed and more
than 105 injured. The same day, a second bomb blast killed another seven and injured 40 at a
rally for the main opposition party.175
Ensuring an electoral climate where voters feel free to vote, is an important integrity issue. If
voters are intimidated during the pre-election run up, if may affect their voting behaviour on
election day. As explained by John Sanderson and Michael Maley:
When individuals, authorities or political parties wish to manipulate an election
result, it is not necessary for them to coerce or intimidate every voter, or improperly influence
events at every polling station. Indeed, at an internationally observed election, it would be
counter-productive to do so, since what had been done would become obvious and could attract
the displeasure of the international community. They merely have to influence enough voters to
affect the result.176
For more information on election security see Security.
