neo pointed out, the belief that, "you know a free election when you see it," is still popular among observers and the international community at large. Yet, while much has been written about the subject of "free and fair" elections over the past fifteen years, usage of this concept is still not consistent. For example, Boneo stated, we still tend to use the "free and fair" concept as if it were an entirely dichotomous variable (either an election is free and fair, or it is not). This situation is further complicated as there is no clear agreement on a set of international standards regarding an impartial way to present the data. Therefore, the same information on how "free and fair" an election was may be subject to diametrically opposed interpretations.

Two methodological models of observation remain predominant today. One might be called the ideal long-term observation model. This is a large-scale and expensive approach that requires the permanent presence of a significant number of observers throughout the electoral process. The other might be called the ideal short-term observation model. This model largely relies on fact-finding interviews with electoral authorities, the government, political parties, and other relevant personalities and groups. There are practical and theoretical limitations to the effectiveness of both approaches. The long-term approach can provide better and more reliable information, but its effectiveness largely depends on the ability of the deployed missions to build up information networks. In many cases, however, long-term observers end up spending most of their efforts making logistical arrangements for the short-term observers.

National observers can be found today in almost every country. The main strengths of national observers, as opposed to international observers, are that they are familiar with local languages and customs, understand the political environment, and can engage in electoral observations at a relatively low cost. National observers also can be deployed en masse with much greater ease. International observers, on the other hand, have better access to specialized electoral expertise, tend to be less vested in the local outcomes, have greater visibility, and enjoy greater access to the media. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, international observers have more levers (through embassies, conditionality, foreign aid incentives, international organizations, etc.) to apply pressure to protect the electoral process. In discussing the comparative advantages of the two systems, however, Boneo noted that more detailed study of the best applications and effectiveness of national versus international observers by scholars in the field would be essential in helping advance the understanding and practice of good observation strategies.

Traditionally, the decision to get involved in electoral observation has hinged on a set of conditions related to three factors: 1. an agreement with the host country (official invitation and freedom of observers' access); 2. an enabling environment (security conditions, adequate laws, and regulations); and 3. deployment practicalities (adequate time, resources, etc.). Today, however, electoral observation involvement tends to be less demand-driven than supply-facilitated. Boneo called for greater consideration and evaluation of issues such as the usefulness and relevance of the mission, the desired goals, and the value added by the mission. Similarly, Boneo suggested that questions should be asked about alternative methods that might be cheaper or more cost-effective in evaluating the electoral process rather than sending an observation mission.

Moving Forward

The methodology of information gathering and evaluation in electoral monitoring can be improved if we follow the principle advocated by scholar David Beetham for "democratic audits" to keep different indexes in a disaggregated form rather than combining them into one composite score. Electoral observation is a complex process that involves a complex set of institutions and interrelated activities. These component activities can be conceived both as the targets of observation and the elements of evaluation criteria. For a more nuanced analysis, Boneo recommended that evaluation of elections include the following components:

• Existence of an enabling environment;
• Legal framework of electoral process;
• Delimitation of constituencies;
• Registration of voters;
• Registration of political parties, alliances, and candidates;
• Impartial complaint procedures during the pre-polling period;
• Voter information and education;
• Freedom of assembly and movement;
• Freedom from fear and intimidation;
• Freedom of expression and equitable access to the media;
• Funding of campaigns and use of public resources;
• Electoral preparations;
• Polling;
• Vote counting and compilation of results; and
• Adequate processing of post-electoral complaints and petitions.

Boneo added that it is much easier to define meaningful recommendations, criteria, and standards by focusing on and refining each of these components rather than constantly focusing on the electoral process at large.

In conclusion, Boneo stressed the need for the international community to evaluate the usefulness of electoral observation in terms of the opportunity costs. In other words, as the costs of mounting an election observation mission are substantial, the international community should consider whether the results are justified and whether support for electoral monitoring by the international community should be offset by reducing spending on other potentially worthwhile civil society development activities. A focus on elections alone, Boneo cautioned in closing, may be a mistake as elections are only a periodic 3-5 month process in the life of a democracy and as such should not be used as a complete measure of the health or growth of a modern democratic state.