BRUSSELS, July 25 — The practice of international election observation dates back to the 1857 plebiscite in Moldavia and Wallachia, where major European powers sent monitors. But on closer reading, the history of this enterprise is less a steady march toward transparency and more a story of expanding participation, uneven quality, and, increasingly, political manipulation. After World War II, monitoring remained uncommon.
During the 1960s, fewer than 10% of elections were observed. The mechanics here changed dramatically following the Cold War, when observation expanded significantly alongside the development of international standards for democratic elections.
By the 2000s, approximately 80% of all elections were observed. That growth sounds like progress. But the numbers conceal a catch: not all observers are created equal.
Modern observation increasingly examines the entire electoral process over an extended period, yet the simple presence of monitors does not guarantee integrity.
The Mechanics of Monitoring
Election monitors are independent parties, often from other countries or NGOs. They assess elections against national law and international standards. The catch is that they do not directly prevent fraud.
Their role is to record and report irregularities, creating a record that may disincentivize fraud and violence. The legitimacy of an election can be affected by monitor criticism — unless monitors are perceived as biased.
To enhance legitimacy, a notable individual is often appointed honorary leader of a monitoring organization. This is where the system shows its fault lines. Scholars distinguish between quality of monitors.
Some observers, often with ties to authoritarian states, validate flawed elections. From the 2010s into the early 2020s, low-quality observers became more prevalent, associated with autocratic states and regional organizations including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, and the Southern African Development Community.
Follow the money and the political alignments, and the pattern emerges: these low-quality observers provide cover for regimes that would otherwise face criticism. They are not neutral assessors; they are instruments of legitimization.
The Key Players and the 2024 Study
Key international organizations deploying monitoring teams include the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Council of Europe, and the African Union. The United Nations now provides electoral assistance rather than monitoring. The Carter Center, National Democratic Institute, and others have built consensus on principles.
Domestic observer groups complement international efforts. A 2024 study categorized the 20 most-frequent election monitoring organizations by quality.
The high-quality organizations include: OSCE/ODIHR, the European Union, the European Union Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Organization of American States, the Carter Center, The Commonwealth, the National Democratic Institute, the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa, and the International Republican Institute. Middle-quality organizations include: the African Union, the Inter-American Union of Electoral Bodies, the International Organization of the Francophonie, the Economic Community of West African States, and the Arab League.
The study does not explicitly name the low-quality organizations, but the source material notes the prevalence of low-quality observers from the 2010s into the early 2020s, associated with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, and the Southern African Development Community. The distinction matters.
High-quality monitors apply rigorous standards; low-quality ones rubber-stamp. For anyone watching elections closely, the question is not whether observers are present, but which ones, and what they are willing to report.
