The Offie for Democratic Institution and Human Rights and the OSCE Human dimension

A brief introduction

The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) plays a pivotal role within the framework of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Established in 1991 and headquartered in Warsaw, Poland, ODIHR promotes democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across the OSCE’s 57 participating states. The organisation was created following the historic 1990 OSCE’s Paris Summit, which marked the end of the Cold War and a renewed commitment to foster democratic governance and human rights. Initially known as the Office for Free Elections, it was later expanded and renamed to reflect its broader mandate. The evolution of ODIHR has mirrored the dynamic political landscape of Europe, adapting to emerging challenges and expanding its activities to support the democratic transitions of post-Soviet States and other regions within the OSCE’s reach.

ODIHR operates as an autonomous institution, with its director appointed for a three-year term, it comprises several key departments, each focusing on specific areas of its mandate: Election Observation, Democratisation, Human Rights, and Tolerance and Non-Discrimination. These departments work collaboratively to design and implement comprehensive programs and projects that address the diverse needs of participating States; the Election Observation Department, for instance, is renowned for its systematic and rigorous monitoring of elections, ensuring they meet international standards for fairness and transparency.

ODIHR’s organisational structure ensures its effectiveness and responsiveness, the institution is guided by an annual budget and work plan, approved by the OSCE Permanent Council, it employs a multidisciplinary team of experts, including legal scholars, political scientists, and human rights advocates, who provide technical assistance, conduct field missions, and produce analytical reports. Furthermore, ODIHR’s operations are supported by a robust network of partnerships with civil society organisations, national governments, and international bodies, enhancing its capacity to promote democratic institutions and human rights.

The importance of fair elections and international observation

Democratic institutions are living a particularly delicate moment, not only because of the numerous wars occurring across the world, with a particular focus regarding those in Ukraine and Palestine, but also due to the fact that in 2024 nearly half of the world population will vote to choose its leaders across 60 different Countries. As recently showed in the Russian elections, not all of these States fully respect the principles of freedom and secrecy of vote and properly to fight these specific abuses the ODIHR was founded.

Every year the members of the commette publish an Handbook on the Follow-up of Electoral Recommendations Guidance on Implementation which provides practical guidance to national authorities, electoral management bodies, and other stakeholders on how to systematically address and implement recommendations made by ODIHR election observation missions. This helps in closing the feedback loop and ensuring that observed shortcomings are rectified in future electoral processes.

By offering a structured approach to following up on recommendations, the handbook aims to improve the overall integrity and credibility of elections, implementing these recommendations helps in aligning electoral processes with international standards and best practices. The handbook supports capacity building within electoral bodies and other relevant institutions by providing clear methodologies and best practices for following up on recommendations. It encourages transparency and accountability in the electoral process, by documenting and publicly reporting on the steps taken to address ODIHR’s recommendations, aiming at building public trust in the electoral system.

The handbook also serves as a tool for facilitating cooperation and dialogue between national authorities and international organisations, including the OSCE, crucial for sharing knowledge, resources, and expertise in electoral matters.

Finally, by providing a systematic approach to follow-up, the handbook encourages continuous improvement in electoral processes taking inspiration from the precedent mistakes.

The risks derived from technological progress

Among the different reasons that put in danger democratic institutions nowadays there is also technological improvement, as Cambridge Analytica scandal pointed out, not by chance in 2021 the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media published a report in which highlighted the relationship between misinformation and, among others, Artificial Intelligence.

A practical example

As already mentioned, the ODIHR conducts missions to ensure the compliance with its recommendations, the latest in chronological order is the one in Mongolia, begun in 21st May, in order to ensure democratic’s principles respect and fairness during the parliament general elections.

“Throughout its observation, the mission will hold meetings with representatives of the national authorities and political parties, as well as with the judiciary, civil society and the media. An interim report will be published some two weeks before the election day to update the public and media during the course of the observation.”

The ODIHR doctrine

It was obvious that the deep work of analysis conducted by the ODIHR would have served as base for other researches, especially in the academic field.

Among these examples there is an article appeared in the Nordic Journal of Human Rights in the volume 35 issue 4 of 2017 and titled “Mapping Legislation for Citizen and International Election Observation in Europe: A Comparative Analysis on the Basis of OSCE/ODIHR Reports”, by Michael Lidauer, which regarded the practice of election observation, focusing on international and citizen observation efforts, discussing whether such observation is feasible and promoted in states with perceived electoral integrity. The analysis is based on the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, which recommends both forms of observation. It examines OSCE/ODIHR’s increasing focus on European countries with established democratic traditions and compares 200 reports on 32 countries, finding that most have not fully implemented OSCE/ODIHR recommendations for accrediting election observers, only Croatia, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Romania are recognised for full compliance.

The article emphasise the importance of accreditation and legal frameworks for observers and highlights the OSCE/ODIHR Handbook on the Follow-up of Electoral Recommendations as a key resource for promoting accountability and integrity in electoral processes.

On the other side, some scholars decided to focus more about the historical failures of the ODIHR such as in an article appeared in the same year of the former, namely 2017, which related over the impact of OSCE/ODIHR election observations in Central Asia, focusing on Tajikistan from 2000 to 2013; particularly the writers pointed out that despite OSCE/ODIHR’s efforts to promote free and fair elections, the region has largely remained authoritarian. The authors argue that repeated OSCE/ODIHR observations have inadvertently strengthened authoritarianism, a phenomenon termed “Helsinki’s counterintuitive effect”. They test hypotheses including the effect of geopolitical interests, OSCE/ODIHR’s self-interest, and the instrumental use of observation by Central Asian regimes. The study highlights challenges in promoting democratic norms in a region with entrenched authoritarianism and traditional values, questioning the effectiveness of international observation in such contexts.

Conclusion

While the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights plays a crucial role in promoting and safeguarding democratic practices through its election observation missions, the above examination highlights critical issues that warrant attention too. Despite ODIHR’s efforts to foster free and fair elections, particularly in regions such as Central Asia, our analysis suggests persistent challenges in achieving meaningful democratic progress: the concept of “Helsinki’s counterintuitive effect” underscores the unintended consequences of repeated observation missions in regions with entrenched authoritarianism.

Furthermore, the discrepancy between ODIHR’s recommendations and their implementation by host countries raises questions about the effectiveness of its endeavours.

These findings emphasise the need for a nuanced approach to election observation, one that considers the socio-political context of each region and addresses underlying structural barriers to democratisation. Additionally, enhancing coordination with local stakeholders and fostering genuine dialogue with host governments could strengthen ODIHR’s impact and promote sustainable democratic reforms.

In moving forward, it is imperative for ODIHR to critically evaluate its strategies, adapt to evolving challenges, and prioritise collaboration with national and international partners. By addressing these issues proactively, ODIHR can continue to serve as a valuable instrument in advancing democratic principles worldwide.