Methodology

 

Free and Fair Executive Elections

Indicator name: Free and Fair Executive Elections
Data provider:  Institut de Recherche Empirique en Economie Politique (IREEP)
Data source: This dataset has been commissioned by The Mo Ibrahim Foundation from IREEP, a Benin-based not-for-profit educational institution devoted to empirical research, providing policy recommendations and training the next generation of professors and scholars committed to sustainable development in Africa.
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2000-2008
Website: http://www.ireep.org/i/en/index.html

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the freedom and fairness of executive elections in a given year. This includes the extent to which the opposition were able to participate in the election. The pre-election campaign, the voting day, and the monitoring and counting of results were all evaluated. Demonstrations, opposition participation or boycotts, adherence to electoral procedures, freedom of access to information, levels of violence and intimidation, the losing party’s acceptance of results and whether there was a transfer of power  were also taken into consideration.

Methodology:

Elections are scored by IREEP using expert opinion from a variety of sources which are listed under ‘Main sources consulted’ below. Scoring is based on a scale of 0 to 22, with the overall score reflecting three distinct phases of the election:

i)                    the pre-election campaign;

ii)                   the day(s) of voting;

iii)                 the counting and monitoring of results

The scores for each calendar year (January to December) 2000 - 2008 reflect the assessment of the elections that took place at any time in that year. If no election took place in a particular year (as is often the case given that elections usually take place on a 4-7 year cycle), the scores for the year in which no election took place will reflect the assessment of the last election that took place.

Where the usual election cycle has been disrupted, for instance, owing to civil war, coup, or cross-border conflict, a score of zero is given. For example, in the case of Angola, the election cycle was disrupted because of civil war, with the last election before 2008 being held in 1992. Thus, a score of zero is given to all years 2000-2007.

For each election that is scored, the following criteria are taken into consideration:

Each dimension/question below has been scored on a scale of 0 to 2. In addition, to capture the importance of the nature of a political regime of a country and its impact on elections, a double-weighting has been accorded to ‘Turnover of Power’.  That is to say, while an autocracy can hold elections which would score well in many of the criteria below, this would largely be a façade. Therefore, if a country scores 1 for ‘Turnover of Power’ (implying a change of party OR a change of leader), this is transformed into a score of 2 to account for the double-weighting. If a country scores 2 (implying a change of leader AND a change of party) the country will receive a score of 4 under the double-weighting scheme. Therefore, while the maximum possible score for each of the nine components listed below is 2, for this component, the maximum possible score is 4. Hence, overall, the maximum possible score that could be achieved is 22.

  • Were demonstrations allowed? Could candidates make speeches and hold public meetings?
  • Did the opposition participate in the election?
  • Were there parties boycotting the election?
  • Did campaign or election-day violence occur?
  • Were electoral procedures followed pre-election?
  • Were electoral procedures followed on election-day and post election?
  • Was information freely available during the election year?
  • Were voters able to vote for the candidate or party of their choice without undue pressure or intimidation?
  • Did the losers accept the result?
  • Did the elections result in a turnover of power?

Technical notes:

This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 22, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best.  A score of 22 implies that the election has been fully free and fair, was violence-free and that the opposition were able to and did participate in the election. A score of zero implies that the election was in no way free and fair, was potentially marred in violence, and the opposition was prevented from participating, or that there is no democratic system of electing the Executive in that country (e.g. it is a monarchy). To produce the Ibrahim Index of African Government (IIAG) score the raw data were normalized using the Min-Max method, transforming the data to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible. 

The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

Main sources consulted:

The following main sources were used as inputs into scoring:

African Elections Database, IFES Election Guide and Statistics, Adam Carr’s Election Archive, Agora Election Data, IPU Chronicle of Parliamentary Election, IPU Parline, The Economist Intelligence Unit, European Regional Surveys of the World: Africa South of the Sahara 2008, EU Observer Missions, Commonwealth Observer Group, Carter Center Observer Reports, NDI Elections Observation Reports, SADC, African Union, Polity IV, EISA, Freedom House, Human Rights Reports (U.S. Department of State), Bertelsmann Transformation Index, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Afrobarometer (Nigeria), Keesing’s World News Archive, Keesing’s Record of World Events,  AllAfrica.com, Africa Confidential, BBC News Online, BBC World News, CNN Election Watch, Independent Election Commission, International IDEA, News and Voter turnout Project, UN IRIN News Reports.

Index Indicators

Index Sources