Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Observation Works, and Why It Often Fails
Abstract
In recent decades, governments and NGOs—in an effort to promote democracy, freedom, fairness, and stability throughout the world—have organized teams of observers to monitor elections in a variety of countries. But when more organizations join the practice without uniform standards, are assessments reliable? When politicians nonetheless cheat and monitors must return to countries even after two decades of engagement, what is accomplished? This book argues that the practice of international election monitoring is broken, but still worth fixing. By analyzing the evolving interaction between domestic and international politics, the book refutes prevailing arguments that international efforts cannot curb government behavior and that democratization is entirely a domestic process. Yet, the book also shows that democracy promotion efforts are deficient and that outside actors often have no power and sometimes even do harm. Analyzing original data on over 600 monitoring missions and 1,300 elections, the book grounds its investigation in solid historical context as well as studies of long-term developments over several elections in fifteen countries. It pinpoints the weaknesses of international election monitoring and looks at how practitioners and policymakers might help to improve them.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The growth of a shadow market of more lenient monitoring organizations allows countries to choose their monitors strategically.
“Kelley (2012) expands on these threats to credible election monitoring, observing that the growth of a shadow market of more lenient monitoring organizations allows countries to choose their monitors strategically.”
From Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding (2018) · cites this paper as Kelley (2012)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding
Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628 · Cited by 889 · see citing works
Democracy’s backsliding in the international environment
Hyde, S. D. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb2434 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kelley, J. G.
- Corresponding author
- Kelley, Judith G.
- ORCID
- Kelley, Judith G.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2012-03-25
- OpenAlex
- W649056258
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 22.49
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- international election monitoring, democracy promotion, democratization, election monitoring, domestic politics and foreign policy, electoral integrity, foreign interference in elections
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review