Tools & Resources
Filter by
Type
Publication date
Language
Type
Publication date
Language
Публикация
Report/Paper
Evaluation Report of Election Supervisors (2005)
Barely five years after the 1999 General Elections which marked the first democratic elections in Indonesia since 1955, another General Elections was held in 2004 which was expected to take a step farther the 1999 electoral exercises. Armed with new laws, regulations, and decrees to implement a new elections system; with the technical and financial support of the international community; with more enlightened and better equipped electoral management and supervisory bodies; and with the renewed hope and interest of civil society groups - the stakes were high and expectations were extraordinary that the 2004 elections would be a showcase of the new Indonesian democratic political process. In real terms and for the ordinary Indonesian citizens, why was the 2004 elections significant? Did they think that it would bring an improvement in their lives? The 2003 IFES survey in Indonesia revealed that the level of optimism regarding the economic and security conditions in the country decreased significantly since 2002. Just like previous IFES surveys in Indonesia, the economic situation remained the problem of greatest concern to majority of the citizens. Majority of Indonesians were also dissatisfied with the implementation of most aspects of the reform agenda. As a result of this, the people’s evaluation of the performance of government actions and of most national leaders and institutions plummeted. For instance, in 2003 – the height of elections preparations and the beginning of some of the stages of election implementation – 71% of the people thought that the government’s actions brought little or no improvement to the country. This was a rise in people’s dissatisfaction compared to 2002 which, although still high, was a bit lower at 66%. A majority of those aware of the presidency, DPR, and MPR were dissatisfied with performance of these institutions.
December 31, 2004
Публикация
Report/Paper
Standards on Political Funding and Favours
Corruption in political party and campaign finance damages democracy because it undermines elections and distorts political competition. But the damage is not confined to the electoral process. The quality of government is marred when subsequent decisions by elected politicians are taken to pay back those who funded their ascent to power, rather than for the benefit of the population as a whole. Equally, when a political party resorts to paying for votes rather than focusing on the quality of its campaign message, democracy suffers.
December 31, 2004
Публикация
Report/Paper
Money and Politics in Indonesia – Vol. 6
Published in November 2004, this report focuses upon implementation in Indonesia’s 2004 elections of legal requirements for financial reporting by political parties and candidates. This report includes a discussion of political finance reporting requirements and reporting schedules, and describes the apparent extent of compliance by political parties and candidates with the basic disclosure requirements.
November 01, 2004
Публикация
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVIII (October 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 22 September and 29 September 2004, using face to face interviews with 1250 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.8% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys –Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave III/IV: 26 January –6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave V/VIII: 15 February –10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; for national data +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/2.8% marginof error at 95% confidence level –Wave XI/XII: 20 April -8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XIII: 14 –9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XIV: 17 –26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XV: 7 –14 July 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XVI: 7 –14 August 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XVII: 2 –9 September 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV,Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV Wave XV, Wave XVI, and Wave XVII is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVIII survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVIII survey.
September 30, 2004
Публикация
Survey
Citizens' Awareness and Participation in Armenia (2004)
The 2004 IFES Citizens’ Awareness and Participation in Armenia (CAPA) survey was conducted between 4 August and 19 August 2004. Section I introduces the survey, while Section II summarizes its main findings. Section III presents respondents’ opinions on the sociopolitical situation in the country. Section IV examines Armenians’ political interests and levels of knowledge about national and local political issues. Section V evaluates Armenians’ attitudes about elections and democracy, including their assessment of the fairness of elections. Section VI uncovers Armenians’ attitudes towards political participation, including those actions taken by citizens to address important issues or influence decision-making. This section also provides information about attitudes toward NGOs in Armenia. Section VII describes opinions about the judicial system and the state of corruption in the country. Section VIII gauges perceptions of women and their role in public life while Section IX focuses on opinions of Armenia’s youth on topics ranging from gender roles, elections, civic participation and others. Section X provides the conclusion of the survey findings while relating them to major trends and issues seen over the years in IFES’ surveys.
September 30, 2004
Публикация
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVII (September 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 2 September and 9 September 2004, using face to face interviews with 2000 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Interviews for this survey were completed before news of the bomb in front of the Australian Embassy on 9 September would have reached any but a very small proportion of respondents. This survey therefore does not take into account any impact the bombing may have had on opinions. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.2% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys – Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave III/IV: 26 January – 6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave V/VIII: 15 February – 10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; for national data +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XI/XII: 20 April - 8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIII: 14 – 9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIV: 17 – 26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XV: 7 – 14 July 2004; 1250 respondents ; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XVI: 7 – 14 August 2004; 1250 respondents ; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV Wave XV, and Wave XVI is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVII survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVII survey.
August 31, 2004
Публикация
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XV (August 2004)
Methodology • This survey was conducted between 7 July and 14 July 2004, using face to face interviews with 1250 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.8% at a 95% level of confidence • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys – Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave III/IV: 26 January – 6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave V/VIII: 15 February – 10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; +/2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XI/XII: 20 April to 8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIII: 14 – 9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIV: 17 – 26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII and Wave XIV is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XV survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XV survey.
July 31, 2004
Публикация
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVI (August 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 7 August and 14 August 2004, using face to face interviews with 1250 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.8% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys – Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave III/IV: 26 January – 6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave V/VIII: 15 February – 10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; +/2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XI/XII: 20 April to 8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIII: 14 – 9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIV: 17 – 26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XV: 7 – 14 July 2004; 1250 respondents ; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV and Wave XV, is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVI survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVI survey.
July 31, 2004
Публикация
Report/Paper
Elections in Post-conflict Environments: The Role of International Organizations
In recent decades, the nature of conflict worldwide has moved from traditional inter-state conflict towards intra-state conflict. Whereas most violent conflicts during this past century have been between states, most major conflicts in the 1990s have taken place within states. It is in this environment that warring parties have realized that their objectives cannot be achieved through war, and subsequent efforts to resolve intra-state conflict through international mediation have led to its cessation in many parts of the world. The end of conflict in turn presents an unprecedented opportunity for these countries to rebuild their “societies, polities, and economies and embrace reforms that have been elusive in the past.” Arguably, the most important component of rebuilding war-torn societies is political rehabilitation. In not being able to effectively accommodate and reconcile the demands of competing groups in conflict situations, the state is unable to meet the essential political needs of its people, let alone economic and social considerations. Without a legitimate and effective governing political authority, economic and social rehabilitation cannot occur. But while the need for political rehabilitation is recognized, the international community has for the most part lacked a clear framework for political reform in post-conflict settings to inform its strategy and programmatic decisions. This is mostly because the primary focus of international assistance in the past has been on economic development and in relation to post-conflict environments—specifically economic rehabilitation. The result is that international efforts in this arena are more often than not designed and implemented without a cohesive and comprehensive plan of action, not to mention a lack of contextual understanding. Various political rehabilitation programs have included efforts to ensure security, good governance, a healthy civil society, an independent judiciary and—last but not least—elections. As numerous scholars and practitioners have noted, elections in post-conflict environments are fundamentally different from those organized under normal circumstances. In a post-Cold War era where intra-state conflict is rife and there is neither the ideological justification for continued conflict nor the material support from world superpowers, there has been strong economic and political pressure from the international community to democratize. As the foundation of a democratically representative political system, elections are widely regarded as an effective mechanism for articulating the political aspirations of competing groups that may have been party to the conflict in the first place. In addition, elections are supposed to settle the contentious issue of the political legitimacy of the government. Given this background, it is not surprising that the role of elections in post-conflict environments remains an area of contention among some scholars and practitioners. In a situation of conflict, unless a given party to the conflict has achieved a definitive victory, militarily or otherwise, the issue of determining who will govern must be resolved as a part of the peace process. Indeed, post-conflict elections are significant in that negotiated settlements could not be reached without them. Post-conflict elections are not only part and parcel of peace accords and the ensuing transitional period but also symbolize an end to intra-state conflict. With the increasing presence of the international community in conflict and post-conflict settings, the role of international organizations in post-conflict elections has come under increasing scrutiny. In addition to the mediation and peacekeeping function of the international community, international organizations have been involved in providing technical assistance and monitoring resources in elections abroad. But along with concerns related to the efficacy of designing and implementing post-conflict elections, the question remains of whether such elections result in an end to hostilities and the establishment of an environment conducive to economic, political and social rehabilitation and reconstruction. More importantly, what is the role of international organizations in ensuring the success of post-conflict elections? The discussion that follows is an attempt to address these two questions. Through an examination of the nature of elections in post-conflict environments, the paper provides a framework within which an analysis of the role of the international community can be undertaken. This framework is then utilized to situate and assess the role of international organizations in relation to post-conflict elections in general. The first section focuses on the theoretical concepts that define elections in post-conflict environments. In order to avoid any confusion related to these concepts, the section details the meaning of the concepts used in this study. This will not only clarify the conceptual underpinnings of the research but will also allow for in-depth understanding of the discussion and conclusion that follows. The second section discusses the methods employed and provides information about the resources utilized. This section also states the limitations of the research study. The third section delves into the topic of elections in post-conflict environments. It describes the particular characteristics and objectives of post-conflict elections, as these differ in more than one respect from elections held in stable and secure environments. The final portion of this section details the specific preconditions that can ensure successful elections in post-conflict environments. The fourth section focuses on the role of international organizations. As security is first and foremost amongst the concerns in post-conflict situations, the discussion begins with peacekeeping operations. The section then turns to international assistance in relation to political institutions and the reasoning and mechanisms involved in developing electoral infrastructure. The section concludes with a discussion of the role of international organizations in monitoring elections. The paper finishes with a discussion about the conclusions reached. Drawing on the conclusions, recommendations are offered to international organizations active in postconflict election environments and other similar areas.
July 31, 2004
Публикация
Report/Paper
Improved Electoral Processes and Increased Participation by Women in Mali
Improved Electoral Processes and Increased Participation by Women in Mali
July 30, 2004