U.S. Foreign Policy Shift in Election Oversight

The Trump administration’s “America-first” strategy is aimed at reshaping the international democratic order that the U.S. originally helped establish.

New guidance from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to U.S. diplomats could signal a significant change in how America engages with those advocating for freedom and democracy through voting.

In a clear pivot towards prioritizing “national interests,” the United States has decided to limit its comments on foreign elections, stating it will only send brief congratulations to the winning candidates.

This congratulatory message will notably avoid discussions regarding the legitimacy or integrity of the electoral process and the democratic values of the respective nations.

The foundational principle of democratic elections has been crucial for international law and provides legitimacy to sovereign governments. Citizens’ participation in free and fair elections has long been recognized as a fundamental right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Elections, which engage all major societal institutions, are crucial tests for any society, and reactions to rigged elections can be extremely volatile, sometimes resulting in violence.

At the very least, fraudulent elections damage the sitting government’s credibility. There’s little that undermines national interests more than having an election tainted by fraud.

For four decades, the U.S. has led global election observation efforts. The criteria for assessing the fairness of elections have evolved to include examination of national election laws, election commission rulings, the involvement of political parties during the election cycle, access to media, and thorough evaluations of voting and result tabulations conducted by both local and international observers.

Initially, election monitoring by human rights organizations began in the 1980s, but a notable milestone occurred in 1986 when the U.S. coordinated a large observer group for the “SNAP” elections in the Philippines.

Official U.S. delegations have historically monitored elections, supported by USAID and the National Democracy Fund, which backed international delegations arranged by the National Institute of Democracy and the International Republican Institute.

An international team sent observers from 30 countries across the Philippine archipelago, collaborating with local civic groups such as the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections, which had backing from businesses and the Catholic Church.

This movement conducted parallel vote counts, making it increasingly difficult for the ruling party to manipulate the outcome.

Data from civic movements and reports of fraud played a crucial role in validating the voters’ claims, leading to the ousting of Ferdinand Marcos’ regime.

Shortly after, in Chile, dictator Augusto Pinochet faced defeat in a referendum meant to extend his rule, aided by another international delegation from the National Institute of Democracy.

As political leaders in Chile observed the Philippine elections, they reported the results to the nation, affirming that Pinochet was losing.

Global acceptance of election observation grew, as former Soviet states, among others, sought observers to verify election outcomes amidst fears of losing legitimacy.

Long-standing ruling parties, anxious about their standing, began appealing for electoral reform assistance.

Organizations such as USAID and several donor agencies started funding electoral reforms and observing missions, while the UN and European bodies established their own monitoring units to accommodate the rising demand.

However, it seems that some world leaders committed to democracy are now turning away from crucial democratic principles.

This shift seems to stem from a desire to forge better relations with authoritarian regimes, potentially at the cost of advocating for free elections.

It’s perplexing, too, that the administration maintains a propensity for criticizing European partners regarding right-wing parties, yet avoids commenting on these authoritarian governments’ electoral practices.

This inconsistent approach raises eyebrows. While meddling in the affairs of democratic nations appears acceptable, discussing the integrity of electoral systems seems off-limits.

It’s often said that democracy is a journey rather than a destination. While the U.S. has never achieved ideal democratic values, it has consistently worked to improve them both domestically and internationally. Reagan referred to this commitment as a democratic duty.

Significant strides in electoral management around the globe can be attributed to democratic initiatives backed by the U.S. government.

Rubio once championed these efforts, and his recent directive marks a troubling shift in the mission of promoting democracy.

One can only hope that decades of progress aren’t undone by misguided instructions.

J. Brian Atwood held the presidency of the National Institute of Democracy from 1985 to 1993 and served as USAID administrator during the Clinton term.