I believe that EMBs are best placed to engage in electoral law reforms. In the case of Nepal, the Election Commission Nepal prpeapares the basic draft of electoral laws, the code of conduct and also engages with the legislators working on deciding an appropriate electoral system.

I am of the view that EMB should engage with other stakeholders in the electoral law reform. EMB should initiate and facilitate consultations because it is directly affected by this Law

In an ideal situation, the EMB should not spearhead the Electoral Law Reform. The Electoral body like the courts, is there to execute the electoral laws and initiating their own laws would entail conflict of interest.

However, that said, the government which is normally charged with the responsibility of spearheading reforms in the laws may not be interested in the electoral law reform as such forcing the EMB to take the leading role. The EMB has experience on how the laws affect its operations as such may be the better lead in the electoral laws reform

I voted for the first option ( initiate, propose, draft, advocate and provide input into any part of the reform process) as the question appeared to be oriented towards legal reform rather than system reform.
Electoral laws -- like any other law -- aren't ever complete and can never cover the realm of future evolution.
As such, they age and, therefore, do require the above mentioned actions.
Now, naturally, if we are talking about electoral "system" reform, that is a political endeavour that should reflect national interests, traditions, evolving electoral demands and situational needs of the time.
The EMB should have an input, to a degree, because of its experience. On the other hand, if drastic changes are to be expected -- even the elemination of the existing EMB and its replacement by another authority, then one might expect some resistance.
In addition, systems reform might involve the need for cooperation of other governmental institutions (income tax, statistics, vital data, etc -- I have seen this where several additional laws needed to be amended)over which the EMB obviously has and should not have authority.
Thus, in my opinion, electoral systems reforms should be spearheaded by the highest democratically elected authority of the country.
That said, I was very tempted to vote "it depends" because of the very significant comment that "Overall, high trust, low conflict, stable democracies provide a good basis for high involvement by the EMB while low trust, high conflict fragile states do not."
Clearly, to work and generate legitimacy, the reforms require a democratic approach and extensive consultations and political consensus.

EMBs have major role in Electoral Law Reform so It should be able to – inter alia – initiate, propose, draft, advocate and provide input into any part of the reform process.

Definitely, EMBs should have a major role in electoral law reform. Firstly, EMBs are the authorities in the conduct of elections and are the ones at the forefront every election day as well as in preparing for these in between elections. If only for these realities, EMBs clearly must have a significant role in crafting new laws, amending old laws and in the continuous assessment of the efficacy of existing electoral laws. This becomes critically important especially when a country is embarking into modernization of its elections which more often than not involves the use of automation. Lawmakers are mostly lawyers and are not technically prepared to by themselves handle the intricacies of automation. And since an EMB which has seriously decided to go for automation, surely it will employ or already employs information and communications technology people. This resource (most of the time scarce) must be given the role of getting involved in the crafting of electoral reform laws. This is to facilitate the writing of such laws as well as assure that computers are applied correctly in elections. EMBs in fact should have within its Law Department few a people who will have among its tasks regular involvement in the making and amendment of electoral laws in tandem with in-house ICT resources. This practice avoids as early as in the crafting of laws the pitfalls and risks in adapting computers in elections. The Republic of the Philippines did exactly this in such process and has crafted laws that address the computerization of voter registration, election-day processes, logistics management, etc or almost the entire end-to-end "business" of elections.

The role of EMB at the age of legislations is to provide legal expertise regarding the acting of the elections as an independent body, it is necessary to be at the same distance between all parties.

Continuous reflection, reform and adaptation of the legal framework governing electoral processes that are based on experiences, reviews and assessments are necessary in both old and new democracies.

I believe that Embs mission is not making elections law. There mission is to take action, be impartial and respect the directives content in law. Elections observers have to make assessment in order to late Emb give their points of view after a processus. It is the role of elections observers to make recommendations towers legal makers to improve the capacities of Embs

I believe that Embs mission is not making elections law. There mission is to take action, be impartial and respect the directives content in law. Elections observers have to make assessment in order to late Emb give their points of view after a processus. It is the role of elections observers to make recommendations towers legal makers to improve the capacities of Embs

Considering the Electoral Cycle, the post election period allows the EMB to address all issues raised by international and citizens observers missions including all recommendations. All this elements put together allow the EMB in his report to provide a clear presentation of the electoral process problems in the country and therefore proposed all reform needed to the government who can still free to consider it or no.

Some law reform processes carry more political explosives than others. The introduction of technologies may - in some instances - be linked to the automatization of the process and not present fundamental changes linked to e.g. who can vote, who will be elected. Electoral system reform, on the other hand, is a somewhat more difficult area. By changing the way in which votes are translated to seats in e.g. the national assembly, such reforms have huge impact on democratic trajectories. EMBs may need to step more carefully when engaging in such reforms. At the same time - can we trust politicians to put in place an electoral system that is the best for democracy in a given country? Are they not likely to opt for the electoral system that they believe would ensure their re-election or their majority in the parliament? In a similar vein, reforms on political party financing and campaign expenditure carries high levels of political complexities. It is the MPs in parliament that are responsible for law-making. Where reforms are directly impacting on their own lives (e.g. as parliamentarians and as representatives of political parties sitting in the legislature), EMBs may possibly play a particularly valuable role in facilitating stakeholder exchange and input to promote focus on reforms in line with democratic values and principles.