OUR PARTNERS
Menu
This programmatic option lays out electoral conflict mediation as one of the response options of an early warning an early response system. The activity may also be supported as a stand alone action.
Mediation is generally defined as a structured process where an impartial third party assists the conflicting parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome to a dispute.[1] When elections end in dispute between the contestants, typically over the results, mediation can be necessary in cases where the judiciary is unable to resolve the dispute or where its impartiality is challenged. Election mediation efforts are often led by regional or international intergovernmental organisations, such as the United Nations, the African Union (sometimes called ‘track 1 diplomacy’). However, in certain situations, it has been local civil society actors that take on this role of mediation (‘track 2 diplomacy’). This can be effective, for example, in contexts where international or regional actors are viewed as somehow involved or partial, or where the dispute is protracted, and international actors are no longer engaged in the process. Civil society actors are typically more aware of local realities and more likely to be able to reflect the views of local communities in the process.
For civil society actors to successfully mediate an electoral dispute, they must be viewed as impartial and must gain the trust of all conflicting parties. Processes should be inclusive of all involved parties and decision-makers should be either in the room or kept abreast of developments, so to avoid an agreement being rejected at the final stage. Confidentiality of the entire process is also crucial for such processes. In some countries, electoral disputes have been mediated by religious leaders, while in others mediation is conducted by CSOs that are engaged in peacebuilding on an ongoing basis. In this way, existing peace structures can be leveraged, and ongoing dialogue efforts can continue after an agreement to address underlying causes and long-term issues. CSOs involved in electoral disputes may also be in a position to help launch electoral reform efforts, which can also address triggers for violence in the electoral process as well as potentially lowering the ‘winner takes all’ stakes of an election.
[1] Kane, Sean and Nicholas Haysom, Electoral Crisis Mediation: Responding to a rare but recurring challenge, International IDEA, 2016, p.17
Impartiality and Trust: Ensuring the mediator’s impartiality is critical to building trust among conflicting parties. Before mediation begins, the mediator should conduct a thorough assessment of their standing with the parties involved, ensuring that they are perceived as neutral and fair.
Stakeholder Mapping: It’s essential to identify all relevant stakeholders, including political actors, community leaders, civil society organizations, and any influential figures whose support or opposition could impact the mediation process.
Context Analysis: Conduct a thorough analysis of the political, social, and cultural context, including the electoral issues at stake, the power dynamics among stakeholders, and any historical grievances that could affect the mediation process.
Security and Confidentiality: Plan for secure locations for the mediation and establish confidentiality agreements to prevent information leaks that could undermine trust and compromise negotiations.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs): In contexts where local actors are more trusted, CSOs, including religious organizations and community groups, may be better suited to mediate due to their understanding of local realities and established relationships within the community.
Regional or International Organizations: When impartiality from local actors is a concern, regional or international organizations like the United Nations or the African Union may be better positioned to facilitate mediation, particularly in cases where these organizations are respected as neutral by all parties.
Experienced Mediators: Engage individuals with a track record in electoral mediation, conflict resolution, or peacebuilding who are capable of managing complex dynamics and maintaining neutrality.
Consultation with Local Experts: Work closely with local experts who can provide insights into cultural nuances and historical factors influencing the dispute.
Flexible Framework: Adapt the mediation framework as the process evolves to respond to specific issues and dynamics unique to the local context.
Youth Representation in Mediation Teams: Ensure that young people are represented among mediators or as advisers, particularly in regions where they are heavily involved in or affected by electoral processes.
Youth-Focused Dialogue Sessions: Establish parallel dialogue forums for young people, allowing them to voice their concerns and influence the process, as well as fostering their role as peacebuilders and advocates for non-violence.
Leveraging Social Media: Engage youth through digital platforms, using social media to reach young audiences, raise awareness of the mediation efforts, and gather youth perspectives.
Gender-Inclusive Mediation Team: Include female mediators or facilitators to ensure that women’s perspectives are incorporated into the mediation process, especially in contexts where women have unique insights or bear a particular burden in electoral conflicts.
Safe Spaces for Women: Create dedicated spaces or sessions where women can openly discuss their concerns and aspirations related to the electoral dispute and broader political issues.
Focus on Gender-Specific Issues: Address gender-related triggers for electoral conflict, such as barriers to women’s participation in elections, gender-based violence, and systemic discrimination.
Transparent Updates: Communicate regularly and transparently with the public about the mediation process while maintaining confidentiality on specific negotiation details. This helps to manage expectations and builds confidence in the process.
Utilize Multiple Channels: Use various communication platforms, including TV, radio, community gatherings, social media, and press releases, to reach different audiences.
Culturally Appropriate Messaging: Ensure that communication is culturally sensitive, using local languages and respectful terminology to convey updates and gain public support.
Stakeholder Mapping: By mapping stakeholders involved in each track, mediators can identify potential allies, resources, and gaps. This approach helps to maximize the strengths of each track while promoting inclusivity and ensuring that the mediation process resonates at all levels, from high-level negotiations to community-based peacebuilding efforts.
Integrated Diplomacy Approach: Mediation processes benefit from an integrated approach where Tracks 1, 2, and 3 actors collaborate to align strategies, share information, and support each other’s efforts. This approach ensures a more comprehensive and sustainable resolution by incorporating perspectives from multiple levels of society.
Coordination Platforms and Communication Channels: Establishing regular communication platforms—such as coordination committees or joint working groups—can facilitate collaboration. This ensures that all stakeholders are informed, share a common understanding, and are aligned on objectives and methods.
Capacity Building: Train local mediators and peacebuilders to continue dialogue efforts and address underlying issues beyond the election period.
Integration with Existing Peace Structures: Leverage ongoing local or regional peace initiatives to maintain dialogue and address broader issues beyond the immediate electoral dispute.
Personnel Costs: Costs for mediators, facilitators, and support staff who require specialized training and may need to be deployed for extended periods.
Logistics and Venue Costs: Expenses related to securing safe and confidential venues for mediation, along with travel and accommodation for mediators and stakeholders.
Capacity Building and Training: Resources for training local actors, providing technical assistance, and supporting skills development in mediation and conflict resolution.
Communications and Outreach: Costs associated with creating and disseminating materials, conducting media campaigns, and utilizing technology for outreach and awareness.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Funding for tools and personnel to monitor the progress and impact of the mediation efforts, as well as for documenting lessons learned for future reference.
Potential for Political Manipulation: Mediation efforts can be undermined if perceived as favoring one side or if political actors manipulate the process for their benefit.
Resource Constraints: Mediation can be resource-intensive, requiring funds for logistics, training, and personnel. Insufficient resources may limit the effectiveness and scope of the process.
Complex Power Dynamics: Navigating power dynamics among stakeholders can be challenging, especially in volatile environments where the balance of power is shifting or unclear.
Fomunyoh, Chris, ‘Mediating election-related conflicts’, Background paper, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, 2009
Kane, Sean and Nicholas Haysom, Electoral Crisis Mediation: Responding to a rare but recurring challenge, International IDEA, 2016
Shale, Victor and Robert Gerenge, ‘Electoral mediation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho and Kenya’, Conflict Trends, ACCORD, 2016
The 2007 elections in Lesotho ended in a political crisis between the two main parties fuelled by a dispute over the allocation of seats. While the dispute was initially mediated by regional and international actors, this effort collapsed in 2009, but was revived by civil society, led by the Lesotho Council of Non-governmental Organisations (LCN) and the Christian Council of Lesotho (CCL). This civil society effort provided a platform for continued dialogue between conflicting parties, and shifted the dialogue focus from seat allocation to the reform of electoral legislation for future elections[1]. The local civil society mediators developed the structure of the dialogue and recorded the deliberations.
[1] Shale, Victor and Robert Gerenge, ‘Electoral mediation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho and Kenya’, in Conflict trends 2016/4, ACCORD, 16 Feb 2016
For more informations contact : [email protected]
follow us on Twitter