International Observers: “Free, Fair and Transparent” – Context is everything

International Observers: “Free, Fair and Transparent” – Context is everything

Robert Carmichael | 30 July 2013

It was a bit like being in a parallel universe: I was sat at the Phnom Penh Hotel on Monday morning - the day after Cambodia’s closely contested election - to hear the international observers from ICAPP and CAPDI (more on who they are later) pronounce the election “free, fair and transparent”.

Given that this ran counter to pretty much every other take on the election (other than that of the ruling Cambodian People's Party), and given that the CPP’s media machine has been bombarding journalists with the ICAPP/CAPDI statement in the 24 hours since, I figured I would dig a little deeper.

(You can read the ICAPP/CAPDI statement on the National Election Committee’s website: http://bit.ly/1aU2Ue0.)

First, the context of their visit: In the opening paragraph the international observers say they “arrived in Cambodia for the purpose of observing elections and monitoring the democratic process” (my emphasis).

To my mind, “monitoring the democratic process” involves more than simply watching people cast their ballots on polling day – for example, considering the run-up to the election, access to media, voter lists and the like. Voting is just one part of the democratic process.

As it turned out, that was not the view of the international observers. It took some effort with the panel (including some deliberate misinformation from one panellist as I tried to leave) but Canada’s former deputy PM Sheila Copps did confirm that their assessment was based solely on what they had seen on Election Day. Nothing more.

For what it’s worth, here is my exchange with her at the press conference:

CARMICHAEL: And my question still stands - this assessment is on Election Day itself?

COPPS: Yes.

CARMICHAEL: Or on the entire process?

COPPS: On Election Day.

CARMICHAEL: Purely Election Day?

COPPS: That's what we're here to observe.

CARMICHAEL: OK, now that's fine, but that's an important [qualification] ...

COPPS: Yeah.

CARMICHAEL: For journalists who may not know what your parameters are.

Fair play to Copps, who as a Canadian surely knows more about democracy than some of her fellow observers from China, Vietnam and Azerbaijan – none of which are seen as bastions of electoral due process. All of which means to me that ICAPP/CAPDI’s statement is not an assessment of the electoral process, despite what is implied in its first paragraph.

So with that context established, what did the international observers do while they were here? Prior to Election Day the delegates met representatives from the CPP, the opposition CNRP and (the now defunct) FUNCINPEC. They also met with the NEC to hear about its work.

On Election Day the delegation visited around a dozen polling stations in and around the capital, and concluded from those observations that the elections were “a triumph of popular will and a victory for the Cambodian people”.

It is hard to fault their finding that this election process was largely peaceful; it was and that is important. But implying that the entire electoral process was free, fair and transparent is simply not credible when so many indications are that it was not.

By any stretch, voting day was a debacle for tens of thousands of voters across the country – and perhaps many more than that – as statistics released by Transparency International at a subsequent press conference on Monday indicate.

It is no coincidence that the CPP has seized on ICAPP/CAPDI’s statement as international endorsement of the result.

Meantime I’ve tweeted Sheila Copp to ask whether she will be issuing a separate statement as some of the country delegations appear to have done.

ICAPP/CAPDI

A couple of extra points on this ICAPP/CAPDI visit. First, who are they? Second, who invited them?

ICAPP (http://www.theicapp.org/) is the International Conference of Asian Political Parties, whose website shows that Cambodia’s Deputy Prime Minister Sok An (and leading light in the CPP) is a member of ICAPP’s Standing Committee.

CAPDI stands for the Centrist Asia Pacific Democrats International, but I’ve found it a little harder to pin down. The link through Google to its website didn’t work, so I’ve had to rely on a story from the Jakarta Globe earlier this year (http://bit.ly/13ix60Q) that “membership includes both current and former leaders, public figures, executives, lawmakers and academics from 20 countries in the region”, among them Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

// UPDATE //

02 August 2013: I have now found the website - www.capdi.co - which is in Malaysian/Indonesian, and am following CAPDI on Twitter: @CAPDI_ID.

CAPDI’s website (http://capdi.co/2013/05/21/organizational-structure-of-capdi-2013/) lists Hun Sen as Chairman Emeritus of CAPDI, and DPM Sok An as Senior Vice President of CAPDI and a member of its Governing Council - which does rather call into question the independence of their mission.

In a related update I also have received a semblance of a reply from CAPDI member and former DPM of Canada, Sheila Copps - who along with Sok An is a member of CAPDI’s Governing Council - but am waiting on a further reply before publishing that.

For the record, among the Cambodian members of CAPDI’s Council is Hun Many (son of PM Hun Sen). None of these links was disclosed in the joint press statement.

// END UPDATE //

Officially the international observers were here at the NEC’s invitation, but it turns out that it was the ruling party (or perhaps senior members of the ruling party) that invited them and paid their way.

As with much in life, context is important. And that, as far as I can make out, is the context of that press release.

One more thing

There was something else – the so-called indelible ink that has been conclusively proven to be anything but. The panellists seemed to think this was laughable – Sheila Copp, for example, told me she had found it impossible to remove, which given that her finger was still ink-stained was clearly true.

But that of course does not mean that it was impossible to remove. Only that she was unable to get rid of it.

The Hungarian delegate, Dr. Georges Suha, noted in his statement that: “We have taken attention even to smaller details, like the quality of the indelible ink – it is surely indelible...”

It surely isn’t, as can be seen on numerous YouTube videos and on the website of the Phnom Penh Post: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/video/voter-ink-cleaned-easily

Footnote

It turns out that at least one delegation was slightly more nuanced than the joint statement indicated. In its delegation’s statement, South Korea, which has good ties with Cambodia, had this to say:

“Having experienced the 19 rounds of general elections, the people of the Republic of Korea came to the fundamental principal [sic] of, what is so-called, ‘open your mouth & close your wallet’ to realize free and fair elections. Based on this wisdom, the Delegation would like to cordially recommend toward freer and fairer elections” that Cambodia - ie. the ruling party - improve equitable access to media and “reform” the voter list.